COMPENSATION – COMPULSORY PURCHASE – GRADE A BUILDING – EXTENSIVE REPAIRS – LISTED BUILDING REPAIR NOTICE – RELEVANCE OF GRANTS – SHARING BETWEEN UPPER AND LOWER PROPRIETORS – PROPORTIONATE TO RATEABLE VALUES – DATE OF ASSESSMENT – RESIDUAL VALUATION – EXPENSES OF PREPARATION OF CLAIM – LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1963
The subjects are a one half share of the upper floors of the building known as “Egyptian Halls”, described below. The building is Grade A listed and a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) was obtained by the applicants following concern that necessary repairs had not been carried out and that the building was at risk of further deterioration. A listed buildings repair notice had been served. The parties approached the assessment of compensation on a “residual basis”, namely the ascertainment of the worth of the acquired subjects of the improvements less the cost of the necessary repair and refurbishment works. The claimants had obtained quotations from a series of contractors to carry out the work in accordance with the same specifications as the applicants. They were to use a project manager. The authority had calculated cost assuming a project handed to professionals to carry out in a traditional way employing main contractor, architects, cost consultants or quantity surveyors as well as engineers and other relevant specialists. They derived their figures from comparative experience. Much of the detail was agreed but there were serious divergences in relation to roof repairs; stonework; the sharing of costs; the Historic Scotland Grant; fitting out works; and the various percentage allowances for preliminaries, contingencies and fees.
HELD that the general approach taken by the claimants was a more realistic guide to how the market might view the whole exercise but was not totally reliable; findings were made in relation to detailed items of repair; a special contingency allowance should be made for the stone repair; on the evidence, the Historic Scotland Grant was based on a percentage of cost and the figure used by the authority would be reduced if the claimants estimates were accepted; in terms of the titles, the critical date for assessment of rateable values in relation to sharing of items between upper and lower floors could be taken as the date of the LBRN but that the claimants had included as shared items many for which they had sole responsibility; that on the facts they had underestimated the appropriate percentages to be allowed for various items; and that the authority’s final valuation was to be preferred. It was NOTED that in the particular circumstances of the case the expenses of experts involved in course of the litigation should be treated as an element in compensation.
See full decision: LTS/COMP/2005/2 (Merits) and LTS/COMP/2005/2 (Expenses)