Summary

In determining the freehold value of a property subject to a lease enfranchisement it was appropriate to have regard to, as suitable comparables, both the value of a cleared site and that of a standing house in the locality.

Facts

The appellant tenant (T) appealed against a valuation of a leasehold valuation tribunal of the freehold interest held in a property by the respondent landlord (C). T had applied to enfranchise his lease of the property, which at the valuation date had an unexpired term of 18.84 years. The tribunal decided that it was appropriate to calculate the value of the freehold of the property by having regard to, as an appropriate valuation comparable, the value of the developable space of the site. The tribunal calculated it in part by assessing the cleared value of the site. The tribunal considered the value of the site to be £1,000,000 and that by applying certain variables agreed by the parties the sum of £437,000 was the price payable for the freehold interest of the property. T submitted that the tribunal had erred by adopting an incorrect valuation method and that the correct valuation method was the standing house approach, and that by adopting that approach the value of the site was £1,488,000 which gave a resultant value for the freehold of £326,000.

Held

It was appropriate to have regard to both the cleared site approach and the standing house approach in determining the value of the site of the property. A cleared site approach gave a value for the site of £1,023,000, while the standing house approach gave a value of £946,000. As the former approach required less adjustment than the latter and reflected some useful direct evidence of site value, it was to be given more weight. However, the standing house approach indicated that the figure of £1,023,000 might be a little too high and therefore the figure of £1,000,000 was to be adopted as the site value. That figure was exactly the one reached by the tribunal and it could not be said that the value which it ascribed to C's freehold interest was too high.

Appeal dismissed