Kenneth Gun Why v Cheltenham Borough Council
Decision date: 24 May 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] UKUT 208 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned the compensation payable after Cheltenham Borough Council compulsorily purchased 30 Pennine Road, a long-vacant, dilapidated house taken into possession on 19 May 2016. The Tribunal assessed open market value at the valuation date by valuing the property in fair condition and then deducting realistic costs for repairs, clearance and registered land charges, arriving at £140,000. The Tribunal found no redevelopment "hope value" given planning constraints and marginal viability, and no home loss or disturbance payments were payable because the owner did not participate or claim.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where a property taken by compulsory purchase is in a poor condition, open market value for compensation can be determined by first assessing the value in fair condition and then making realistic deductions from that figure to reflect actual remedial, clearance and registered charge costs at the valuation date; valuation material not prepared as a formal expert report may nonetheless be admissible and given weight if it assists the Tribunal.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal treated the local authority’s extensive but unsuccessful attempts to contact the owner (notices, adverts, affixed notices) as relevant background rather than determinative of valuation. It also observed that marginal viability and practical difficulties of redevelopment schemes can negate any hope value, though these points were applied to the facts rather than stated as binding principles.