Case No. UKUT-311-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2022-105
Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber

Case No. UKUT-311-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2022-105

Fecha: 09-Ago-2022

Comparable settlements

56.The experts submitted details of a further 12 properties where agreement had been reached with agents representing the occupiers. The locations varied considerably, from Staffordshire to West Wales but the majority were in the Midlands. The agreed values largely conformed to the tone of £550 per stable described by Mr Albert (see paragraph 13). I see no point in listing them individually as I have been supplied with insufficient detail to enable a meaningful comparison and I have not inspected any of them. However, Jackdaws Castle, Ford, Temple Guiting, Cheltenham, Glos. GL54 5XU was particularly relied upon by Mr Albert in coming to his conclusions and it is therefore appropriate to examine this property in some detail.57.The assessment for this property has been agreed by Mr Marriott. He described it as a large, purpose-built yard of 120 stables together with an equine swimming pool, large indoor school, all-weather and grass gallops, covered horse walkers and accommodation for entertaining owners and housing staff. It is located close to Cheltenham which Mr Marriott said was the centre of National Hunt racing in both the United Kingdom and Ireland. In agreeing £630 per stable he expressed the view that it was one of the premier training establishments in the country and would command a rent equivalent to stables in Lambourn. He questioned the rationale of using Jackdaw’s Castle as a comparable for the property. In his view the two were in completely different markets, one attracting established trainers with high-quality horses and wealthy owners, the other being of interest to a small trainer, probably just starting up, who would lack both funds and horses.58.Mr Albert on the other hand, whilst not denying that Jackdaws Castle had a range of facilities, pointed out that he viewed the tone as being purely location based and the additional features are simply separate additions to the valuation. In his view features such as equine pools were not essential for racing yards and were merely an added benefit that made a site more convenient. He also considered the American Barn at Jackdaw’s Castle to be a sub-standard building, being very long with low eaves and lacking in ventilation.59.Mr Albert put particular emphasis on the decision of the Lands Tribunal (Mr J H Emlyn Jones FRICS) in Lotus and Delta Ltd v Culverwell (VO) [1976] RA 141 and the guidance it contained was most recently referred to in detail by the Tribunal (at paragraph 31) in Flight Centre (UK) Limited v Mr A Ricketts (VO) [2021] UKUT 0315 (LC). Taking his lead from the decision, Mr Albert adopted the rent at the property itself as his starting point but failed to provide a narrative explaining his rationale in assessing the other comparables and the weight he attributed to them. In concluding that the appropriate value at the property was £630 per stable he said that he had particular regard to Jackdaw’s Castle and had used ‘valuer judgement’ to adjust his analysis of the passing rent on the property itself. The absence of a convincing explanation of how, having started at an analysis of £894 per stable, he arrived at a value some 30% lower, did not inspire confidence that Mr Albert’s approach was correct.