[2024] UKUT 0414 (LC)

Mr Malcolm Kempton is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who has worked in the property profession for over 40 years, with a particular focus on valuation advice. In 1986 he co-founded Kempton Carr in Maidenhead, which now trades as Kempton Carr Croft. Mr Kempton takes regular instructions to act as an expert witness or single joint expert and has appeared before the Tribunal in s.84 cases. In this case he was instructed directly by Mrs Hunt to assess the impact on the objectors’ property of discharge or modification of the restriction to permit the redevelopment scheme.

Mr Kempton said that he was mystified as to how planning permission was granted for the redevelopment scheme in the AONB and that he shared the objectors’ surprise and disappointment that the guidelines in the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide for Development of Agricultural Buildings were not followed. It was his view that the restriction was put in place to stop urban creep and to keep the tranquillity and peace of the benefited land.

Mr Kempton described the redevelopment scheme as intrusive, modern and large. Due to the distance of the scheme from the house and garden, he thought it was unlikely to have any adverse effect on the privacy enjoyed there although in winter, when trees were bare, the modern structure would be visible. But it was his opinion that the buildings would give an overbearing and intrusive feel to the field and would significantly affect its privacy and the objectors’ enjoyment of it. Mr Kempton accepted that the field has a road frontage, so is exposed to traffic noise, and that the presence of the public footpath affected privacy to some extent. However, the public footpath is at the far end of the field from the house and he understood that it was not well used. Mr Kempton accepted that modern technology can reduce light spillage from commercial buildings, but maintained his view that it would still create an urban feel to the land. Additional car movements created by the redevelopment scheme at Beeches Farm would further detract from the rural nature of the field.

When asked to agree that the view of the buildings from the field would, in time, be mitigated by planting in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, and the planting carried out on the boundary by the objectors, Mr Kempton commented that this would only occur if the trees which had died were replaced.

Mr Kempton had been asked to consider whether the redevelopment scheme would cause any loss of capital value to the objectors’ property. He said that it was difficult to quantify any diminution in value attributable to the current scheme but, if modification was permitted, this might give rise to applications for further developments in future which could cause a considerable loss of value.