[2024] UKUT 00301 (LC)

Disappointingly, the experts have been unable to carry out a joint inspection of the appeal property and there is no agreed floor area.

The current mandatory standard for the measurement of property is the RICS Property Measurement (2^nd edition) Professional Statement (effective 1 May 2018), which incorporates the International Property Measurement Standards. However, at the valuation date of 1 April 2017, the sixth edition of the RICS Code of Measuring Practice was in force. As regards residential valuation, it says this (para. 25.0):

“There is no single accepted practice for measurement of residential property for valuation purposes… If reference to property area is required then the alternative approaches are [gross external area], [gross internal area], [net sales area] or [effective floor area] The basis of those areas should be stated in the valuer’s report.”

In so far as relevant to this appeal, gross internal area (‘GIA’) is defined as the area of a building measured to the internal face of the perimeter walls at each floor level. It includes garages (para. 2.16) plant rooms (2.9) and ‘areas with a headroom of less than 1.5m (para 2.14 - except in non-domestic rating), but excludes, among other things, ‘external open-sided balconies’ (2.19).

Net sales area (‘NSA’) is defined (para 26.0) as the GIA excluding, among others, areas with headroom of less than 1.5m where the dwelling does not have usable space vertically above (26.5), garages (26.6)…. and external open-sided balconies (26.8).

As the Code is careful to explain, it is not a code of valuation, and the value to be attributed to any particular floor area of special characteristic is part of valuer judgment. Quite. What is important is that, whichever floor area basis is adopted, the valuer values as he or she devalues. Mr Alderton adopts GIA as his method of devaluation of the comparables and the valuation of the appeal property. Mr Nesbit prefers to adopt NSA, because he argues that garages do not attract the same value per sq ft as the main space of a house.

Whichever floor area basis is adopted, it should be perfectly possible for the actual floor areas to be agreed by two chartered surveyors, and here they are not.

Mr Alderton inspected the appeal property in March 2020 and again in October 2023 with Mr Passmore (the appellant’s former expert), following which the GIA was agreed at 4,277 sq ft including the garage and the area of the vaults over 1.5m in height (in fact, as mentioned above, even areas below 1.5m in height should be included for residential properties). A breakdown of his floor area was provided.

Mr Nesbit inspected the appeal property on 31 January 2024. His GIA is 4,176 sq ft, comprising 3,808 sq ft of living accommodation and 386 sq ft of garage space. He measures the external roof terrace at 342 sq ft. No further breakdown was provided.

The appellant had the appeal property on the market in 2022, without success. The experts agree that floor layout at the valuation date is the same as shown on the plan attached to the 2022 sales particulars. This ‘Lonres’ plan indicates an ‘approx Gross Internal Area’ of 4,437 sq ft. This appears to exclude the separately stated ‘vault area’ of 116 sq ft, and an ‘under garage storage area’ of 282 sq ft (neither expert includes this).

Mr Alderton exhibited a valuation report from JSRE Partners, dated October 2019, in which the GIA, taken from a ‘measuring exercise’, is stated as 4,194 sq ft including vaults, plant, and garage, but excluding areas under 1.5m.

Taking the above together, I prefer Mr Alderton’s floor area of 4,277 sq ft. It is supported by a breakdown, had been agreed with the appellant’s previous expert, and I have adopted it.