[2025] UKUT 295 (LC)

The expert valuation evidence

Expert evidence for the applicants was given by Mr Nicholas Green MRICS, Managing Director of the CoreProp Group Limited, based in London. Mr Green’s report was dated 10 April 2025 but he had not personally inspected Hillside and Korobe until the week before the hearing. The inspection upon which his report was based was carried out by Mr Dillon Loupos of CoreProp, who is not a chartered surveyor. Mr Green’s report was styled as an RICS Red Book valuation report, with five declarations concerning expert evidence at the front. In particular, Mr Green declared at paragraph 1.4 “I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not.” But the only place in the report where Mr Loupos’s involvement was mentioned was a two line paragraph within the “RICS Standard Valuation terms and Conditions” provided at Appendix 3 of his report, which does not fulfil the commitment to explain in the report what is within the author’s own knowledge and what is not. Mr Green’s report therefore fell short of the standards expected of expert witness evidence, as set out in Part 35 the Civil Procedure Rules and in the RICS Practice Statement: Surveyors acting as expert witnesses (4^th edition as amended in 2023), both of which he declared he had understood and complied with.

When giving oral evidence Mr Green said that he had worked closely with Mr Loupos to consider the details of Hillside and Korobe, and their market value in the context of comparable evidence, and that the opinions were his own. Mr Green’s instructions had been to provide opinions of market value for Hillside and Korobe before and after the works in 2020, and also with and without the works as at March 2025. Without the benefit of a personal site inspection, his assessment of the impact of the works on the amenity of Korobe was derived only from photographs, plans, and discussions with Mr Loupos. Mr Green said that he had inspected both properties the week before the hearing and had the inspection given him any cause to change his opinion he would have put that in writing to the Tribunal. But he had not changed his opinion.

Expert evidence for the objectors was given by Mr Malcom Kempton FRICS, founding director of Kempton Carr Croft in Maidenhead. He had inspected Korobe on 7 November 2024 and inspected both Hillside and Korobe with Mr Loupos on 13 March 2025. Mr Kempton’s instructions were to provide his opinion of the current market value of Korobe, assuming that the works had not taken place, and to give his opinion of the practical benefits secured to the owners of Korobe by the restrictions. He was asked to give his opinion of the value of Korobe with the works in place, and how this would be affected if the Tribunal modified the restrictions, which might encourage the owners of Claremont and Gap House to seek similar modifications. Finally, he was asked to give his opinion on the value of Hillside with and without the works.

In their joint statement, the experts agreed the market values of the two properties as at 31 March 2025 as follows:

It was Mr Green’s opinion that the diminution in value of Korobe caused by the works was £13,000 and Mr Kempton’s opinion that diminution was 10% of the market value, i.e. £230,000.

Mr Green said that dormer windows were “a dime a dozen” in the locality (by which we understand him to mean they are very common) and that a view of a nicely finished house was preferable to that of a dilapidated bungalow. In his view a purchaser would not consider that there had been any loss of view of the countryside since without the works the view beyond Hillside would be of the roofs in Meadow Close, albeit further away than the dormers at Hillside. A prospective purchaser of Korobe would weigh the view of Hillside as just one aspect of the property when forming their opinion of value for an offer. He drew the analogy of a property with a particularly attractive tree, which might not add value to a property, or at least no more than perhaps £3,000, but would improve the purchaser’s opinion of it. Mr Green explained that his figure of £13,000 was derived from £10,000 for loss of privacy and £3,000 as a nominal figure for visual impact. We note that Mr Green’s figure of £13,000 originally related to his understanding that the ridge height at Hillside was in breach of the restrictions by 0.7m. He later acknowledged that the actual breach of height was 1.2m, by reference to the original roof height of Chesil Bank, but did not amend his view of the impact on value.

Mr Green was asked to comment on Mr Kempton’s opinion that the works caused a 10% diminution in value to Korobe. He described this as a figure “out of mid air”. In the context of other negative factors affecting the property, such as the steep garden, the requirement to contribute to the upkeep of a private road, the costs of maintaining the internal lift, and the hard floors throughout, the view of Hillside was just one factor and to attribute 10% to it was “a nonsense”. Unlike Mr Kempton, Mr Green had not been asked to consider any impact on value should similar works be carried out to Claremont and Gap House.

Mr Kempton was not able to explain how he arrived at his figure for diminution of 10%, but said that a percentage figure was the best that one could do when there was no comparable evidence to rely on. Potential purchasers of high value properties would be discerning and would look at a property in the round; if there was something adverse they would decrease the price they would pay. The raised ridge height at Hillside had allowed bedrooms to be constructed at first floor level, and the dormer windows for those bedrooms gave views up towards Korobe. It was his opinion that the effect of the works was significant. Korobe had lovely picture windows, but the height of Hillside and the dormer windows hit you straight away. The practical benefits of the restrictions were even stronger for the redeveloped Korobe than the previous property due to the extra glazing and the resulting loss of privacy to the occupants. However, Mr Kempton acknowledged in oral evidence that a newer house was better to look at than a dilapidated bungalow, and that the picture windows had been designed primarily to take advantage of the views beyond Fairfield Road, at a time when the works and dormer windows were already in existence.

Mr Kempton was asked to comment on the fact that Hillside is now particularly visible through the newly opened access to Fairfield Road, which may not be authorised in the planning permission for Korobe’s redevelopment. He was not able to comment on whether there was any breach of the planning permission and conditions, but assumed that if there was the dismantled wall and hedge would be reinstated. We pause to say that that assumption has no evidential value; the objectors have not suggested that the new access is temporary.

Mr Kempton acknowledged that the new opening allowed views up and into Korobe from Fairfield Road, affecting its privacy from a point closer to the house than the windows at Hillside. However, he considered that even without the new opening the presence of the dormer windows would still have a significant impact on Korobe and he would not change his opinion of the effect on value.

Finally, Mr Kempton was asked about the likely impact on value of any modification by the Tribunal to permit the works, taking into consideration that both Claremont and Gap House were subject to similar covenants. He considered that further modifications at those two properties, permitting up to four more dormer windows to look up into Korobe, would have a dramatic effect on its privacy and amenity. It would also change the streetscape completely. It was not possible to put a value on that, but the prospect and the uncertainty would be a deterrent to prospective purchasers of Korobe.

In the round Mr Kempton concluded that the restrictions secured to the owners of Korobe practical benefits of substantial value and advantage, the loss of which could not be adequately compensated by money.

We see no evidence to support Mr Kempton’s view that the restrictions secure benefits worth £230,000. He said that “the best he could do” was to take a percentage figure, but he has provided us with no help in relating that figure to the reality of the property market. We regard it as not only unsupported by evidence, but also greatly out of proportion to the effect upon the value of Korobe of the extension of Hillside.

We asked Mr Green to comment on his figure of £13,000 in the context of the way in which purchasers frame their bids for a property – which in the Tribunal’s experience is usually in increments of £5,000 or £10,000. This prompted him to say that he had allowed £10,000 for loss of privacy and a nominal sum of £3,000 for visual impact.

We have described the practical benefits secured by the restrictions as small, and we consider that a sum of £25,000 would be adequate compensation for their modification. This we consider to be a typical incremental figure in negotiations for purchase of a house worth £2,300,000, evidenced by the final sold prices provided in comparable evidence by the two experts. On that basis the benefits conferred by the restrictions, in terms of protecting Korobe from the visual impact of Hillside as it now is and from the effect of the extended Hillside on the privacy of the occupiers of Korobe, are not of substantial value.