40 Chelsea Square - Knight Frank

65. A comparison of the adjusted figures is as follows:-
Mr Flint Mr Cullum Lands Tribunal
40 £12,489,082 £13,704,280 £13,521,556
43 £10,915,125 £11,854,681 £12,556,671
41 £9,314,824 £9,735,426 £9,735,427
33 £7,908,463 £8,263,277 £8,154,638
38 £7,098,436 – –
66. In the light of this evidence it is now a matter of judgement as to the value of the freehold
interest in 40 Chelsea Square as at 1 April 2003, a decision made difficult by the unique
character of the house.
67. The best evidence of value, in our judgement, is represented by the leasehold price paid
by Mr Arbib, which both valuers adjust to a figure well above £11.5m and which we analysed
to show £13.5m. We accept that this figure is likely to be overstated due to the major
adjustments needed for the short lease and the six years interval between purchase and
valuation date. Nevertheless, this purchase indicates that £11.5m is not too high for the
freehold value in April 2003.
68. 43 Chelsea Square is a larger house and the price paid for the 25 year lease in March
2002 may have been above the market value. We adjust the price to show £12.5m compared to
Mr Flint’s figure of just under £11m and Mr Cullum’s £11.8m (both adjusted downwards for
an overbid). In our judgement, this house has a higher value than no 40 and this transaction
does not indicate that £11.5m is excessive for the appeal property.
69. 41 Chelsea Square is similar in location and appearance to no 40 and the leasehold price
for 77 years unexpired in March 2000 requires less adjustment for freehold to leasehold
relativity and for time. The layout and extent of the accommodation in this house is, however,
unusual, particularly as to lack of bedrooms. In our judgement, no 40 is of greater value,
indicating a value above our £9.7m (Mr Flint £9.3m and Mr Cullum £9.7m). It does not
indicate that £11.5m is too high.
70. 33 Chelsea Square is opposite the appeal property but is a much less attractive house and
is only marginally comparable to no 40. We have adjusted the leasehold price to £8.1m
(compared to Mr Flint at £7.9m and Mr Cullum at £8.2m). In our judgement, this is indicative
of a value for no 40 of at least around £11.5m in April 2003.
71. We have considered the evidence regarding 38 Chelsea Square, which is close to no 40,
but we share the view of the LVT and Mr Cullum that it is not comparable. We find it of no
assistance.
16