LTS 6 November 1986. A claim by owner of a Highland sporting estate for compensation as a result of compulsory purchase by the SoS Scotland of part of the estate for realignment of part of the A9 trunk road. Most items of claim were agreed, but 11 items remained for which the claimant sought £335,696 against £50,370 conceded by SoS. The largest claim was for the accommodation works. M`s figure was derived from the capital sum needed to purchase 2% index linked Government stock, which would be the cost of maintenance and renewal when required. S`s valuation approach was related to the actual prime costs of the works, taken as reflecting the diminution of the retained land. The type of sinking fund proposed by M was, according to S, unfounded in law. LTS rejected the valuation based upon the sinking fund method and accepted S`s valuation approach. Compensation for the maintenance of the accommodation works was valued as an item of injurious affection to the retained land. The reason fo