LT 2 September 2002. Determination of compensation payable for a small parcel of land acquired under a purchase order in 1999. The claimants (R) claimed compensation of £4.8m on the grounds that the land had a ransom value relative to development of other land whilst the Council (S), although acknowledging that the land had hope value above existing use, put the value at £100 000. The LT determined as a preliminary issue in July 2000 ([2001 RVR 204] that the value of the land was to be determined as the open market value of R's freehold interest in the land as at August 1999. No adjustments were to be made in respect of any indication that the land was likely to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers nor in respect of an underlying scheme. In a subsequent decision in 2001, the LT dismissed application by S that R's expert valuation evidence would not be accepted as it introduced a different basis of claim from that agreed in July 2000.The LT in September 2002 rejected claimant 'R's valuation on the grounds that i) the requirement to complete the distributor road across the reference land in order that planning permission would be granted for the housing allocation land and for the Tesco extension was not sufficiently certain to persuade a purchaser acting in a consortium to pay£4.8m for the land, ii) there was a high degree of uncertainty and a low degree of certainty that the grant of planning permission for the housing allocation land and the Tesco extension would be dependent upon completion of the eastern distributor road iii) there was no reliable evidence to support the consortium purchase arrangements and iv) R's valuation was exaggerated, lacking in objectivity and credibility. S's valuer's sport value approach was accepted. S should pay £100 000 compensation to R. Full copy of decision is available on Court Service website http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands/decisions/dec-acq-23-99.htm