Shea & Anor v Drury (VO) [2001] EWLands RA_62_00 (11 September 2001)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] England and Wales Lands Tribunal You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Shea & Anor v Drury (VO) [2001] EWLands RA_62_00 (11 September 2001) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2001/RA_62_00.html Cite as: [2001] EWLands RA_62_00, [2001] EWLands RA_62_ [ New search ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] [2001] EWLands RA_62_00 (11 September 2001) RA/54&62/00 LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949 RATING - shops - road closures and waiting restrictions - comparables - vacant space - disabilities - appeals allowed IN THE MATTER of APPEALS against a DECISION of the BERKSHIRE VALUATION TRIBUNAL BETWEEN FRANK NORMAN SHEA and DIGIT SINGH Appellants and PETER JOHN DRURY Respondent (Valuation Officer) Re: 1 & 3 Altwood Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire Tribunal Member: P H Clarke FRICS Hearing under the simplified procedure at 48/9 Chancery Lane, London WC2 on 16 July 2001 Frank Norman Shea in person and for the other appellant with leave of the Tribunal Respondent valuation officer in person with leave of the Tribunal DECISION OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL These are two appeals heard together under the simplified procedure by the ratepayers of composite hereditaments against the decision of a local valuation tribunal in respect of the 1995 rating list. Mr Frank Norman Shea, one of the appellants, appeared in person and, with permission of the Tribunal, for Mr Digit Singh, the other appellant. He also gave evidence. The respondent valuation officer, Mr Peter John Drury BSc MRICS, appeared in person with permission of the Tribunal and gave evidence. Mr Drury has 26 years professional experience. He has been in the Valuation Office Agency since 1974 and in the Reading office since 1993. FACTS The appellants have agreed the statements of agreed facts prepared by the valuation officer. From these statements and the evidence I find the following facts. 1 and 3 Altwood Road ("the appeal properties) are situated on the south side of Altwood Road at the junction of this road and Boyn Hill Road or Wootton Way about a mile and a quarter to the south-east of the town centre of Maidenhead. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. The road layout at the appeal properties is material to these appeals. In April 1995 it was as follows. Altwood Road runs in an east to west direction. A short distance to the west of the appeal properties it joins Haddon Road and then continues in a westerly direction towards the M4 as Altwood Road West. There were originally two points close together where Altwood Road joined Haddon Road. One of these has now been blocked. The eastern end of Altwood Road, where the appeal properties are situated, originally joined Boyn Hill Road or Wootton Way which runs approximately north to south. In about 1975 the junction of Altwood Road and Boyn Hill Road or Wootton Way was closed. This junction is still blocked with a pavement and bollards. This made the eastern end of Altwood Road into a cul-de-sac. In April 1995 there were 24 hour waiting restrictions in Altwood Road, outside the appeal properties, on the opposite side of the road and at the end where it is now a cul-de-sac adjoining Boyn Hill Road or Wootton Way. These restrictions were removed in 1997. There were, and still are, waiting restrictions in Norden Road, which is the southerly extension of Boyn Hill Road or Wootton Way past Altwood Road, outside 1 Altwood Road and on the opposite side of Norden Road. 1 Altwood Road has frontages to both Altwood Road and Norden Road. It is a brick and tile property built about 100 years ago with accommodation on ground and first floors. The shop which is the subject of this appeal is on the ground floor with an entrance in Norden Road. It is used to the sale of antiques and for watch and clock repairs. The floor area is 24.16 sq m (all zone A). The remainder of the property is occupied by Mr Shea for residential purposes. 3 Altwood Road is to the west of no.1 and has a frontage to Altwood Road. It comprises a brick and slate property built about 100 years ago with a more modern ground floor extension.. The shop is on the ground floor and has basement storage accommodation of 37.6 sq m. The ground floor comprises a shop used as a local neighbourhood store, with floor areas of 78.5 sq m zone A, 38.0 sq m zone B and 34.3 sq m zone C, with an external corrugated iron store of 23.7 sq m. The remainder of the property is occupied by Mr Singh for residential purposes. Mr Shea purchased the freehold of 1 Altwood Road in 1976 and was the owner-occupier in 1995. Mr Singh was the tenant of 3 Altwood Road in 1995 under a full repairing and insuring lease for 10 years from 20 October 1989 at a rent of £11,850 per annum. 1 Altwood Road was originally entered in the 1995 rating list as shop and premises, rateable value £1,825. On 21 April 1999 Mr Shea's then agents made the originating proposal in this appeal to reduce the rateable value on the grounds that "the assessment is incorrect and illegal and/or contrary to law. Rateable value above open market rental as at 1/04/93." The resultant appeal against this proposal was heard by Berkshire Valuation Tribunal on 18 July 2000. By a decision dated 31 August 2000 the Tribunal reduced the assessment to rateable value £1,600. On 25 September 2000 Mr Shea appealed against that decision to this Tribunal. 3 Altwood Road was originally entered in the 1995 rating list as shop and premises, rateable value £8,800. On 12 July 1996 Mr Singh's then agents made a proposal to reduce the rateable value on the grounds that it was "incorrect and excessive". Following negotiations it was agreed that the rateable value should be reduced to £8,350. On 7 April 1999 different agents then acting for Mr Singh made the originating proposal in this appeal seeking a reduction in the rateable value on the same grounds as set out in the previous paragraph. The resultant appeal against this proposal was heard by Berkshire Valuation Tribunal on 18 July 2000. By a decision dated 31 August 2000 the Tribunal reduced the assessment to £6,100. On 25 September 2000 Mr Singh appealed against that decision to this Tribunal. APPELLANTS' CASE Mr Shea's proposed rateable values are £1,014 for 1 Altwood Road and £3,045 for no.3. He said that the properties should be assessed using £42 per sq m zone A. He arrived at this figure by comparing the assessment of Tittle Row Stores in Altwood Road West and 47 Wootton Way. The former is in a secondary position some way to the west of the appeal properties and was assessed at £80 per sq m zone A. 47 Wootton Way is a shop in a main road location and was assessed at £150 per sq m zone A. A reduction of 47.5% has thus been made between a main road position at £150 and a secondary location at £80. The appeal properties are in a tertiary location and a reduction of 47.5% should be made from the figure of £80 for a secondary location to produce £42 per sq m zone A for the appeal properties. This reduced value takes into account the disabilities, including the waiting restrictions and the closure of the eastern end of Altwood Road. In April 1995 part of the ground floor shop at no.3 was used for storage and the basement was unused; no value should be ascribed to these parts of the property. VALUATION OFFICER'S CASE Mr Drury assessed 1 Altwood Road using £70 per sq m zone A with a 5% deduction for lack of proper shop front (rateable value £1,600). He assessed no.3 using £70 per sq m zone A for the sales area, £37.50 for zone B, £18.75 for zone C, £5.81 per sq m for the external store and £3.50 per sq m for the basement, with a 20% and deduction for size and shape (rateable value £6,100). (I note that there appear to be arithmetical errors in Mr Drury's valuation of no.3 but I believe these are due to typing errors in placing £37.50 and £18.75 on zones B and C instead of £35 and £17.50). The highways disabilities for both properties are reflected in the zone A price. The legality of the barrier and the parking restrictions, raised by the appellants before the local valuation tribunal, is not a matter which can be reflected in the assessments. The appeal properties must be valued as if vacant and to let and the fact that parts of no.3 were vacant is not a factor to be taken into account when determining the rateable value. When Mr Drury inspected no.3 some minor business items were stored in the "vacant" areas. Mr Drury supported his valuations by reference to rents and assessment of similar shops in the Maidenhead area. He referred to 13 rents and particularly relied on 3 Altwood Road and Tittle Row Stores, Altwood Road. The former property is one of the appeal properties. It was let in 1989 at £11,850 per annum including the house. Shop rents in Hampden Road which included flats allow about 29% of the rent for the flat; Mr Drury allowed 40% of the rent of 3 Altwood Road for the house. This leaves £7,100 for the shop or £81 per sq m zone A. Barriers and parking restrictions were then in force and were therefore reflected in the rent. The rent of Tittle Row Stores devalues to £85 per sq m zone A in 1990. There was growth in rental values indicating about £90 per sq m in 1991. Rents then decreased by about 15% to £75 per sq m in 1993. Mr Drury referred to 26 comparable assessments but relied mainly on 23B Treesmill Drive (£90 per sq m zone A), 2 and 20 Cannon Court Road (£90), 13 Hillcrest Avenue (£75), 21 Heywood Court Close (£95) and Tittle Row Stores (£80). ISSUES The main issue between the parties is whether the reduced assessments determined by the local valuation tribunal sufficiently reflect the disabilities of the appeal properties, particularly the closure of the eastern end of Altwood Road to form a cul-de-sac and waiting restrictions in Altwood Road and Norden Road. A subsidiary issue is whether a value should be ascribed to part of the ground floor shop and the basement of 3 Altwood Road. DECISION I have inspected the appeal properties and many of the comparables referred to by the valuation officer. Each of the appeal properties is a hereditament for rating purposes, that to say a unit of property which is the subject of rating. Each is a composite hereditament because part only consists of domestic property. Where a property is a composite hereditament the whole hereditament (domestic and non-domestic) is entered in the rating list but the rateable value is restricted to the value reasonably attributable to the non-domestic use of the property. These somewhat complicated provisions in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 mean that, in these appeals, it is only the non-domestic parts of the appeal properties which are to be valued, the ground floor shop at 1 Altwood Road and the basement and ground floor shop and external store at no.3. The rateable value of each hereditament is to be equal to the rent on an annual tenancy (on full repairing and insuring terms) on the assumption that the property was in reasonable repair and that the property and locality are as they were on 1 April 1995, but having regard to the level of values as at 1 April 1993. In short, the rateable value is the annual value as at April 1993 of the property and locality as at April 1995. There are four matters for my consideration:- (i) the correct value per sq m zone A; (ii) whether any value should be ascribed to part of the ground floor shop and the basement of 3 Altwood Road; (iii) the amount of the end deductions for disabilities; (iv) whether any further deductions should be made for the road layout and parking restrictions in or near Altwood Road. I look first at the value per sq m zone A. Mr Shea has adopted £42; Mr Drury £70, although having regard to the end deductions this figure is effectively reduced to £66.50 for no.1 and £56 for no.3. I cannot accept Mr Shea's method of comparison to find the zone A value for the appeal properties. He compared Tittle Row Stores and 47 Wootton Way to find a differential of 47.5% and then reduced the figure of £80 for Tittle Row Stores by the same percentage to find the zone A figure for the appeal properties which are in a poorer location. In my view, it does not necessarily follow that, because Tittle Row Stores are assessed at 47.5% below 47 Wootton Way, the appeal properties should be 47.5% below Tittle Row Stores. I can accept the hierarchy of location - from Wootton Way in the best position to 1 and 3 Altwood Road in the worst position - but not the value relationship. In my judgment, the correct method of comparison is to look at those shops most comparable to the appeal properties and then, as a matter of value judgment, fix the values for nos.1 and 3 by reference to those comparables. From the evidence and my inspection I am of the opinion that the shops referred to by the valuation officer most comparable to the appeal properties (with their zone A values) are:- Tittle Row Stores £80 54 Westborough Road £100 96 Westborough Road £100 42 Boyn Valley Road £90 2 Cannon Court Road £90 20 Cannon Court Road £90 23B Treesmill Drive £90 21 Heywood Court Close £95 I have used for comparison purposes the rateable values rather than rents now that the 1995 rating list has settled and rents have been subsumed into assessments. The best comparable is Tittle Row Stores. Excluding considerations of size and shape, which are dealt with separately in the assessment of 3 Altwood Road, and parking restrictions and road layout which I deal with separately below, I am satisfied that the relationship between £80 per sq m zone A for Tittle Row Stores and £70 for the appeal properties is correct. It is also consistent with the figures of £90 to £100 used to value the other comparables in the above list. I accept Mr Drury's figure of £70 per sq m zone A for the appeal properties and his reduced figures for no.3 in respect of the rear store (£5.81) and for the basement (£3.50). The zone B and C figures for no.3 should, however, be £35 and £17.50 per sq m respectively. The second matter for my consideration is whether any value should be attributed to part of the ground floor shop and the basement of 3 Altwood Road, said by Mr Shea to have been used for storage or unused, and excluded from his valuation. Mr Drury said that this accommodation was used for storage when he inspected the property. That was also the position when I inspected. For the purposes of this decision, however, I will assume that Mr Shea is correct and that part of the shop was used for storage and the basement was unused. It is not correct, however, to place no value on this accommodation. Under the rating hypothesis 3 Altwood Road is to be valued as if vacant and to let. The question is what rent would a hypothetical tenant have paid for the whole of the hereditament comprising ground floor shop, rear store and basement? It is not open to a ratepayer to reduce his assessment by keeping part of his property vacant or using part for a less valuable use. I am satisfied that Mr Drury has correctly valued the part of the shop used for storage as part of the zone A sales area and the basement as storage. I can accept that the shop too large for the trade in that location but Mr Drury has reflected this by making an end deduction for size and shape, which I now consider. Mr Drury has made deductions in respect of both properties for their disabilities. For 1 Altwood Road he has deducted 5% for the lack of a proper shop front and for no.3 he has deducted 20% for size and shape. I agree with both deductions. The last matter I must consider is whether there should be a further deduction for each of the appeal properties for the road layout at Altwood Road and parking restrictions as they existed in April 1995. Mr Drury said that he had reflected these disabilities in his £70 sq m zone A. It is here that I disagree with him. From my inspection I have reached the conclusion that a further end deduction for these disabilities should be made. They are greater than any suffered by the comparable shops. In my judgment a further deduction of 10% should be made for each property, increasing the end deduction in respect of no.1 to £254, giving a reduced assessment (rounded up) of £1,440, and in respect of no.3 to £2,308, giving a reduced assessment (rounded up) of £5,390. Both appeals are allowed to a limited extent. I direct that the 1995 rating list be amended to show 1 Altwood Road with a rateable value of £1,440 and 3 Altwood Road with a rateable value of £5,390. Although these appeals were heard under the simplified procedure Mr Drury asked for his costs on the grounds that the statements of agreed facts prepared by him were not agreed until the day of the hearing, several meetings were held to try to reach agreement and much time was taken up with the irrelevant question as to whether the road closures and parking restrictions were unlawful. Under rule 28(11) of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 no award in relation to costs shall be made under the simplified procedure except where section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 applies, or there has been an offer of settlement, or the circumstances are exceptional. Clearly, section 4 of the 1961 Act does not apply to these appeals. I was told that no offers have been made. Costs can therefore only be awarded where "the Tribunal regards the circumstances as exceptional". I cannot find any exceptional circumstances in these appeals meriting an award of costs to the valuation officer. I make no order as to costs. DATED: 11 September 2001 (Signed) P H Clarke BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2001/RA_62_00.html