Assessor for Aberdeenshire v Pye Telecommunications Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 1973 |
| Date | 21 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 14. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
L.V.A.C.
Lords Fraser, Avonside, Thomson.
Valuation—Subjects—Radio mast and hut erected by tenants—Aerials and other equipment used by tenants and other persons—"Wayleave"—Rateable occupation.
A telecommunications company erected a radio mast and a hut on ground of which they were tenants. For transmitting radio signals eleven aerials were attached to the mast. Each aerial was attached to a cable which led to a transmitter in the hut. One set of aerial, cable and transmitter belonged to the company, and the others to ten different users. Under a standard agreement with the company each of the users had the right of installation and exclusive use of its own equipment. For receiving radio signals the company installed two receivers in the hut, which were used for receiving signals for the company and the other users. Access to the site, which was unmanned, was controlled by the company, and was available to the other users to a limited extent.
The assessor made eleven entries of "Wayleave Radio Transmitting Aerial and Cable" in the valuation roll and showed the company and the other users as occupiers in each respective entry. On an appeal by the company and two of the users the valuation appeal committee found that none of the ten other users were in rateable occupation.
Held that the appropriate entries should be of (1) an "unmanned radio station" occupied by the company, and (2) a "transmitting aerial and cable" occupied by each of the ten other users, and that all references to a "wayleave" should be excluded from the valuation roll.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee of the County of Aberdeen, Pye Telecommunications Limited, Stewart Plant (Aberdeen) Limited and Securicor Limited appealed against entries in the valuation roll for the year to Whitsunday 1972. The assessor for the County of Aberdeen had made eleven entries in the valuation roll of subjects described as "Wayleave Radio Transmitting Aerial and Cable," at a net annual value of £80. In each entry the proprietors were shown as Aberdeen Corporation and the tenants as Pye Telecommunication Limited. The occupiers were shown as Pye Telecommunications Limited, Stewart Plant (Aberdeen) Limited, Securicor Limited and eight other parties. The Valuation Appeal Committee allowed the appeals of Securicor Limited and Stewart Plant (Aberdeen) Limited and found that there was no rateable occupation by them. They also determined the net annual value of the subjects occupied by Pye Telecommunications Limited at £97. The assessor expressed dissatisfaction and requested that the committee should state a case for the opinion of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case set forth that the following facts were held by the committee to be proved or within their knowledge:—"(1) By lease dated 16th December 1965 and 1st March 1966 (production No. 1) the triangular area of ground extending to 1083 square yards at Brimmond Hill, near Aberdeen (hereinafter referred to as “the site”) was leased to Pye Telecommunications Limited by Aberdeen Corporation at an annual rent of £15 for a period of sixty years from 28th May 1965. Said lease is referred to for its terms which include, inter alia,that the site is to be used solely for the erection and operation thereon of an unmanned radio telephone station with all ancillary buildings and other structures and that no part of the site can be sublet. Pye Telecommunications Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Pye”) erected the existing building on the site and the radio telephone mast in 1966 and have occupied and operated same since that time. The said mast is 60 feet high. It is held in position by steel guy ropes. The cost of erection of said building and mast in 1966 was as follows:—
| Cost of mast | £232 |
| Construction and foundations | 337 |
| Hut and fencing | 155 |
| £724 |
At the completion of the erection of the above items by Pye the subject could not be operated for radio telephone communications as there were no transmitting aerials fixed to the mast. It was only after aerials etc. had been attached to the mast and radio equipment installed in the building and connected to said aerials that the subjects could be used for radio telephone communication. The cost of erecting each aerial including the necessary boom, cable, clamps and clips was £35 making £385 for all eleven aerials on the mast on 16th May 1971. The situation and height of said mast permits radio communication over an arc of country based on the coast line and including the towns of Peterhead, Huntly, Alford, Aboyne and Laurence-kirk. The mast and building are situated in an exposed position on the top of said hill which is approximately 900 feet high. The mast and aerials are often coated in thick layers of ice which causes damage and necessitates much maintenance and repair, which is undertaken by Pye, who alone have control of the keys for access to the subjects of appeal. (2) The appellants1 in this appeal have fixed aerials (antennae) on the mast to which they are connected by means of a boom and clamp. Aerials are connected to the radio station or building by a coaxial cable fixed to the mast by clips. Replicas of the aerials, booms, clamps, clips and cable were produced at the hearing and form productions 2 to 6. The boom is clamped to the mast and the aerial is clamped on to the end of the boom. The method of fixing said aerials and booms to said mast is shown in production No. 7. Production No. 8 contains photographs of the radio station including the mast, aerials and cables. Each appellant has one transmitting cable and aerial
which is owned and used entirely by that appellant for transmitting messages to distant stations or offices. Each appellant's master station is connected to its own transmitting equipment in said building by means of a land line or by radio telephone. Each appellant's transmitting aerial is connected with the appellant's transmitting equipment by means of said coaxial cable. In addition to said transmitting aerials (11 in number) there are two identical aerials fixed to the mast by Pye used by all the appellants for receiving messages from outlying stations. These messages are carried via the coaxial cable attached to the receiving aerials to an amplifier which allows the signal to be passed to the appropriate transmitter/receiver serving each appellant without loss of signal strength and from which the signal is finally passed by land line or radio telephone to the master station of appellant for which the originating signal was intended. All messages received at the station are conducted via said two receiving aerials through amplifiers as aforesaid to the master stations of the respective appellants. Pye do not guarantee the sole use of any specific radio frequency to any of the appellants but each receiving aerial covers a spread of frequencies and the amplifier belonging to or used by each appellant is set to pick up incoming messages on a given frequency. Two amplifiers are required for each frequency band, one to cover the top of the band and the other to cover the bottom of same. One amplifier is not able to cover the whole of a frequency band. The receiving aerials and cables and the amplifiers used in connection therewith belong to Pye and are wholly maintained by Pye. Amplifiers make possible the use by several different parties of one receiving aerial, each party using one of the frequencies covered by the receiving aerial's spread. The receiving of messages by appellants is an essential constituent of the right conferred on each appellant by the standard agreement after referred to. Due to planning restrictions the number and siting of radio telephone masts is strictly controlled and persons who wish to erect radio telephone aerials are directed to use existing masts wherever possible. (3) The standard agreement (production No. 9) applicable to all appellants confers on each appellant, inter alia, the right to clamp a transmitting aerial boom and cable on the mast, the right to use in common with others one of the receiving cables hung on the mast by Pye and the right to house radio equipment in said building. In the standard agreement, the items provided and erected by Pye are termed the aerial site facility and the items owned or used by the appellants are termed site equipment. The receiving aerials, booms and cables are provided by Pye. The reception facilities at the appeal subjects would be of no practical use to the appellants without the complementary transmission facilities and vice versa. (4) Each appellant is required by Pye as a condition to obtaining permission to use the radio station to purchase or hire from Pye (or one of its subsidiaries) all the transmitting/ receiving equipment required by that appellant for use at the radio station and pertaining to such use outwith the station. This equipment costs approximately £1430 for each appellant and this does not include the cost of the aerials and others before mentioned. This equipment is designed to last from five to seven years and Pye expect to make from 12½% to 14% profit from the sale or hire. In terms of the standard agreement all appellants (except Pye) are required to enter into a separate maintenance agreement in respect of said radio equipment which maintenance is all carried out by Pye. All said equipment is housed in the building at the radio station in terms of the said standard agreement. All appellants have entered into a standard agreement with Pye regulating the use by them of the radio station. Production No. 9 is a duplicate of the agreement used or admitted to apply in all cases. This agreement is in course of being revised to conform with Scots law and terminology but the revised form (production 10) was not in force in respect of any appellant on 16th May 1971. Said standard agreement is referred to for its terms and...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Assessfor Tayside Valuation Joint Board+the Assessor For Glasgow City Council V. Hutchison 3g (uk) Limited+orange Personal Communications Services Limited+t-mobile (uk) Limited+vodafone Limited+against A Decision Of The Lands Tribunal For Scotland
...came before this Court between 1967 and 1977 (ITA v Ass for Lanarkshire 1968 SC 249; Ass for Aberdeenshire v Pye Telecommunications Ltd 1973 SC 157; Scottish Gas v Ass for Fife LVAC 14 April 1977). This was its conclusion: "[218] In several of these cases, consideration of the differing met......