Assessor for Lothian Region v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1979 |
| Date | 19 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 25. |
| Court | Court of Session |
SC
L.V.A.C. Lords Avonside, Robertson, Ross.
ValuationValueAlteration of valuation roll"Material change of circumstances" affecting valueAmenityAircraft noise resulting from use of new runway at airport affecting amenity of residents in the flight pathCommittee rejected expert evidence and relied on other evidence on effect of noise on amenityWhether evidence on which Committee entitled to find material change affecting valueWhether Committee bound to accept expert evidenceLocal Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (cap. 30), secs. 2 (1) (d)1 and 372.
EvidenceWitnessesSkilled witnessWhether Court bound to accept expert evidenceWhether ratepayer bound to lead expert evidence to demonstrate a "material change of circumstances" affecting value.
A group of 500 ratepayers living in Barnton and Cramond in Edinburgh appealed to the Valuation Appeal Committee seeking decreases in their gross annual values entered in the valuation roll by the Assessor on the grounds that there had been a material change of circumstances affecting value because the amenity of the resident was affected. The material change was said to have arisen from the new runway built at Edinburgh (Turnhouse) Airport. There was increased aircraft noise in these residential areas because the bulk of air traffic using the airport came in to land over Barnton and Cramond.
The Valuation Appeal Committee rejected the evidence of two experts, one of whom spoke to no change in the value of the houses under appeal, and that of the other who spoke to decrease in value. The Committee found as a fact (finding in fact 14) that since the methods used by the opposing experts were based on different considerations it was not possible to reach any view on the results which they purported to show. "There was therefore no acceptable evidence to show whether the capital values or rental values of the houses under appeal had increased or decreased or whether they were increased at a slower rate than houses in comparable areas of the city." The Committee accepted other evidence including evidence of interrupted conversation; flickering television; annoyance to gardeners; the smell of burning kerosene;
vibrations; and anxiety and disturbed sleep among residents. They decided that the noise coming from the aircraft overflying these residential areas amounted to a material change of circumstances affecting values and ordered reduction of gross annual valuesThe Assessor appealed on the ground that there was no evidence before the Committee of a fall in the value of the subjects of appeal so that they were not entitled to hold that there had been a material change in circumstances affecting values.
Held (refusing the appeal) (1) that finding in fact 14, properly read, clearly showed that the Committee derived no assistance from certain expert evidence. The Committee had before it a mass of relevant evidence on which it was fully entitled to rely and on which it was fully entitled to reach the decision it did.
(2) That no Committee and no Court were in any way bound to accept expert evidence.
(3) That in amenity cases a ratepayer was not bound to produce skilled or expert evidence in order to succeed. If a ratepayer could lead evidence in fact from which a reasonable Committee would deduce that an amenity loss had caused a material change in the circumstances which, as a matter of common sense, would affect value, then he had done enough and it would be absurd to demand as an essential that an expert witness must be produced to confirm the logical deduction arising from proven fact.
Dictum of Lord Patrick in Lanarkshire Assessor v. MorrisonUNK [1963] R.A. 268 at 271 and Ferguson v. Assessor for GlasgowUNKUNK 1977 S.L.T. 142, [1977] R.A. 89,explained.
Observed that in matters of amenity it is impossible to build up precedents based on fact in different cases before different committees. Dictum of Lord Hunter in Condie v. Fife AssessorUNK [1967] R.A. 217 at 219 referred to.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for Edinburgh District of Lothian Region, Watson P. Wilson and 499 other residents of Barnton and Cramond appealed against entries in the valuation roll for the year 1976/77. Parties agreed that for the purpose of the hearing two houses would be selected as test cases and the decision of the Committee in these cases would apply in the other cases. The houses selected were 79 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, occupied by Mr Douglas A. H. Brown, and 30 Braehead Road Edinburgh, occupied by Mr Thomas S. Briggs.
The Committee found the following facts admitted or proved:"(1) All the houses which are the subject of appeals are situated in the Barnton/ Cramond district of the City of Edinburgh. (2) On 7th May 1976 the new runway at Edinburgh Airport was opened. The runway is sited on a north-east/south-west axis and the flight path of aircraft approaching and leaving the new runway takes them either over the Barnton/Cramond area of the city or over the village of Newbridge which is situated at the south-west end of the runway. There are other runways but the bulk of the traffic uses this new runway. The wind direction dictates the direction in which the aircraft will land or take off. If the wind is from the west or south-west then they will take off over Newbridge and land over Barnton/Cramond. If the wind is from the east then the landing will be over Newbridge and the take-off over Barnton/Cramond. In calm conditions the take-off and landing may be in either direction. The prevailing wind at Edinburgh Airport is from the south-west. (3) There are regular flights into and out of Edinburgh Airport and there are many types of aircraft using the runway. The most common types are however the Trident 3 and BAC 111. These two types of aircraft are medium-sized jet aircraft and are on regular flights to and from London and other destinations. Regular flights commence from about 7 o'clock in the morning and go on throughout the day. There is considerable aircraft movement between 7.30 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 4.30p.m. and 7 p.m., and the last arrival is at approximately 1 a.m. (4) Approximately 70 per cent of all departures from Edinburgh Airport take off over Newbridge. On the other hand a similar percentage of aircraft land after passing over Barnton/ Cramond. (5) Since the opening of the new runway in May 1976 the Barnton/ Cramond area of the City of Edinburgh has been transformed from a peaceful area into one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Assessor For Lothian V. H & M Hennes & Mauritz Uk Limited And Others
...opinion, to ignore common sense and as an essential demand expert or quasi-expert evidence" Again, in Assessor for Lothian Region v Wilson 1979 SC 341, at page 349, the same judge said; "If a ratepayer can lead evidence of facts from which a reasonable committee could deduce that an amenity......
-
Kerry Donnelly V. Fas Products Limited
...pronouncement of an expert." The point was put more succinctly, and more robustly, by Lord Avonside in Assessor for Lothian Region v Wilson 1979 SC341 at 349: "It cannot be over-emphasised that no Committee or, for that matter, no Court, is in any way bound to accept expert evidence or to b......
-
Assessor for Grampian v Anderson, Anderson and Brown LLP
...for) v Ministry of Defence, Army Careers Office [2009] CSIH 89; [2010] RA 55; 2010 GWD 11–203 Lothian Region (Assessor for) v Wilson 1979 SC 341; 1979 SLT 93 Myles and anr v Dundee Assessor 1967 RICS 53 Scammell v Assessor for Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board 1997 GWD 29–149......