Assessor for Renfrewshire v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1965 |
| Date | 14 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 31. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Lord Kilbrandon. Lord Fraser. Lord Avonside.
Valuation—Subjects—"Mobile home" on site in caravan park—Whether heritable.
Valuation—Value—"Mobile home" on site in caravan park—Whether value of site to be included in valuation.
The owner of a caravan park let a site on a weekly tenancy to the owner of a structure described as a "mobile home." This was prefabricated and could be moved by means of wheels permanently attached to it, but on public roads it had to be moved in a carrier vehicle, being too large to be towed. The structure consisted of two parts, which had to be placed end to end when it was being moved on its wheels, but were placed side by side and bolted together when on the site, the whole structure resting on its wheels and being made stable by the lowering of jacks attached to its framework. It contained several rooms, including a kitchen and bathroom, and was supplied with electricity, water and sewerage by means of connections with an electricity point, a fixed water-pipe and a sewer on the site. It had been on the site for a considerable time and was used as its owner's permanent residence.
Held (1) that the structure was heritable and accordingly fell to be entered in the valuation roll; and (2) that, as its owner was in occupation of the site on which it stood, the value of the site fell to be included in its valuation.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the County of Renfrew, John Mitchell, Junior, and Robert Scott, both of the Barwood Caravan Site, Bishopton, Renfrewshire, and Derek N. Holt and Robert Faulds, both of the Caravan Site at Cloch Point, Inverkip, Renfrewshire, appealed against entries in the valuation roll for the County of Renfrew for the year 1964–1965, in which subjects described as "residential chalets," and otherwise known as "mobile homes," were entered at gross annual values of £45 each. They contended that the entries should be deleted on the ground that the subjects were not rateable, and further that, if the subjects were rateable, the values should in each case be reduced. The Committee allowed the appeal and deleted the entries from the valuation roll, and at the request of the assessor stated a case on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case stated that the following facts were admitted or held by the Committee to be proved or within the knowledge of the Committee:—"(1) The subjects of the appeals, as far as the appellants Mitchell and Holt are concerned, consist of prepared sites within the curtilage of multiple caravan sites owned and occupied respectively by the appellants and on which are placed the structures owned respectively by the other two appellants. (2) The subjects of the appeals, as far as the appellants Scott and Faulds are concerned, consist of the aforesaid structures owned by the appellants and imposed on the solum aftermentioned. (3) The structures the subjects of the appeals are prefabricated and are mobile and transportable by means of wheels attached to their framework, the transportation being done by a carrier vehicle. They also have a number of jacks attached to the framework, which jacks are withdrawn whilst the structure is in motion and are let down to the ground when the structure comes to rest on its wheels (during its residential or temporary occupation) giving a relatively stable foundation. A picture of one of the structures owned by the appellant Scott and called by the makers “Paladin Sun Cottage” and showing the wheels and jacks aforesaid is attached hereto, marked “A,” and is held to form part of the case. (4) The structure owned by the appellant Faulds is similar to that owned by Scott but was fabricated by a different maker and called by him “Bluebird Swedish Cottage.” A brochure of this structure is attached hereto, marked “B,” and is held to form part of the case. (5) The structure as manufactured is in two halves. When in motion, these two halves proceed length-wise or end to end, whilst when at rest and for purposes of habitation, they are placed together breadthwise and attached to each other by bolts to give the necessary rigidity … (6) We were told that it would take two men about twenty minutes or half an hour to remove the jacks, withdraw the bolts and remove the fabrication from its stance, and that there is nothing to prevent the movement of the vans from one site to another within the curtilage of the multiple caravan site, provided that the site is of sufficient size to take the vans. There is no special adaptation of the sites on which the fabrications stand, nor is there any special adaptation of either fabrication to its respective site. The sites could be used for any caravan which was of a suitable size to stand on them. (7) The caravan sites, on one stance of which the structures are placed on arrival, contain facilities enabling all caravans which come to the sites to have the use of electricity, water, sewerage, which facilities are provided (a) in the case of electricity by attaching wires from the caravan to a fixed point on the site, (b) in the case of water by attaching a plastic pipe in the caravan to a fixed water pipe on the site, and (c) in the case of sewerage by attaching a concrete or plastic waste pipe in the caravan to a fixed earthenware waste pipe on the site. When a caravan is moved away, the aforesaid attachments are disconnected, and those on the site are readily available to the next caravan to occupy the particular stance on the site. (8) The appellant Scott, whose structure has occupied its present stance on the caravan site for some two years, has built a temporary brick wall of some six bricks high and merely resting on the ground. He explained to us that the purpose of this was to keep the wind from blowing under and chilling the floor of his structure. The structure does not rest on the wall nor is it attached to it and the wall can be removed by pushing it over … (10) The chalets at Barwood, Bishopton, measure 22 feet by 19 feet, giving an area of some 418 square feet, whilst the chalets at Cloch Point, Inverkip, measure 26 feet by 19 feet, giving an area of some 494 square feet. (11) The rent charged to the owners of the chalets by the owners of the sites are respectively, at Bishopton £72 per annum and at Inverkip £65 per annum. (12) The site-owners need to pay out of such gross revenue all expenses for the maintenance and operation of the sites, provision of labour, provision of services and so on. No accounts of such intromissions were produced in evidence. (13) The tenancies at both sites are weekly and the appellant Faulds did in fact intend to take his mobile home from the site within the foreseeable future and move it to another site in the South of England. (14) Photographs … were produced to us by the assessor purporting to show prefabricated houses at Aikenhead Road in Glasgow. These, we were told, were built and owned by Glasgow Corporation and placed by them on ground owned by the Corporation. Persons from slum clearance properties in the city were accommodated in them on normal tenancies in the manner of a housing development under the Housing (Scotland) Acts. The tenants do not own the structures. Whilst the houses are transported to the site on wheels, such wheels are removed when the houses are placed in situ.Whilst it was stated by the assessor's witness that such dwellings appeared in the valuation roll for the City of Glasgow, no evidence of such entries was produced to us …"
The contentions of the parties were stated as follows:—
"It was contended by the appellants:—(1) The structures the subjects of the appeals are described in the valuation roll as respectively residential chalets, are moveable subjects and are not heritable, and should be deleted from the valuation roll. (2) Alternatively, if held to be heritable, the valuation placed thereon by the assessor is excessive and should be reduced to £21 and £25 respectively. (3) It was contended that the subjects were no different from ordinary caravans on wheels, being freely transportable and mobile, and that the attachments for services when at rest on a caravan site were merely temporary facilities normally available to all caravans under present commercial usage, and did not make the caravans fixed, immovable or heritable. (4) As between the proprietor of the solum and the proprietor of the caravan the former had no title to the caravan as a heritor. (5) There was no similarity between the subjects of these appeals and the Glasgow Corporation temporary houses … which latter rested on the solum, were owned by the landlords, and were intended as residences for dispossessed citizens on normal tenancies under the Housing (Scotland) Acts. (6) Support for these contentions was offered in the cases of:—Menzies v. Assessor for EdinburghSC, 1937 S. C. 784 (referring to the dictum of Lord Fleming at p. 787); G. & J. Weir Ltd. v. Assessor for Glasgow, 1924 S. C. 670 (referring to the dictum of Lord Hunter at p. 682); North British Railway Co. v. Assessor of Railways and CanalsUNK, (1887) 25 S. L. R. 4; Howie's Trustees v. M'LayUNK, (1902) 5 F. 214; Dowall v. MilnUNK, (1874) 1 R. 1180; Beardmore & Co. v. Assessor for Glasgow, 1926 S. C. 483; Assessor for Glasgow v. Gilmartin, 1920 S. C. 488. (7) The appropriate valuation method is by the comparative principle. The caravans at Aikenhead Road are entered in the roll at a figure of 1s. 3d. per square foot after deducting £5 for the stance. They also have perambulator shelters and other minor extra amenities, which the appeal subjects...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rudd (Valuation Officer) v Cinderella Rockerfellas Ltd (Tuxedo Royale)
...taken by Lord Fleming in John Menzies & Co v The Assessor for Edinburgh [1937] SC 784 and followed by Lord Kilbrandon in Assessor for Renfrewshire v Mitchell [1965] SC 271, by asking the question first whether the subject structure belonged to a class or genus which was prima facie heritabl......
-
Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another
...Menzies & Co. Ltd. v. Assessor for Edinburgh, 1937 S.C. 784. It was later applied to such subjects as residential chalets: Assessor for Renfrewshire v. Mitchell 1966 S.L.T. 53, contractors' huts: Assessor for Dunbarton v. L.K. McKenzie and Partners 1968 S.L.T. 82 and static caravans: Redgat......
-
Gordon v Kirkcaldy District Council
...fall within the scope of the term dwellinghouse as used in said section. Reference is made to Assessor for Renfrewshire v. MitchellSC 1965 S.C. 271; Redgates Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Assessor for AyrshireUNK 1973 S.L.T. 52; and Bourne Leisure (Seton Sands) Ltd. v. Lothian AssessorSC 1983 S.C. ......
-
Kerry County Council v Kerins
...ACT 1978 S5(1)(d) LOCAL GOVT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1978 S1(3) TOURIST TRAFFIC ACTS 1959 – 1979 ASSESSOR FOR RENFREWSHIRE V MITCHELL 1966 SLT 53 LEWIN V NEWNES LTD 90 LT 160 MOON V LONDON CO COUNCIL 1931 AC 63 LOCAL GOVT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1978 S1(5) Synopsis: [1996] 3 IR 493 1 ......