Scottish Natural Heritage V. The Assessor For Highland And Western Isles
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Hodge,Lord Kingarth |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] CSIH 91 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 04 December 2009 |
| Year | 2009 |
| Date | 04 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | XA41/09 |
| LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION | |
| Lord Justice Clerk Lord Kingarth Lord Hodge | [2009] CSIH 91 XA41/09 OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK on the STATED CASE in the Appeal by SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE Appellant; against THE ASSESSOR FOR HIGHLAND & WESTERN ISLES Respondent: _______ |
For the respondent: O'Rourke; Drummond Miller
4 December 2009
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against a decision of the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Appeal Committee dated 12 June 2008 by which it refused the appellant's appeal against the entry of Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness in the Valuation Roll as from 30 May 2006 at a rateable value of £800,000.
[2] This is an entry made in an inter-revaluation year relating to new subjects. The current Revaluation of 2005 was in force at the date of the entry. The valuation must therefore be made according to the tone of the Roll, the tone date being 1 April 2003.
The subjects
[3] The subjects are situated on the south-western periphery of Inverness. They were designed and built for the appellant as its new headquarters. They comprise a three-storey main office block with associated staff accommodation. There is a full-height glazed atrium, used inter alia as a reception area and for exhibitions, meetings, interviews and events. There is also an attached single-storey library wing. The main building has a total gross internal area of 6,004.76 sm. It is designed to be lower carbon and energy efficient. It incorporates the use of solar power. There are also garages and other outbuildings, a service yard and a loading bay. There is secure parking for 23 company vehicles and parking for 221 cars and two coaches. The grounds are landscaped and have service roads and parking. The site extends to 7.65 acres.
[4] The subjects were designed and built by Robertson Property Ltd under a development agreement with the appellant. The agreement gave the appellant the option of renting the subjects for 30 years at an annual rent of £881,624 on a full repairing and insuring lease or buying them for £12,825,953. The appellant elected to buy the subjects and took entry on 1 June 2006.
The parties' valuations
[5] The comparative method of valuation was appropriate in this case; but there was a dearth of subjects in the valuation area with which direct comparison could readily be made.
[6] The appellant relied on five public sector office buildings in the centre of Inverness as comparisons. Their rateable values represented rates per square metre in the range £80 to £110. The appellant's valuer accepted that the appeal subjects would attract a higher rate per square metre. From the overall ground floor area of 2959.31 sm, he took out the area of 656.51 sm that was occupied by the atrium. To the area of the atrium he applied a reduction factor of 0.25 because of the disadvantages, such as a lack of power points and the proximity of stairs and walkways, that made it incapable of office use to the normal extent. He submitted that in the valuation of the outbuildings, loading area and service yard, only the floor area of 350.34 sm occupied by the garages should be taken into account. He considered that the other elements had no rental significance. To the floor area of the garages he applied a reduction factor of 0.25. To the total reduced floor area of 5928.22 sm thus calculated he applied the rate of £125 psm. That produced a value of £741,028. From that figure he deducted a quantum allowance of 20% giving an NAV/RV of £592,822 rounded up to £593,000.
[7] The assessor contended that the appropriate comparisons were modern office blocks on the outskirts of Inverness at Beechwood and Stoneyfield. Their rateable values were equivalent to £125 psm. He submitted that a higher rate should be applied to the appeal subjects to reflect their superior design and their size. He valued the whole ground floor at the agreed area of 2959.31 sm, without discrimination for the atrium area, on the view that the atrium was an integral, striking and important part of the building serving the valuable purpose for which it had been designed. He took the first and second floors at the agreed areas of 1741.00 sm and 1304.45 sm respectively. To the total floor area of 6004.76 sm he applied the rate of £130 psm, which produced a value of £780,619. He then added £16,312 for the outbuildings, loading bay and service area. That produced a total of £796,931, rounded up to £800,000.
[8] The assessor and the appellant's valuer differed on the significance of the rent specified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assessor for Grampian v Anderson, Anderson and Brown LLP
...Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow [2013] CSIH 93; 2014 SLT 184; [2014] RVR 62 Scottish Natural Heritage v Assessor for Highland and Western Isle [2009] CSIH 91; [2010] RA 63; 2010 GWD 2–32 Tesco Stores Ltd v Assessor for Fife [2010] CSIH 95; 2011 SC 316; [2011] RA 236 WAP Fyfe v Assessor for Fife ......