United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority v Assessor for Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] CSIH 60 |
| Docket Number | No 15 |
| Date | 22 December 2006 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court
Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), Lord Philip, Lord Kingarth
Valuation - Nuclear installation in process of decommissioning - Site required for fulfillment of statutory obligations - Whether rateable occupation - Whether the hypothetical tenant would pay rent for the subjects - Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz 2, cap 60), sec 6(8)
Section 6(8) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 provides that the net annual value of any lands and heritages shall be the rent at which the lands and heritages might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year.
The appellant was the owner and occupier of the nuclear installation, Dounreay, Caithness. At the 2000 revaluation, the respondent entered the subjects in the valuation roll as "premises" with a net annual value and rateable value of 2,100,000. The appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal, which appeal was allowed to the extent of substituting a net annual value and rateable value of 1,435,000. The appellant appealed by stated case.
It was argued for the appellant that: (1) it was not in rateable occupation of the subjects as it was only in possession for the purposes of decommissioning and demolition; (2) in any event, it was not in rateable occupation of those parts of the subjects where nuclear waste was stored de facto rather than in areas classified as proper storage; (3) the care and maintenance liabilities in respect of the site were such that the hypothetical tenant would be unwilling to pay any rent for the site; and (4) the tribunal had erred in ignoring the direction issued by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in terms of which the appellant had been required to restrict processing activities which formed an essential part of the decommissioning process.
It was argued for the respondent that: (1) whether the tenant was in rateable occupation was a question of fact for the tribunal to determine; (2) the appellant accepted that the materials in proper stores were to be treated as tenant's materials and there was no difference in principle between that and the de facto stores; (3) the use of the subjects by the hypothetical tenant need not be profitable; it was sufficient that the appellant had to occupy the property in accordance with its statutory functions; and (4) the tribunal was entitled to treat the direction as a transient factor which did not materially affect the hypothetical rent.
Held that: (1) the argument in respect of rateable occupation was not a ground of appeal, but in any event was misconceived as the premises were in positive long-term occupation as part of the appellant's statutory functions; other parts of the site were in ordinary use and if the appellant was in rateable occupation of part of the subjects, it was in rateable occupation of the whole (paras 52, 53 , 65, 66, 74); (2) where the materials were stored made no difference as they had to be so held as part of the appellant's statutory functions and in any event, the appeal had been conducted from the outset on the agreed footing that they were tenant's materials (paras 56, 67, 68, 78, 79); (3) the tribunal was entitled to reach the factual conclusion that in a hypothetical negotiation the care and maintenance costs would be at best a bargaining factor in the tenant's favour, but that it would not result in no rent being paid; it was rather a factor reflected in the making of an end allowance, the amount of which was a matter for the professional discretion of the valuer (paras 60, 69, 82); (4) the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the lifting of the direction was reasonably imminent (paras 61, 71, 83); and appeal refused.
Greenock Corporation v Arbuckle, Smith & CoSC1960 SC (HL) 49 distinguished.
British Transport Commission v HingleyELR [1961] 2 QB 16 distinguished.
The Assessor for Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board entered the nuclear installation, Dounreay, Caithness in the valuation roll as "premises" with a net annual value and rateable value of 2,100,000. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the owners and occupiers of the subjects, appealed to the Lands Tribunal of Scotland. On 8 September 2005, the tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a net annual value and rateable value of 1,435,000. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority appealed by stated case to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Cases referred to:
British Transport Commission v HingleyELRWLRUNK [1961] 2 QB 16; [1961] 2 WLR 370; [1961] 1 All ER 837
Central Region (Assessor for) v United Glass LtdSC 1981 SC 389; 1981 SLT (Notes) 114
Dumbarton (Assessor for) v LK McKenzie & Partners 1968 SLT 82
Greenock Corporation v Arbuckle, Smith & CoSCELRWLRUNK 1960 SC (HL) 49; 1960 SLT 123; [1960] AC 813; [1960] 2 WLR 435; [1960] 1 All ER 568
JD Wetherspoon plc v Lothian AssessorSC 2003 SC 400; [2003] RA 105
John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Commission for Kings Wood Assessment AreaELRUNK [1949] 1 KB 344; [1949] 1 All ER 224
London County Council v Churchwardens etc of ErithELR [1893] AC 562
London County Council v WilkinsELRWLRUNK [1957] AC 362; [1956] 3 WLR 505; [1956] 3 All ER 38
Lothian Region (Assessor for) v British Airports AuthoritySC 1981 SC 141; 1982 SLT 317
Mitchell Bros v Assessment Commission of Worksop Union (1905) TLR 62
R v School Board for LondonELR (1886) 17 QBD 728
Sinclair v Lothian Assessor [2003] RA 202
Strathclyde Region (Assessor for) v BP Refinery Grangemouth LtdSC 1983 SC 18
Texstyle World v Assessor for Strathclyde RegionSC 1995 SC 588; 1996 SLT 782; [1995] RVR 171
Wood v Assessor for Glasgow [2000] RA 271
Textbooks etc. referred to:
Armour, SB, Valuation for Rating (5th Clyde and Hope ed, W Green, Edinburgh, 1985), paras 5.53, 5.55, 14.13, 18.15
Ryde, Rating and the Council Tax (14th Roots et al ed, Butterworths, London, 1990), para 192
The cause called before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, comprising the Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), Lord Philip and Lord Kingarth, for a hearing on the summar roll on 19 October 2006.
At advising, on 22 December 2006-
Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill)-
[1] This is an appeal by stated case from a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland dated 8 September 2005.
[2] The appellant is the owner and occupier of the nuclear installation at Dounreay, Caithness. Until the 2000 revaluation, the site was not in the valuation roll. It was subject to the system of Crown contributions assessed by the Crown Property Unit of the Valuation Office Agency.
[3] The assessor entered the subjects in the valuation roll at the 2000 revaluation as 'premises' at a net annual value and rateable value of 2,100,000. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the premises should properly be entered in the roll as 'premises in the course of decommissioning and demolition'; that the appellant was not in rateable occupation of them; that, in any event, it was not in rateable occupation of certain areas referred to by the tribunal as the contaminated areas, and that, in any event, the costs of care and maintenance of the site were such that the subjects should be entered at a nil value.
[4] The tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting an NAV/RV of 1,435,000.
[5] The appellant was established under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2, cap 32) ('the 1954 Act') to develop the civil nuclear programme in the United Kingdom. The 1954 Act confers on the appellant the power, inter alia, to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith (sec 2(2)(a)); to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, store and transport any articles which in the opinion of the appellant are, or are likely to be, required for or in connection with the production or use of atomic energy or such research as aforesaid, and to dispose of any articles manufactured, produced, bought or acquired by them (sec 2(2)(b)); and to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, treat, store, transport and dispose of any radioactive substances (sec 2(2)(c)).
[6] The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (cap 57) ('the 1965 Act') provides, inter alia, as follows:
'1.-(1) Without prejudice to the requirements of any other Act, no person shall use any site for the purpose of installation or operating-
(a) any nuclear reactor (other than such a reactor comprised in a means of transport, whether by land, water or air); or
-
(b) subject to subsection (2) of this section, any other installation of such class or description as may be prescribed, being an installation designed or adapted for-
(i) the production or use of atomic energy; or
(ii) the carrying out of any process which is preparatory or ancillary to the productions or use of atomic energy and which involves or is capable of causing the emission of ionising radiations; or
(iii) the storage, processing or disposal of nuclear fuel or of bulk quantities of other radioactive matter, being matter which has been produced or irradiated in the course of the production or use of nuclear fuel,
unless a licence so to do has been granted in respect of that site by the [Health and Safety Executive] and is for the time being in force 7.-(1) where a nuclear site licence has been granted in respect of any site, it shall be the duty of the licensee to secure that-
(a) no such occurrence involving nuclear matter as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section causes injury to any person or damage to any property of any person other than the licensee, being injury or damage arising out of or resulting from the radioactive properties, or a combination of those and any toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties, of that nuclear matter; and
-
(b) no ionising radiations emitted during the period of the licensee's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patricia Welsh V. Neil Brady
...5; 2008 SC 298; [2008] RA 101 United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority v Assessor for Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint BoardSC [2006] CSIH 60; 2007 SC 252; 2007 SLT 27; [2007] RA 65 Textbooks etc. referred to: Commercial Properties Committee, 2005 Revaluation: Valuation of licensed ......