LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Justice Clerk Lord Clarke Lord Hodge	[2008] CSIH 2 XA60/07   OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK   In the Appeal by   BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED Appellant;   against   THE ASSESSOR FOR GLASGOW Respondent: _______

 

Act: Stuart; Drummond Miller WS

Alt: Clarke; Sinpson & Marwick WS

 

15 January 2008

 

Introduction

[1] This appeal relates to a public house called The Avalon at 21A Kent Road, Glasgow. The subjects were entered in the Valuation Roll at the 2005 Revaluation at a net annual value (NAV) of £15,100. The appellant appealed against the entry. On 31 May 2006 the local Valuation Appeal Committee refused the appeal. The appellant appeals against the refusal on the ground that the Committee erred in law.

 

The assessor's valuation

[2] The tone date for the revaluation was 1 April 2003. The revaluation came into force on 1 April 2005.

[3] In the course of the assessor's survey for the 2005 revaluation, the former occupiers of the appeal subjects submitted a statutory return showing gross receipts of £207,573 for the year to 28 April 2002 and £185,247 for the year to 4 May 2003.

[4] In my Opinion in Suburban Taverns (Glasgow) Ltd v Ass for Glasgow, 15 January 2008) I have described the Scottish Assessors' Association's scheme for the valuation of public houses in the 2005 revaluation and related it to the version of the scheme that applied in the 2000 revaluation.

 

The assessor's valuation

[5] The assessor took gross annual turnover at the figure of £185,247 and, applying the methodology of the scheme, arrived at an adjusted figure of £178,746. He applied to that figure the agreed rate of 8.5 % to produce the NAV of £15,100.

 

The appellant's valuation

[6] The appellant's agent, Mr Peter Henry FRICS, submitted that the figure of £185,247 did not reflect the fair maintainable turnover for the appeal subjects. The figures for the year to 30 April 2001 showed sales of £212,307; for the year to 29 April 2002 sales of £210,563; for the year to 28 April 2003 sales of £188,706; for the year to 3 May 2004 sales of £162, 589, and for the eleven months to 31 March 2005 sales of £140,427. These figures showed a pattern of decline. The 2002-2003 turnover figure was not sustainable.

[7] Mr Henry based his valuation on the figures for the year to 3 May 2004. It brought out a an NAV of £13,050.

 

Decision of the Committee

[8] The Committee held that since the 2005 revaluation was based on the tone date of 1 April 2003, the hypothetical landlord and tenant could enter into the hypothetical transaction at that date only on the basis of the rental evidence then existing. It would be wrong to refer to turnover figures from any later period.

 

Submissions for the parties

[9] The submissions of counsel in the case of Suburban Taverns (Glasgow) Ltd v Ass for Glasgow (supra) applied also in this case.

 

Conclusions

[10] For the reasons that I have given in my Opinion in Suburban Taverns (Glasgow) Ltd v Ass for Glasgow (supra) I consider that the valuation for the appellant was fundamentally misguided and that there is no merit in this appeal.

 

Disposal

[11] I propose to your Lordships that we should refuse the appeal.

LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Justice Clerk Lord Clarke Lord Hodge	[2008] CSIH 2 XA60/07   OPINION OF LORD CLARKE   in   APPEAL   by   BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED Appellant;   against   THE ASSESSOR FOR GLASGOW Respondent: _______

 

Act: Stuart; Drummond Miller WS

Alt: Clarke; Sinpson & Marwick WS

 

15 January 2008

 

[12] I agree with your Lordship in the chair as to how this appeal should be disposed of and there is nothing I wish to add.

 

LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Justice Clerk Lord Clarke Lord Hodge	[2008] CSIH 2 XA60/07   OPINION OF LORD HODGE   in   APPEAL   by   BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED Appellant;   against   THE ASSESSOR FOR GLASGOW Respondent: _______

 

Act: Stuart; Drummond Miller WS

Alt: Clarke; Simpson & Marwick WS

 

15 January 2008

 

[13] I agree with the opinion of your Lordship in the chair and that the appeal should be refused.