Image from Google Jackets

Stockley Park Consortium Ltd v Saul (VO)

Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1992 RA 209-227(10)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: LT 29 July 1992. S were owners / developers of land subject to a comprehensive scheme of reclamation and redevelopment to provide a park, golf course and science park. It was necessary for substantial volumes of soil, sand, gravel and landfill to be excavated, moved and deposited within the project site. Excavation took place over a year from July 1985. The VO`s proposal was dated December 1985 ie half way through the operation. The valuation list was altered to include the site and the assessment was £165,000 nav, £82,500 rv. The VCCT held that the four ingredients of rateable value were satisfied and the property could be entered on the list, at £139,700 nav, £69,850 rv. S appealed. The VO contended that the site was to be treated separately from the construction work and was therefore a separate hereditament used in accordance with its own nature as mineral bearing land. Appeal allowed; entry deleted from the list; there was a single hereditament which was a construction site.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47351 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 61710-1001

LT 29 July 1992. S were owners / developers of land subject to a comprehensive scheme of reclamation and redevelopment to provide a park, golf course and science park. It was necessary for substantial volumes of soil, sand, gravel and landfill to be excavated, moved and deposited within the project site. Excavation took place over a year from July 1985. The VO`s proposal was dated December 1985 ie half way through the operation. The valuation list was altered to include the site and the assessment was £165,000 nav, £82,500 rv. The VCCT held that the four ingredients of rateable value were satisfied and the property could be entered on the list, at £139,700 nav, £69,850 rv. S appealed. The VO contended that the site was to be treated separately from the construction work and was therefore a separate hereditament used in accordance with its own nature as mineral bearing land. Appeal allowed; entry deleted from the list; there was a single hereditament which was a construction site.