Burn Stewart Distillers Plc v Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board
Burn Stewart Distillers Plc v Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board
- 2001
- Rating Appeals [2001] RA 110-144(35) .
LTS 27 February 2001. The ratepayers (B) contended that the premises they occupied on opposite sides of the road, one of which shared access with a third party, should form a single entry in the valuation roll as there was both a functional link and a telecommunications conduit under the road between the two units. The tribunal held that the premises had been correctly entered into the roll as two separate units as: the fact that the premises served one business did not indicate that they were a single physical unit; the buildings were physically separated by a public road and land to which B did not have exclusive access; there was no visual characteristic to the buildings that indicated that they were operated together or that either was essential to the function of the other; the buildings could be let separately, although no weight was given to the fact that historically this was the case; the evidence presented did not establish functional interdependence; links to remote sites such as the telecommunications conduit were common and not dependant on proximity; the presence of a canteen was not evidence of a functional connection.
BURN STEWART DISTILLERS PLC V LANARKSHIRE VALUATION JOINT BOARD
RATING VALUATION
SEPARATE UNIT
VALUATION ROLL
LTS 27 February 2001. The ratepayers (B) contended that the premises they occupied on opposite sides of the road, one of which shared access with a third party, should form a single entry in the valuation roll as there was both a functional link and a telecommunications conduit under the road between the two units. The tribunal held that the premises had been correctly entered into the roll as two separate units as: the fact that the premises served one business did not indicate that they were a single physical unit; the buildings were physically separated by a public road and land to which B did not have exclusive access; there was no visual characteristic to the buildings that indicated that they were operated together or that either was essential to the function of the other; the buildings could be let separately, although no weight was given to the fact that historically this was the case; the evidence presented did not establish functional interdependence; links to remote sites such as the telecommunications conduit were common and not dependant on proximity; the presence of a canteen was not evidence of a functional connection.
BURN STEWART DISTILLERS PLC V LANARKSHIRE VALUATION JOINT BOARD
RATING VALUATION
SEPARATE UNIT
VALUATION ROLL