LT 21 March 1994. An appeal by the VO against a decision of a valuation tribunal deleting the assessment of a flower stall from the rating list. At issue were 1) Whether the flower stall was a hereditament for rating purposes, and if so, 2) whether it was in rateable occupation. The stallholder traded in a covered mall for a period of time under various tenancy agreements. The stall was in three parts, one of which was fixed to a car park wall which formed part of the shopping centre, the stall being left in position each night without being dismantled or moved, although the stock was taken off and stored elsewhere. The VO contested that the stall was a hereditament for rating purposes as there was a sufficient degree of attachment and permanence, and referred to two other flower stalls where rateability and values had been agreed. The stallholder argued that occupation was too precarious to be rateable; the stall was essentially a ground or pitch on which a stall could be erected or