Proposal fell to be decided in accordance with Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd — Whether values outside enterprise zone fell — Whether values within zone too low — Valuation officer’s appeal allowed
The respondents are the owners of land, which, at the date of the proposal on July 25 1984, consisted of a warehouse and office building at Millwall, London E14. The Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone was designated on April 26 1982 and the hereditament is within a half-mile of the zone. Following the decision of the House of Lords in Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd [1988] 1 EGLR 157; [1988] 10 EG 129, Parliament enacted section 121 of the Finance Act 1988 with effect from March 10 1988 and restricted the matters which can be taken into account for the purposes of section 20(1)(b) of the General Rate Act 1967 to the physical state of the hereditament or the physical state of the locality.
The appellant valuation officer appealed against the decision of the local valuation court which reduced the assessment of the hereditament from a gross value £24,000, rateable value £19,972 to gross value £18,000, rateable value £14,972. It was agreed that as the original proposal was served after the decision of the tribunal in the Addis case and prior to March 10 1988, that decision applied to the present case. The appellant contending that the decision of the tribunal in Farmer Stedall plc v Thomas (VO) [1985] 2 EGLR 221; (1985) 276 EG 559 & 689, should be followed; there was no adverse effect on the hereditament by the presence of the enterprise zone.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The extent to which a specific property is affected by the proximity of an enterprise zone must depend on the facts in each case. The evidence did not support the respondents’ contentions that there was a general fall in rental values of properties outside the enterprise zone. Assessments within the zone were so compromised by the effect of section 121 of the 1988 Act that little or no evidential weight could be given to them.
Alan Sainer, solicitor to the Inland Revenue, appeared for the appellants; and Harry Sales (instructed by the solicitor to British Steel plc) appeared for the respondents and called Neil Chatterton BSc, ARICS.
