Rateable occupation — Unoccupied hereditament rate liability — Unpaid rates — Whether occupation prohibited by law — Effect of notice under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 — Effect of planning permissions — Ratepayer’s appeal succeeds in part
The respondent rating authority brought proceedings against the appellants to recover rates in respect of an hereditament at 2/26 Semley Place, London SW1, for the period April 1 1984 to March 31 1986. During this period the hereditament was not occupied and the rating authority were entitled to levy rates in the area on unoccupied hereditaments by virtue of section 17 of the General Rate Act 1967. The appellants appealed, by way of a case stated, from a decision of the Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate for South Westminster (May 4 1988) that they were liable to pay rates for the period.
The appellants contended that the exceptions to liability for rates, on an unoccupied hereditment, provided for in paras 2(a) and (b) of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act applied to them. In particular they were prohibited from occupying the hereditament for two reasons: (1) between March 31 1984 and May 21 1985, by reason of a notice served under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in respect of the discovery of brown asbestos during refurbishment works; and (2) between March 31 1984 and March 31 1986, because a planning permission granted in 1966 for the provision of 12 shops had elapsed, or had been extinguished by a later permission that had itself expired.
Held The appeal was allowed in part.
1. Between March 31 1984 and May 21 1985, the appellants were prohibited by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 from occupying the hereditament; and this was the reason for keeping the hereditament vacant. The effect of section 4(2) of the 1974 Act was to require the appellants to vacate the hereditament in the “rateable occupation” sense; any occupation during this period would have been a breach of this provision. Accordingly, the appellants were exempt from unoccupied hereditament rates by virtue of paras 2(a) and (b) of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act for this period.
2. The planning permission granted in 1966 was for a mixed complex including 12 shops; it could not be construed as separate permissions. Although the shops were not provided at the time, the permission had been implemented and, despite an intervening temporary permission between 1968 and 1984 as an air terminal, the provision of the shops could still be achieved. The premises had not been so altered as to make this impossible: see Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 WLR 1527. Therefore, the planning legislation did not prevent the rateable occupation of the hereditament; rates were payable for the period after May 21 1985.
Guy Roots QC (instructed by Hamlin Slowe) appeared for the appellants; and Richard Hone (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the respondents.
