Act: Gill, Advocate; Simpson & Marwick

Alt: MacIver, Advocate; Brodies LLP

2 July 2010

[1] This appeal relates to premises occupied by the respondents at 135‑136 Princes Street, Edinburgh. Following a hearing on 10 December 2009, the Lothian Valuation Committee allowed an appeal by the respondents against the rateable value of £211,250 entered in the roll in respect of the premises, on the ground that there had been a material change of circumstances by reason of works forming part of the Edinburgh tramway project carried out in Princes Street between 21 February and 29 November 2009. A 20% reduction for the relevant period was allowed. The Assessor has appealed against that decision, and in particular the decision to allow any reduction.

[2] This appeal gives rise to a number of questions all of which are also raised by the Assessor in the appeals taken by her against H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited and Others and Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, and this decision falls to be read along with the decisions issued today in those appeals. The premises are in the same part of Princes Street as the premises in the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc appeal.

[3] In the body of the Stated Case, the Committee record that the following facts were found to be admitted or proved.

"1. The findings in the Stated Cases Lothian Assessor v H.M. Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited and Others (relating to various retail properties situated on Princes Street) and Lothian Assessor v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (relating to the bank premises at 142-144 Princes Street) are held as repeated herein brevitatis causa.

2.                 The subjects were valued at a negotiated and settled rateable value of £211,250 in the 2005 Revaluation. During the first stage of the tram construction works in the street outside the subjects of appeal, the subjects received a temporary allowance of 20%. During that period from 1^st May 2008 to 31^st August 2008 the subjects were entered in the Valuation Roll by the Assessor at a reduced figure of £169,000 NAV/RV. They were similarly affected in a second stage of tram-works between 21^st February and 29^th November 2009. During that period there was a material change of circumstances, the effect of which was to reduce the value of the subjects of appeal. The change of circumstances materially reduced the extent to which beneficial occupation of the subjects can be enjoyed. The property had been valued on the comparative basis by reference to other retail properties located on Princes Street."

[4] In a short section headed "Reasons" the Committee explain their decision as follows:

"The valuation to today's subject was not based on office values. It had been valued by comparison with retail subjects. The Committee's decision on the Princes Street appeals heard 29^th October and 10^th November 2009, which are the subjects of a Stated Case requested by the Assessor and which involve a variety of ratepayers, starting with H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited in respect of a shop at 41 Princes Street, Edinburgh, was adopted and it was decided to allow this appeal on the basis of the reasoning in that decision and the decision on 8^th December. The reasons given in the Stated Cases Lothian Assessor v H.M. Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited and Lothian Assessor v Royal Bank of Scotland plc are held as repeated herein brevitatis causa."

[5] Junior counsel was content, in presenting this appeal, to adopt the principal arguments advanced on behalf of the Assessor in the H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited and Others appeal and, so far as relevant, the arguments advanced in the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc appeal. One argument not advanced in this appeal, however, is the argument raised in the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc appeal relating to section 2(1A) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, it being accepted that since the respondents in this case did not challenge the reduced entry for the period in 2008, that argument could not be advanced.

[6] For the reasons given in the other two appeals referred to, I am not persuaded by the arguments which the Assessor seeks to advance.

[7] In these circumstances, I propose that this appeal be refused.

Act: Gill, Advocate; Simpson & Marwick

Alt: MacIver, Advocate; Brodies LLP

2 July 2010

[8] For the reasons given by your Lordship in the chair, and those given in my opinion in the related appeal of H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited and Others, I am of the view that this appeal falls to be refused.

Act: Gill, Advocate; Simpson & Marwick

Alt: Maciver, Advocate; Brodies, LLP

2 July 2010

[9] I have had the benefit of reading a draft of Lord Kingarth's opinion. For the reasons he gives, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. There is nothing that I can usefully add.