For appellant: Miss Locke

For respondent: MacIver; McClure Naismith

7 December 2011

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Valuation Appeal Committee for Dunbartonshire & Argyll and Bute (the Committee) by which it allowed an appeal by the respondent against the entry in the Valuation Roll for the Roundabout Inn, Balloch in the 2005 Revaluation. It heard that appeal along with the appeal relating to the Boulevard Hotel, Clydebank which it also allowed (cf Ass for Dunbartonshire & Argyll and Bute v Akram and Anor [2011] CSIH 79).

[2] Both cases have come before us on appeal by the assessor. I refer to the Opinions of the court in the latter case for the background and the relevant statutory provisions.

The history

[3] The valuation of the subjects in this case at the 2005 Revaluation was of course made in accordance with the scheme of the Scottish Assessors' Association (SAA) for licensed premises. In about 2006 the respondent appealed against the entry in the 2005 Roll on the basis that during the currency of the Roll there had been a material change of circumstances, namely the effects on turnover of the statutory ban on smoking in public places which came into force in March 2006. That appeal was settled on the parties' agreement that the NAV/RV should be £37,000, and the Roll was amended to that effect. The adjusted turnover of the subjects at the time of the amendment was £432,621.

[4] Thereafter the assessor reviewed the valuation of the subjects for the purposes of the 2010 Revaluation, the tone date of which was 1 April 2008. On the basis of the SAA scheme for the 2010 Revaluation, the adjusted turnover of the premises at the tone date was £379,053. On that figure the 2010 scheme produced a rateable value of £32,500.

The decision appealed against

[5] In line with its decision in the case of Akram (supra), the Committee decided that the valuation of the premises as at 1 April 2008 - a date that lay within the currency of the 2005 Revaluation - proved that the turnover at that date was significantly less than the turnover on which the 2005 valuation had been based. It concluded that "the evidence of downturn in turnover in both premises amounted to a valid material change in circumstances."

Conclusions

[6] In this case, unlike the case of Akram (supra), the subjects have been valued as licensed premises at both revaluations. One of our reasons for allowing the appeal in Akram therefore does not apply. However, I consider that all of our other reasons do apply.

Disposal

[7] I propose to your Lordships that we should allow the assessor's appeal, set aside the decision of the Committee and restore the valuation that it varied.

For appellant: Miss Locke

For respondent: MacIver; McClure Naismith

7 December 2011

[8] I agree with your Lordship in the chair and there is nothing I can usefully add.

For appellant: Miss Locke

For respondent: MacIver; McClure Naismith

7 December 2011

[9] I agree with your Lordship in the chair and I have nothing further to add.