Valuation Office Agency
August 11
11:42
2023
| Office buildings where issue is vertical proximity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Whole building of ground and 6 floors let as single leases but occupied by a single ratepayer. Lavatories on each floor in common parts. | All parts form a self-contained hereditament | Single hereditament for whole building |
| Similar building but occupied by two ratepayers who each occupy whole floors. Floors GF to 3F and 4F to 6F. | There should be 7 hereditaments even though on a pre Woolway understanding this would have been 2 hereditaments | Each floor forms its own self-contained unit. |
| Similar building but each floor is occupied separately | 7 hereditaments | |
| Similar building but owner lets off one floor and occupies the rest. | 7 hereditaments | Each floor forms its own self-contained unit. |
| Similar building in multi occupation but tenant of 3F, 4F and 5F inserts a private staircase between these floors | 4 hereditaments. 3F, 4F and 5F will be one as they are intercommunicating. | |
| Similar building newly constructed but not yet at all occupied | When occupied the building could form one or several hereditaments | VO should consider what is the likely pattern of occupation and assess accordingly (see BRR v. Hopkins (VO) [1981] RA 328) either as a single assessment or 7 hereditaments as appropriate. Essentially this is a practical consideration. What does the VO think likely? Examining the marketing literature and letting agents comments are relevant. |
| Car parking spaces at ground floor or in basement | If specific individual spaces or blocks of spaces are allocated to a particular occupier then the spaces or contiguous blocks (if existing) should be separately assessed to that occupier. | If no specific allocation then include within individual floor valuation with no mention in the description. The benefit is included but they do not form part of the office hereditaments. |
| Office buildings where issue is based on horizontal proximity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Converted premises where individual rooms are accessed from shared corridor where some rooms are next to each other but not intercommunicating | The same principle should apply as with floors. Because the rooms are not intercommunicating, albeit touching and occupied by the same occupier, they should be separately assessed. | |
| Office units that adjoin each other but do not intercommunicate except via common parts. | The same principle should apply as with floors. Because the rooms are not intercommunicating, albeit touching and occupied by the same occupier, they should be separately assessed. |
| Retail premises where issue is based on horizontal proximity | |
|---|---|
| Adjacent premises with no intercommunication with same occupier | Separate assessments required |
| Adjacent premises intercommunicating | Single assessment |
| Industrial premises where issue is based on horizontal proximity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Two factory unitsnot adjoining | Separate assessments required | |
| Adjacent premises on a horizontal plane intercommunicating internally | Single assessment | |
| Adjacent premises on a horizontal plane not intercommunicating internally. | It may be that the yard/car parking at the front or rear is in single occupation and therefore the premises are intercommunicating within the hereditament. One assessment. | Otherwise two hereditaments. |
| Non-contiguous premises facing each other across a public road and occupied by the same company where the two premises comprise specialised properties used together for a specialised process. | The test is not whether the two parts are functionally essential the one to the other as under the old Gilbert v. Hickinbottom test) but whether one part could be separately let and therefore separately occupied without significant detriment to the other part (see para 3.4). | It is important to note the actual use made by the particular occupier is not the test but instead it is the nature of the premises which needs to be examined. It might well be these two parts will form a single hereditament because one or both could not be separately let as they only have a use with the other part. |
| Other situations | |
|---|---|
| This is the Stamp (VO) v. Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees situation. | The planning situation appears to make it not possible to separately let the church hall without substantial detriment to it if planning enforcement action would be taken. |