“In coming to a decision, the Tribunal had to consider the level of interdependence between the school and the leisure centre, bearing in mind that both premises were (until1 April 2003 ) in the same occupation. In other words, to what extent did functional essentiality exist. Unfortunately the budget of the assessments was not available, as details of staff costs; takings, recharges, etc. would have been useful, although presumably only leisure centre staff ran the leisure centre. Looking at the ‘York Railway’ case, the Tribunal also had to consider if the school and leisure centre were used for different purposes. The members were of the opinion that they were as the school is used for educational purposes, although the public library in the building is arguably used partly for educational purposes. 6 Both parties were agreed that public use of the leisure centre was greater than for school use. But the members were of the opinion that the leisure centre could function without the presence of the school and the school could also function without the presence of the leisure centre. It is however convenient for the school to have these facilities next door but the PE function could be fulfilled using facilities elsewhere at the expense of more travelling time/costs. So although both facilities are contiguous to each other, and although the leisure centre was erected on land provided by the Education Committee and probably funded by the same committee, both could exist without the other.”
“The case therefore raises the important question, what is a separate hereditament for rating purposes? The statutes contain no definition, but the practice which has prevailed for many years warrants the following general rules: First, take the case where two or more properties are within the same curtilage or contiguous to one another, and are in the same occupation. In that case they are, as a general rule, to be treated for rating purposes as if they formed parts of a single hereditament. There are, however, exceptional cases where for some special reason they may be treated as two or more hereditaments. That may happen, for instance, when they are situate in different rating areas, or because they were valued at different times (see section 3(3) of the…[Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 ]): or 8 because they were at one time in different occupations (see Spillers Ltd v Cardiff Assessment Committee, per Avory J); or because one part is used for an entirely different purpose (see North Eastern Railway Co v Guardians of York Union).”
“Whether or not premises in one occupation fall to be entered in the valuation list as one or more hereditaments depends upon a number of considerations. Without attempting an exhaustive list, the following considerations can be mentioned:- (1) Whether the premises are in more than one rating area… (2) Whether two or more parts of the premises are capable of being separately let. If not, then the premises must be entered as a single hereditament. (3) Whether the premises form a single geographical unit. (4) Whether though forming a single geographical unit the premises by their structure and layout consist of two or more separate parts. (5) Whether the occupier finds it necessary or convenient to use the premises as a whole for one purpose, or whether he uses different parts of the premises for different purposes. Whereas a consideration of questions (1) and (2) will in certain events conclude the matter one way or the other, the same does not, I think, result from a consideration of any one of the other questions alone. The conclusion, where the considerations of (1) and (2) are not decisive, must depend on the weight to be attached on the facts of each case to the other considerations. No doubt the most important of these other considerations is whether the premises form a geographical unit. Can they be ringed round on a map?”
“Each case must be considered on its particular facts, due weight being given to the degree and nature of the separation on the one hand and the importance of the functional connexion on the other.”
“I agree that it is almost entirely a question of fact. If the whole of the whole of these different portions of property were one hereditament, they ought to be rated in one lump sum, and whether they are one hereditament or more seems to me to be a question of fact. One thing I think is clear, that property must be rated according to what it is, and not according to what it might be. You may have a thing which, as it is, is one hereditament, but which is quite capable of being made into two. The owner of a field may sell half of it, and it may become two hereditaments in different occupations; but while it is undivided it is one hereditament. The fact that the different portions of the property here are capable of being made separate hereditaments is immaterial. The facts stated by the arbitrator shew that at present they are one, though possibly with some slight alteration they might be made into separate hereditaments.”
“We are not asked to give any opinion about the hotel and refreshment rooms. If we had to give a decision upon them, I think the matter would be one of greater difficulty. If it is a mere question of fact whether the hotel is to be treated as a separate hereditament from the rest of the station, speaking for myself, I should be inclined to find that it ought to be so treated. In arriving at that conclusion I should be influenced by the fact that the hotel and the rest of the railway station are used for wholly different purposes. It would be like the case of a man occupying two shops, in one of which he carried on one business, and in the other another business.”