[2000] EWLands RA_11_2000 (14 July 2000)	RA/11/2000

	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
	
RATING - shop - material change of circumstances - closure of nearby shops - rents of other shops - whether evidence of reduction in value of appeal property - appeal dismissed

IN THE MATTER of an APPEAL against a DECISION of the
	LONDON NORTH EAST VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN	E J BLACKWELL 	Appellant

	and
		
	ALUN WYNNE EVANS	Respondent
	(Valuation Officer)

	Re:	155 Leytonstone Road,
	London E15

	Before: P H Clarke FRICS

	Hearing under the simplified procedure at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2
	on 19 June 2000

The appellant in person.
The respondent valuation officer in person with leave of the Tribunal.

DECISION OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL

1.	This is an appeal by the ratepayer of a shop against the decision of a local valuation tribunal confirming the valuation officer’s reduced assessment in the 1995 rating list.  It was heard under the simplified procedure.  
2.	The appellant ratepayer, Mr E J Blackwell, appeared in person.  The respondent valuation officer, Mr Alun Wynne Evans FRICS, appeared in person with leave of the Tribunal.  
3.	155 Leytonstone Road (“the appeal property”) is a mid-terrace lock-up shop situated in a poor secondary trading position in a mixed shopping, commercial and residential area on the west side of Leytonstone Road about three-quarters of a mile from Stratford Broadway.  Accommodation is on ground floor and basement.  
4.	The appeal property was originally entered in the 1995 rating list with a rateable value of £5,000.  On 18 February 1999 Mr Blackwell made a proposal to reduce the assessment to £2,500 with effect from 1994 on the grounds that circumstances affecting the rateable value changed in 1990.  Mr Blackwell listed several changes in the locality.  The resultant appeal against this proposal was heard by London North East Valuation Tribunal and by a decision dated 30 November 1999 the tribunal confirmed the valuation officer’s reduced assessment of £4,775.  On 20 January 2000 Mr Blackwell appealed against that decision to this Tribunal.
5.	Mr Blackwell’s proposal is not entirely clear.  The local valuation tribunal treated it as a proposal seeking a reduction in the assessment of the appeal property on the grounds of a material change of circumstances, the closure of nearby shops.  At the hearing before me Mr Blackwell confirmed that this is the meaning of his proposal and the basis of his appeal although he was looking for a reduced assessment for the period prior to the introduction of the 1995 rating list.  The valuation officer’s case was directed to support for his reduced assessment, confirmed by the local valuation tribunal.  Mr Blackwell now accepts that the rateable value of his shop, before any reduction which may be due to a change of material circumstances, is £4,775 but argues that this figure should be reduced to £3,160 to take into account changes which have occurred in the locality.  The questions for my determination are therefore first, what material changes have taken place between the compilation of the 1995 rating list on 1 April 1995 and the date of the proposal, 18 February 1999; and secondly, have those changes reduced the rateable value below £4,775?  The burden of proof is on Mr Blackwell.  He must show, on the evidence before me, that the lower tribunal were wrong to confirm a revised assessment of £4,775.  The rateable value of the appeal property for the purposes of the 1995 rating list is to be equal to the rent of the property on an annual tenancy (on full repairing and insuring terms) on the assumption that the property and locality were as they existed at the date of the proposal, 18 February 1999, but having regard to the level of values as at 1 April 1993.
6.	I have inspected Leytonstone Road in the vicinity of the appeal property.  The first question for my consideration is what changes have occurred between April 1995 and February 1999?  Mr Blackwell put forward various changes but an examination of the facts shows that some of them occurred before 1 April 1995, and are therefore already reflected in the rateable value of £4,775, and some took place after 18 February 1999, the date of the proposal, and cannot be taken into account.  Three changes occurred between 1995 and February 1999: the closure for trading of shops at 84-6, 153 and 185 Leytonstone Road.  Nos. 84-6 Leytonstone Road closed at some time in 1996 or 1997.  No.153 closed in 1993, re-opened for trading for six months and then closed again in August 1995.  No.185 closed in 1998.  The vacation of nearby shops can be a material change of circumstances which may justify a reduced assessment.  
7.	The second question for my consideration is whether these changes have reduced the rateable value of the appeal property?  Mr Blackwell referred to rents of two shops in Leytonstone Road, nos.39 and 57-59, which he said proved that his rateable value should be reduced.  To succeed in this appeal by referring to reduced rents of other shops Mr Blackwell must show that there is a connection between the closure of the shops at 84-6, 153 and 185 Leytonstone Road and the reduced rents of nos.39 and 57-59, that is to say that the closures caused the reduced rents, and that these reduced rents are evidence of a reduction in value of the appeal property. 
8.	39 Leytonstone Road was let for 15 years from October 1988 at an initial rent of £6,500 per annum with rent reviews every four years, the tenant responsible for all outgoings.  In August 1998 it was let for five years at a rent of £6,000 per annum with the landlord responsible for external repairs and insurance and the tenants responsible for internal repairs.  59 Leytonstone Road was let for six years from September 1987 at a rent of £5,200 per annum, subject to review in 1990.  The tenant was responsible for internal repairs.  In December 1997 no.59 was let with the adjoining shop, no.57, for 15 years at a rent of £7,000 per annum with five yearly rent reviews.  
9.	I do not find these rents helpful in deciding whether the closure of the shops at 84-6, 153 and 185 Leytonstone Road has reduced the value of the appeal property.  Nos.39 and 57-9 are some way to the south of the appeal property and the adjoining empty shops, close to Maryland station in a different trading location.  I think it unlikely that the closure of the shops at 84-6, 153 and 185 Leytonstone Road caused the rents of nos.39 and 57-9 to fall.  I find these rents of no assistance when deciding whether the rateable value of the appeal property has been reduced by the closure of three nearby shops.  
10.	For reasons of uniformity of assessment, the rateable value of a property cannot be reduced due to a fall in values since the valuation date for the rating list, in this case 1 April 1993.  An assessment can be reduced where the fall in values is due to a material change of circumstances, in this case the closure of nearby shops.  It must however be proved that the fall in values is due to the change (the closure of the shops) and not to a change in economic conditions, such as a general or local fall in rental values.  A connection between physical changes and reductions in rental value is usually difficult to prove.  It requires expert evidence: an analysis of changing rental values by a valuer with experience in the particular area.  Mr Blackwell did not refer me to any other evidence (eg. agreed reduced assessments) to show that the rateable value of the appeal property should be reduced.  Mr Blackwell has been unable to prove that the closure of nearby shops has reduced the annual value of his shop and, if so, by how much.  Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the decision of the local valuation tribunal confirming a reduced assessment of rateable value £4,775 is wrong.  The appeal is dismissed.  I make no order as to costs.
			DATED: 14 July 2000

			(Signed: P H Clarke)