A property development company instructed Samuel Okoronkwo Jr. in relation to ongoing planning issues concerning the proposed redevelopment and change of use of a commercial site. The local authority had previously rejected proposals relating to development within the Green Belt, and Counsel advised that a revised scheme demonstrating significant economic value and employment creation could improve the prospects of obtaining planning support. The proposed scheme contemplated the redevelopment of part of the site to provide office and employment space.
The client was also dealing with outstanding issues concerning fencing and lighting applications, together with objections and concerns raised by the local authority. Counsel advised that these matters should be progressed separately while work was undertaken with an architect to prepare a more substantial planning scheme. The client was also involved in a dispute concerning the valuation of the site for non-domestic rates. The valuation office had retrospectively assessed the property at a substantially higher rate, based on its use for storage and the physical characteristics of the site, despite the client disputing the effective date and the extent of the use attributed to the property.
The principal issues concerned how best to progress the planning application and obtain the local authority’s support for the proposed change of use, as well as challenging the increased non-domestic rates valuation. Counsel considered the potential benefits of preparing a revised development scheme demonstrating economic value, including employment creation, and establishing a constructive relationship with the planning officer before submitting a further application.
In relation to the business rates, the client disputed the retrospective increase and was concerned that the increased liability could cause significant financial difficulties. The client had previously been paying a substantially lower rate and had not yet obtained the proposed planning consent for the change of use. Counsel considered the distinction between the Valuation Office, which determines the valuation, and the local authority, which is responsible for enforcing payment. The client was also facing the prospect of a liability order and associated enforcement action.
Samuel Jr. advised that the client should work constructively with the local authority and planning officer and instructed that an architect be appointed to prepare a substantial scheme capable of demonstrating economic benefits to the area. Counsel advised that the proposed creation of employment space could assist in persuading the authority that exceptional circumstances existed to justify development and that several meetings should be arranged with the relevant officers to build support for the scheme before submitting a further application. Counsel also advised that the fencing and lighting issues should be progressed separately and that the minor amendment concerning the fencing could be left with the authority while awaiting its response.
In relation to the non-domestic rates dispute, Counsel advised that a formal appeal should be commenced against the valuation, particularly in relation to the retrospective assessment and the information relied upon by the Valuation Office. The client was advised to provide evidence concerning when the storage use actually commenced, the number and size of any structures on the site, the area used for open storage and the remaining undeveloped space. Counsel also advised that the local authority should be contacted to establish a holding position while the valuation was challenged and to propose payment by instalments rather than paying the full disputed liability immediately.
Counsel further advised that steps should be taken to prevent a liability order being made while the dispute was ongoing, including correspondence with the local authority and the magistrates’ court. The client was advised that, if an agreement could not be reached, the matter could proceed to a hearing concerning the liability order. The overall strategy was to challenge the disputed valuation while maintaining payment of an agreed amount pending resolution and simultaneously progressing the planning application. The matter demonstrates the importance of coordinating planning and valuation issues where a change of use and redevelopment of commercial land may significantly affect the property’s rating liability.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy