Written question asked by Austin Mitchell (Labour) on Monday, 29 March 2010, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Tuesday, 6 April 2010. It was answered by Barbara Follett (Labour) on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Non-Domestic Rates: Ports

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what procedures were used to implement the separate rating of port companies in each year since 1999; and how many such companies were (a) visited and (b) notified of their rating by a representative of the Valuation Office Agency in each year since 1999.

Answer: The principles concerning separate rateability where there is 'exclusive occupation' and 'paramount control' are long established and predate the ports review as well as the end of prescribed rating. The lead case on this subject is a House of Lords decision which dates back to 1936—Westminster Council v. Southern Railway Company and W.H. Smith and Son. There was, therefore no 'implementation' of a new separate ratings policy either after or before 1999. In other words, any property, other than a statutory port authority, that met the separate assessment criteria, even before 1999, should have been rated separately.The Valuation Office Agency have advised us that since May 2006, it has inspected over 800 properties (hereditaments) within 55 ports in England and Wales as part of the ports review.Information was collected from the statutory port operators, ratepayers and through physical inspection of the property. In cases where the information supported separate assessment, the ratepayer was served a notice informing them of the assessment.The agency does not maintain records of the number of properties within ports inspected and notified in each year since 1999. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Secondary information