Police stations and other police hereditaments
This publication is intended for Valuation Officers. It may contain links to internal resources that are not available through this version.
This instruction applies to all hereditaments occupied by Territorial Police Forces in England and Wales with the exception of police training colleges. In this respect the term police station should not be defined too narrowly but should be taken to include police headquarter buildings and training facilities (other than colleges).
List description: police station and premises
Scat code 215 Suffix G
This is a generalist class and responsibility for valuation lies with the Regional Valuation Units (RVU). Queries of a complex nature arising from the valuation of individual properties should be referred to the Class Co-ordination Team (CCT) Facilitator for Valuation Panel 4 CCT - Emergency via the RVU CCT representative.
Valuation Panel 4 CCT - Emergency has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of this class. The CCT is responsible for the approach to and accuracy and consistency of valuations for police stations. The CCT will deliver practice notes describing the valuation basis for revaluation and provide advice as necessary during the life of the rating list. Caseworkers have a responsibility to:
- follow the advice given at all times
- not depart from the guidance given on appeals or maintenance work without approval from the co-ordination team
- seek advice from the CCT should any issues arise that are not covered in this instruction.
Purpose built police stations are a sui–generis class and consequently, as a general rule, only evidence relating to hereditaments in the same mode or category of use is pertinent.
See
-
Scottish and Newcastle (Retail) Ltd v Williams (VO) (RA 2000 P 119) and the subsequent Court of Appeal decision –Williams (VO) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail and Allied Domecq [RA 2001 P 41)
-
re the appeal of Reeves (VO) RA 2007 P168
-
Dawkins (VO) v Royal Leamington Spa BC and Warwickshire County Council (1961) RVR 291.
See VOA Rating manual: part 2 - material change of circumstances including mode or category thereof for further guidance on mode or category of use.
However, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to have regard to rental evidence derived from other modes or categories of use such as general office use, particularly where the hereditament might reasonably be described as “offices occupied by the police”– see para 8.1 below and Re. the Appeal of Reeves (VO) [2007] RA/74/2005.
6.1 Method of measurement
Police stations may be valued by either the rentals method or by reference to the Contractors basis. The basis of valuation will determine the method of measurement required: Net Internal Area (NIA) in respect of the rentals method and Gross Internal Area (GIA) in respect of the Contractors basis. It will be necessary to ascertain the basis of valuation prior to inspection but in case of doubt sufficient measurement and survey information should be recorded to enable valuations to be carried out using either basis.
6.2 Description
6.2.1 Hereditaments occupied by the 39 territorial police forces in England and the 4 in Wales are extremely varied in terms of construction , layout and size, characteristics which are largely dictated by their function.
6.2.2 The smallest police stations will cater for only limited public access, consisting of a reception area with enquiry desk and a small office with w/c and mess area but with no cells/custody suite. At the other extreme regional HQs will contain a full range of facilities which may include extensive offices, staff facilities, custody suites, identification parade facilities, victim examination suites, scene of crime suites, major incident facilities, training facilities , rifle ranges, garages, workshops of various types, stables, dog training or rearing facilities. Some of the more specialised facilities will normally be found as separate stand-alone hereditaments, these including purpose built custody suites
6.2.3 The majority of police hereditaments are purpose-built. Exceptions are stations housed in shop units. There are also a small number of police stations, which are known to have been physically adapted from office premises acquired on the open market. The considerable range of administrative work undertaken by police forces may in some cases lead to occupation of ordinary office hereditaments.
6.3 Requirements
Unit of assessment
Where co-located with other emergency services it is possible that unit of assessment issues may arise, particularly where some facilities are shared. In these circumstances the principles referred to in VOA Rating Manual: Part 1 - hereditament should be adhered to. In cases of difficulty advice from the NVU specialist should be obtained.
Survey detail
The following information is required
A plan (CAD) or otherwise should be obtained where available and check dimensions made on site as necessary; otherwise a plan should be drawn up
Method of construction - for example traditional brick and tile or steel framed
Dimensions (where measured to NIA) and description of the accommodation for example offices, interview room, mess facilities, cell accommodation, rifle range etc. with details of internal finish, insulation, heating, lighting etc
Where the contractors basis is to be the method of valuation only the GIA of individual building(s) is required unless there is a significant variation in the type of accommodation For example where a custody suite forms part of a building which otherwise consists of offices and staff accommodation a separate GIA will be required in respect of the custody suite. Likewise for such facilities as rifle ranges, garages, workshops, stables, dog training etc.
i. Description and detail of services to the hereditament e.g. heating, air conditioning, security systems (to include CCTV, barriers, gates and perimeter fencing), solar panels, wind turbines etc ii. Number of car parking spaces for police vehicles, staff and visitors- or/and parking area, the nature of the surface, a note of the extent of site landscaping and, where present, helicopter landing area areas, skid pans and the like. iii. A description of the means of access to the highway and a note of the proximity to major trunk /arterial/ring roads. iv. Establish by enquiry the number of staff present on site.
Survey information including plans are to be stored on EDRM. Where the police station is to be valued using the Contractors basis the GIA of the building(s) is to be entered onto the valuation spreadsheet held on the non-bulk server (NBS). Where the police station is to be valued using the rentals method then data, utilising appropriate BCI and sub location codes, should be captured within RSA.
8.1 The rental method should be applied where there is (a) direct rental evidence or (b) rental evidence derived from the letting of other police stations or (c) there is sufficient evidence from other localities to establish that the rents relating to police stations are at a level commensurate with other modes or categories of use such as office uses. When considering rents relating to police stations care should be taken to ensure that they can be suitably adjusted to accord with the rating hypothesis and are not otherwise of a nature which may prejudice their evidential weight – for example, lettings between connected parties, sale and leaseback, etc.
8.2 It is possible that the tenant’s alternative to a traditional police station would be for operational and administrative duties to be located in buildings for which a rental market exists whilst custody and certain other specialised uses would be located in a centralised facility. In this scenario the application of the rentals method may be justified subject to the limitation in 8.3 below.
8.3 It is considered that the rentals method will only be appropriate in circumstances where the police station is in the nature of an office, has less than 10% of the GIA of the total area (excluding extensive garaging and other external ancillary accommodation not normally found at office accommodation) given over to cell/custody suite and has no other specialised facilities. Further guidance will be provided in the practice note applicable to the relevant Rating List.
8.4 Retail units used as police stations will fall to be assessed on the rentals method. As some examples of this type are known to be rented, it may be presumed that all examples may be valued by reference to retail tone unless evidence is available to demonstrate the rental value is at a different level for that particular use.
8.5 Where the rentals method is adopted it is not appropriate to make a deduction for sui-generis use as the premise of the basis of the valuation assumes that the hypothetical tenant is, in the alternative to renting the subject police station, willing and able to compete in the office market and that in the main the actual hereditament will more closely match the hypothetical tenants requirements.. However where a station no longer matches police requirements and suffers from disabilities of layout not associated with offices from which the rental base has been derived an end allowance should be considered.
8.6 In adopting rental levels drawn from office premises it should be noted that some police stations are located in prime areas purely by historic accident. In such instances location in peak areas may not be operationally essential. Where it is not, it will be appropriate to adopt rental levels found in other areas within which the police station might alternatively be located without any operational detriment.
8.7 Some police stations will include cells/custody suites which are disused or used for some purpose other than the holding of detainees, their function having been superseded by centralised facilities elsewhere. In these circumstances the accommodation should be valued accordingly. Where the use of cells/suites has changed since AVD, it is important to ascertain the operational reason for the change. In the majority of instances this will be as a consequence of a material change of circumstances in the locality e.g. the provision of replacement facilities elsewhere and in those circumstances it will be appropriate to reflect the lack of demand within the hereditament for custody accommodation. However if the change of use has arisen solely as a consequence of policy changes and/or a fall in arrest and detention rates post AVD, then the cell/custody suite should continue to be valued on the basis that a demand exists for its original purpose. Some Police Authorities despite having introduced centralised custody suites may have kept some cells operational in local police stations for weekend or emergency use only. Such accommodation should be treated as fully operational facilities.
8.8 All other police stations should be assessed by reference to the Contractors basis in accordance with Rating Manual Volume 4 Section 3 and the practice note applicable to the relevant Rating List.
Valuations on the rentals method are to be carried out on the Rating Support Application. Valuations undertaken using the Contractors basis are to be carried out using the dedicated police station spreadsheet held on the non-bulk server (NBS).
1. Market Appraisal
1.1 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced the concept of collaboration agreements between the 3 “blue light” services i.e. Police Authorities, Ambulance Trusts and Fire and Rescue Authorities. The Act obliges the emergency services in England to keep under consideration whether entering into a collaboration agreement with one or more other relevant emergency services in England could be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of that service and those other services. This provision together with the ongoing drive for efficiency savings is likely to further encourage the development of multi service sites with certain facilities shared between the “blue light” occupiers on those sites.
1.2 There are a number of stations which have been built as a move to running an estate which is fit for purpose and replacing old and outdated buildings proceeds. The move toward centralisation of custody facilities has continued with new suites being provided in several areas as forces seek to comply with the guidelines “Safer Detention and Handling of Persons in Police Custody (2012)”. Some suites are now primarily managed by private sector security specialists and this may have implications as regard the identification of the rateable occupier and the unit of assessment.
1.3 There have been discussions concerning the merger of some forces in an endeavour to achieve efficiencies but these have not progressed to fruition as at 1st April 2021, although innovative use of real estate such as the sharing of new facilities with other emergency services, magistrates’ courts and local authorities continues.
1.4 Examples of new facilities provided since 1st April 2015 can be found by Internet enquiry.
2. Changes from the 2017 Practice Note
2.1 The Market Appraisal section has been re-written and there are changes to building costs and Age & Obsolescence scales.
3. Ratepayer Discussions
3.1 No discussions with the police forces or their representatives have taken place.
4. Valuation Scheme
4.1 Purpose built police stations are a sui generis class for rating purposes, albeit due to the centralisation of specialist uses, many police stations are now only used for administrative purposes. It is therefore of vital importance to establish the facts on the ground for each property both at the Antecedent Valuation Date (AVD) and the material day before deciding on the valuation method to adopt.
4.2 Broadly speaking, police stations and premises will either be valued adopting the rentals or Contractor’s approach. The rentals basis will be adopted if there was no functioning custody facility as at the AVD and material day, or other specialist facilities present such as stables, firing ranges etc. The Contractor’s basis will be appropriate for police stations with operational custody, freestanding custody centres and specialist training facilities.
4.3 Rentals Basis
4.3.1 Where it is established as at both the AVD and material day that a police station is only used for administrative purposes, then the rentals method is appropriate. Many police stations are purpose built and will have an element of cell accommodation. However, if the custody suite was not in use/obsolete as at the AVD and there are no other specialist uses, then the rentals method should be adopted. Prevailing office values in the vicinity should be used (unless the property is a retail unit), with appropriate relativities applied to storage, garaging and other ancillary facilities. Where former cell accommodation is used for storage, it should be valued as such.
4.3.2 Valuers should consult with the individual police force to confirm the designated (full-time use), non-designated (emergency/overspill use) and obsolete custody suites as at the AVD and material day. Cells used part time or for over-spill at busy periods are to be treated as operational. Another valuable source of custody use information can be sought from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) (formerly known as HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). HMICFRS produce reports at 4-5 yearly intervals confirming which sites have operational custody within each force area.
4.3.3 If custody is closed between the AVD and material day, further investigation is required to ascertain the reason for closure and determine the hypothetical tenant’s requirements as at the material date. Custody facilities may cease operational use for either economic reasons (i.e. cost saving) or as a consequence of a material change of circumstances in the locality e.g. the provision of replacement facilities elsewhere. The particular circumstances will determine whether it will be appropriate to reflect the lack of demand within the hereditament for custody accommodation and hence adopt the rentals method. If the cessation of custody use is driven by economic reasons only and that decision is not made until after AVD then the hereditament should continue to be valued on the contractor’s method as before with the full appropriate value attributed to the custody accommodation.
4.3.4 Where the rentals method is adopted, it has been accepted that no allowance will be made for sui-generis use. However, where a police station suffers from superfluity or disabilities of layout not associated with offices from which the rental base has been derived, an end allowance may be appropriate if not already reflected in the unit rate.
4.3.5 In adopting rental levels drawn from office premises it should be noted that some police stations are located in prime areas purely by historic accident. In such instances location in peak areas may not be operationally essential. Where it is not, it will be appropriate to adopt rental levels found in other areas within which the police station might alternatively be located without any operational detriment.
4.4 Contractor’s Basis
4.4.1 Police stations with functioning custody or other specialist facilities, stand-alone custody centres and specialist police training facilities should be valued adopting the Contractor’s basis of valuation. For the purposes of this MoA, training facilities will include stand-alone facilities such as firing ranges and riot training buildings but not police training colleges, which should be valued as educational establishments on the College of Education or University basis.
4.4.2 During GPCR discussions the building costs of a number of police stations with custody, stand- alone custody centres and training facilities, built from 2012 onwards. Examples of new facilities provided can be found by Internet enquiry.
4.4.3 In circumstances where the Contractor’s basis of valuation is deemed appropriate, it is to be applied in accordance with VOA Rating Manual - Part 3: The contractor’s basis of valuation using the guidance below in relation to each stage of the valuation process.
4.4.4 The costs shown in this section are for ease of reference. In all cases where a cost guide code is shown it is this that which must be input into the NBS template, not the costs shown here. Where the cost guide code shows options, the costs shown in this practice note should be used to aid selection. Should the cost guide show different costs to those shown in a current version of this practice note, please refer to the Class Co-ordination Team (CCT).
4.5 Stage 1 – Estimated Replacement Cost
4.5.1 Building Costs
4.5.2 With the exception of areas that are not used at the AVD and have no prospect of being used (principally redundant cells), the actual GIA of the station should be used to calculate the Estimated Replacement Cost (Stage 1) of the hereditament in accordance with Appendix A. Guidance in relation to the treatment of superfluity is given in the Rating Manual section relating to police stations at paragraph 8.7.
4.5.3 For the avoidance of doubt unless the hereditament concerned is a police training college it is not appropriate to cost the buildings by reference to costs relating to colleges of further education.
4.5.4 External Works
4.5.5 The cost of external works is to be added in accordance with Appendix B.
4.5.6 Location factors
4.5.7 Where appropriate costs should be adjusted for location by reference to the Location Factors set down in the 2023 Rating Cost Guide and included at Appendix C.
4.5.8 Contract Size Adjustment
4.5.9 Contract size adjustments should be made in accordance with the guidance given in the 2023 Rating Cost Guide and included at Appendix D.
4.5.10 Professional Fees and Charges
4.5.11 Professional fees and charges are to be added for in accordance with the guidance given in the 2023 Cost Guide and included at Appendix E.
4.6 Stage 2 – Age and Obsolescence
4.6.1 The Estimated Replacement Cost (ERC) established at Stage 1 above is converted to Adjusted Replacement Cost (ARC) by applying an age and obsolescence allowance.
4.6.2 The standard age and obsolescence allowances (non–industrial) to be applied to the ERC of the individual blocks of permanent buildings are set out in Rating Manual: section 4 part 3 - the Contractor’s basis of valuation. Adjustments for age and obsolescence should be made in accordance with Appendix F. Separate scales are provided within for 1) Police Stations, 2) Separate and distinct stores i.e. stand-alone garage/workshop(s) areas then the industrial age/obsolescence scale should be applied and 3) Temporary buildings.
4.6.3 The scales contained inAppendix F take into account the following salient points:
a. The age and obsolescence scales set out in the rating manual represent the combined age-related physical depreciation along with functional obsolescence and technological redundancy exhibited by buildings of each age typical for their quality/specification and condition. It is anticipated that the stated allowances will be adopted in the majority of cases and only either moderated or increased in exceptional circumstances.
b. Extensions are to be given an allowance appropriate to their age unless of a lower specification than would be expected of a building of that age in which case the allowance should be increased to a level appropriate to reflect the specification of the building as a whole.
c. In respect of physical depreciation, the above scales are intended to reflect normal wear and tear and/or deterioration due to the age of the building. The scales assume an average degree of cyclical refurbishment work will have been undertaken, to include whole or partial renewal of building sub-components, most particularly relating to mechanical and electrical services and internal fit-out, but also including periodic renewal of roof coverings and windows.
d. It follows from the above that no adjustment away from the scales is required in the majority of cases where older buildings have been subject to modernisation and refurbishment works, as these are explicitly assumed to have occurred. An exception to this would be for a building taken back to shell and reconstructed with significant renewal of structural elements, where an abatement of age-related physical obsolescence may be required.
e. An example of a building requiring an abatement of the allowances provided by the scales (due to the mitigation of physical depreciation) would be where a major renovation has occurred utilising the original building foundations, frame (including upper floors) but with comprehensive replacement of the external envelope (walls, windows), a complete internal refit and wholescale replacement of mechanical and electrical services.
f. Conversely, the above scales will be insufficient to reflect physical obsolescence in cases where buildings are substantially un-modernised and in any case, the scales do not apply in instances where the hereditament is not repairable at reasonable cost and where it falls to be valued rebus sic stantibus.
g. To qualify as a substantially un-modernised building it is expected that the building will predominantly have the following:
- single glazed windows
- original internal layout
- original ceiling height, with no suspended ceilings
- original external walls
- pre 1980 internal finishes (flooring, ceiling and walls, internal doors and fixtures and fittings)
This is not intended to be applicable to prestige buildings that add character and esteem to the hereditament.
h. In respect of functional and technological obsolescence, for buildings that remain in operational use, the scales include adjustments to reflect functional and technological deficiencies observable in buildings typical of their original period of construction but taking account of the level of assumed cyclical refurbishment reflected in the physical depreciation element of the scales.
i. The type of functional and technological obsolescence factors already reflected in the scales include the following:
- poor energy efficiency and/or environmental sustainability
- inappropriate layout inhibiting flexible and efficient space utilization
- modern health and safety, fire or building regulations that preclude or limit the original purposes of the building
- dated design practices that restrict modern usage (such as lack of/or minimal floor and ceiling voids)
- the absence of modern space heating or air conditioning systems within a building
j. It follows that only where buildings display specific functional deficiencies or issues of technological redundancy, that are atypical for their age, the age-related allowances provided by the scales should be increased.
k. One indicator that additional functional obsolescence is present such that the allowance provided by the scales should be adjusted is the presence of new and/or replacement facilities making the existing building surplus. Such replacement or other material redundancy should be considered and may result in the total redundancy of the pre-existing building, i.e. 100% obsolescence.
l. If at the Antecedent Valuation Date, where there are buildings, or parts of buildings, that through an established pattern of use have been unused for a number of years the area of these buildings, or parts of buildings, is to be excluded from the GIA.
m. This adjustment takes into account deficiencies in the actual building from an occupational point of view, which is not reflected in the ERC.
4.6.4 Flat roof allowance
Permanent buildings built prior to 2005 with a flat roof are to receive an additional allowance. The allowance is not to be applied to temporary buildings, stores, workshops or garages.
-
a) £80 per m2 ARC of the footprint of the flat roof for buildings constructed up to and including 2004.
b) No allowance for flat roofs constructed from 2005 and onwards
- Where a building has varying roof types a reasonable apportionment should be made to arrive at the allowance.
- What is flat as opposed to a pitched roof will generally be self-evident. Flat roofing allowances will automatically apply here to all types of flat roof. In instances where an allowance is sought for pitched roofing caseworkers should seek advice from the National Valuation Unit before proceeding.
The age and obsolescence allowance applied to the buildings should also be applied to the external works (averaged as necessary). The spreadsheet in the Non-Bulk server application will automatically do this.
4.7 Stage 3 – Land Value
4.7.1 Land value is to be arrived at by having regard to values prevailing in the locality, in accordance with Rating Manual Vol 4: Section 3 and the 2023 Land Value Practice Note
- It is anticipated that developed land values will be generally based on industrial values in the locality with the exception of London where residential land values less 20% should be applied. Developed land values for all Billing Authorities on this basis are included at Appendix G1.
- Undeveloped land is to be taken at the amenity value in the locality are included at Appendix G2.
4.7.2 In this context developed land shall be taken to be the land upon which any building is situated, hard standing, artificial sports pitches and landscaping surrounding the buildings. Undeveloped land will consist of playing fields, open grass land, tree shelter belts etc.
4.8 Stage 4 – De-capitalisation rate
4.8.1 Generally the higher statutory de-capitalisation rate should be applied to the Effective Capital Value (ECV) to arrive at an annual equivalent, however there are some training facilities which may fall within the definition of educational hereditament within the meaning of The Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 and where they do so the lower rate is to be applied. In cases of doubt advice should be sought from the appropriate technical advisor in NVU. For ease of reference the prescribed decapitalisation rates are included in Table 1 below:
Table 1:
| Country | Rating List Year | Standard or ‘Higher’ rate | Public Sector or ‘Lower’ rate | Public Sector Rate Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| England | 2023 | 4.4% | 2.6% | Healthcare, Education & MoD |
| Wales | 2023 | 3.4% | 1.9% | Healthcare, Education, MoD & Public Conveniences |
4.9 Stage 5 – End Adjustments
4.9.1 Any advantage or disadvantage which might affect the value of the occupation of the hereditament as a whole should be reflected at this last stage. An adjustment under this head should not duplicate adjustments made elsewhere. Most hereditaments will not warrant further allowances at this stage and where allowances are appropriate, it is expected that they should not normally exceed 15%.
Appendix A
Stage 1 building costs
| ITEM | COST GUIDE REF | COST £/m2 | REMARKS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Police Stations with Custody | 63A00C | £2,300 | Including vehicle docks, plant rooms and all component parts of the main building but excluding garages and workshops |
| Stand-alone Custody Centres | 63A00D | £3,200 | Including vehicle docks, plant rooms and all component parts of the main building |
| Garages/workshops | 63A00E | £961 | |
| Vehicle examination facilities | 63A00J | £1,429 | Up to 500m2 |
| 63A00G | £1,138 | 500m2 to 2000m2 | |
| Firing ranges | 63A00H | £2,250 | |
| Stables | 63A00L | £1,046 | |
| Kennels | 63A00M | - | To be dealt with on their own merits |
Note 1
The Stage 1 Costs for Divisional and regional HQ and Stand-alone Custody Centre hereditaments have been analysed so as to derive a single cost for the entirety of the main building i.e. to include vehicle docks, plant rooms etc all at the single rate. The only elements that should be costed individually are those separate and distinct facilities such as detached garages and vehicle workshops etc.
Stand-alone custody centres are a relatively new development in the police estate, as forces move towards centralised facilities. It will usually be evident which buildings should be valued as stand-alone custody centres, the majority of which were built from 2012 onwards. The majority use will be the custody suite itself, with ancillary offices dedicated to the running of the custody facility.
Note 2
Solar panels and wind turbines should be added for at the appropriate figure as given in the 2023 Rating Cost Guide.
Note 3
Where external sports facilities are present at Regional HQ’s they are to be costed in accordance with the guidance in the 2023 Rating Cost Guide.
Appendix B
Stage 1 – The Addition for External Works
External Works.
An addition for external works will be made within the range of 5-20%. The following percentages would typically apply but are not intended to be prescriptive;
Police stations with Custody & Stand-alone Custody Centres
| Description | Addition |
|---|---|
| A site with almost 100% site coverage, will typically apply to central area sites with minimal ext. wks. | 5% |
| A site with adequate car parking spaces for police vehicles and some staff/public parking but limited amount of landscaping. | 10% |
| An extensive site with adequate car parking for police vehicles, staff and visitors and extensive landscaping. | 20% |
| Stand-alone Custody Centre - a single rate of 15% will be adopted for all stand-alone custody centres. | 15% |
Notes:
1) External works are inclusive of external CCTV, fencing, security barriers, all hard standing and landscaped areas
2) Where multi-storey car parks are present, they are to be added for separately and an appropriate adjustment made to the external works addition if appropriate.
| Description | Cost Guide Ref | Addition |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-storey car parks | 98H011 | £561 m2 or £12,622 per space |
| Basement car parks | 98H012 | £975/m2 or £21,937/space |
| Single deck (steel) car parks | See note# | £7,778 per space |
Note: Substantial multi-storey car parks should have a construction cost as per the above table. An additional cost code has been introduced to cover simple ‘meccano’ style car parks that consist of a single upper storey/deck. Consideration should be given to whether the cost should be applied to both the ground and upper deck. Where the single deck has been constructed over an existing concrete/tarmac car park with minimal alteration to the bottom storey then the cost should only be applied to the upper deck. In such circumstances the lower car park element will form part of the consideration to the external works addition.
Appendix C
Location adjustment
N.B. The Regions referred to are administrative areas and are not significant boundaries.
| NORTH EAST REGION | NORTH WEST REGION | |||
| Durham County | 0.91 | Cheshire | 0.97 | |
| Northumberland | 0.95 | Greater Manchester | 0.97 | |
| Tees Valley | 0.94 | Lancashire | 0.97 | |
| Tyne & Wear | 0.91 | Merseyside | 0.97 | |
| Cumbria | 0.98 | |||
| YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE REGION | SOUTH WESTERN REGION | |||
| East Riding and North Lincolnshire | 0.92 | Cornwall | 1.05 | |
| North Yorkshire | 0.98 | Devon | 1.01 | |
| South Yorkshire | 0.94 | Dorset | 1.04 | |
| West Yorkshire | 0.92 | Gloucestershire | 1.03 | |
| North Somerset | 1.02 | |||
| Somerset | 1.01 | |||
| Wiltshire | 1.03 | |||
| EAST MIDLANDS REGION | WEST MIDLANDS REGION | |||
| Derbyshire | 1.05 | Herefordshire | 0.92 | |
| Leicestershire and Rutland | 1.04 | Shropshire | 0.95 | |
| Lincolnshire | 1.03 | Staffordshire | 0.94 | |
| Northamptonshire | 1.09 | Warwickshire | 0.98 | |
| Nottinghamshire | 1.03 | West Midlands | 0.95 | |
| Worcestershire | 0.98 | |||
| EAST OF ENGLAND REGION | SOUTH EAST REGION (EXCL. LONDON) | |||
| Bedfordshire | 1.04 | Berkshire | 1.08 | |
| Cambridgeshire | 1.00 | Buckinghamshire | 1.07 | |
| Essex | 1.03 | East Sussex | 1.09 | |
| Hertfordshire | 1.07 | Hampshire | 1.05 | |
| Norfolk | 0.96 | Isle of Wight | 1.05 | |
| Suffolk | 0.97 | Kent | 1.09 | |
| Oxfordshire | 1.04 | |||
| Surrey | 1.13 | |||
| West Sussex | 1.08 |
| WALES | CENTRAL LONDON SOUTH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Wales | Lambeth | 1.28 | ||
| Flintshire | 0.89 | Southwark | 1.28 | |
| Conwy | 0.93 | Wandsworth | 1.30 | |
| Denbighshire | 0.90 | |||
| Gwynedd | 0.97 | GREATER LONDON NORTH EAST | ||
| Isle of Anglesey | 0.95 | Hackney | 1.25 | |
| Wrexham | 0.91 | Haringey | 1.31 | |
| Newham | 1.18 | |||
| Mid Wales | Tower Hamlets | 1.26 | ||
| Carmarthenshire | 0.98 | Barking and Dagenham | 1.18 | |
| Ceredigion | 0.99 | Enfield | 1.18 | |
| Powys | 0.97 | Havering | 1.09 | |
| Pembrokeshire | 0.92 | Redbridge | 1.15 | |
| Waltham Forest | 1.18 | |||
| South Wales | GREATER LONDON NORTH WEST | |||
| Blaenau Gwent | 0.96 | Barnet | 1.23 | |
| Bridgend | 0.93 | Brent | 1.22 | |
| Caerphilly | 0.93 | Ealing | 1.27 | |
| Cardiff | 0.94 | Harrow | 1.18 | |
| Monmouthshire | 0.99 | Hillingdon | 1.16 | |
| Neath Port Talbot | 0.88 | Hounslow | 1.16 | |
| Newport | 0.95 | |||
| Rhondda, Cynon, Taff | 0.93 | GREATER LONDON SOUTH EAST | ||
| Swansea | 0.93 | Bexley | 1.25 | |
| Torfaen | 0.91 | Bromley | 1.21 | |
| Vale of Glamorgan | 0.97 | Croydon | 1.24 | |
| Greenwich | 1.24 | |||
| CENTRAL LONDON NORTH | Lewisham | 1.21 | ||
| Camden | 1.32 | |||
| City of London | 1.24 | GREATER LONDON SOUTH WEST | ||
| Hammersmith & Fulham | 1.32 | Kingston Upon Thames | 1.26 | |
| Islington | 1.29 | Merton | 1.24 | |
| Kensington & Chelsea | 1.34 | Richmond Upon Thames | 1.22 | |
| Westminster | 1.30 | Sutton | 1.2 |
Appendix D
Contract Size Adjustment
The adjustment for contract size should be made having regard to the total ERC (after adjustment for location but before the addition for fees) in accordance with the following scales:
| ERC £ | % Adjustment |
|---|---|
| Up to 0.25 million | + 10% max |
| 0.5 million | 8% |
| 0.75 million | 6% |
| 1.0 million | 4% |
| 1.5 million | 3% |
| 2.0 million | 2% |
| 3.0 million | 1% |
| 4.0 million | 0% |
| 5.0 million | -0.5% |
| 6.0 million | -1% |
| 8.0 million | -1.5% |
| 10.0 million | -2% |
| 15.0 million | -3% |
| 18.0 million | -4% |
| 20.0 million | -5% |
| 25.0 million | -6% |
| 35.0 million | -9% |
| Over 40.0 million | - 10% MAX |
| NB. Intermediate figures may be interpolated. |
Appendix E
The addition for fees
Fees should be added at the percentages shown in the VOA published Cost Guide at Section 7. For convenience these are shown below inclusive of the 2% complexity addition. Note that minimum fees may apply to counter inversion.
| Size of Contract | % Adjustment |
|---|---|
| Sums up to £750,000 | 14% |
| £750,000 to £1,499,000 | 13.5% |
| £1,500,000 to £3,999,999 | 11.5% |
| £4,000,000 to £7,499,999 | 10.5% |
| £7,500,000 to £14,999,999 | 9.5% |
| Over £15,000,000 | 9% |
Appendix F
Age and obsolescence scales
Table 1: Civic Buildings Obsolescence Allowances – Police Stations
| Age | % Obsolescence | Age | % Obsolescence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 0.00% | 1986 | 43.75% |
| 2022 | 0.75% | 1985 | 44.50% |
| 2021 | 1.50% | 1984 | 45.00% |
| 2020 | 2.50% | 1983 | 48.00% |
| 2019 | 3.50% | 1982 | 51.00% |
| 2018 | 4.75% | 1981 | 54.00% |
| 2017 | 6.00% | 1980 | 56.75% |
| 2016 | 7.25% | 1979 | 57.25% |
| 2015 | 8.50% | 1978 | 57.50% |
| 2014 | 10.00% | 1977 | 58.00% |
| 2013 | 11.25% | 1976 | 58.25% |
| 2012 | 12.75% | 1975 | 58.50% |
| 2011 | 14.25% | 1974 | 58.50% |
| 2010 | 15.75% | 1973 | 58.75% |
| 2009 | 17.25% | 1972 | 59.00% |
| 2008 | 18.75% | 1971 | 59.00% |
| 2007 | 20.25% | 1970 | 59.25% |
| 2006 | 21.75% | 1969 | 59.25% |
| 2005 | 23.25% | 1968 | 60.00% |
| 2004 | 24.50% | 1967 | 60.00% |
| 2003 | 26.00% | 1966 | 60.00% |
| 2002 | 27.50% | 1965 | 60.00% |
| 2001 | 28.75% | 1964 | 60.00% |
| 2000 | 30.00% | 1963 | 60.00% |
| 1999 | 31.25% | 1962 | 60.00% |
| 1998 | 32.50% | 1961 | 60.00% |
| 1997 | 33.75% | 1960 | 60.00% |
| 1996 | 35.00% | 1959 | 57.50% |
| 1995 | 36.00% | 1958 | 55.00% |
| 1994 | 37.00% | 1957 | 55.00% |
| 1993 | 38.00% | 1956 | 55.00% |
| 1992 | 39.00% | 1955 | 55% |
| 1991 | 40.00% | 1954 | 55% |
| 1990 | 40.75% | 1953 and earlier | 55% |
| 1989 | 41.50% | ||
| 1988 | 42.25% | ||
| 1987 | 43.00% |
Table 2: Industrial Buildings Obsolescence Table - Separate and distinct stores
| Age | % Obsolescence | Age | % Obsolescence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 0.00% | 1994 | 24.00% |
| 2022 | 0.50% | 1993 | 25.00% |
| 2021 | 1.00% | 1992 | 26.00% |
| 2020 | 1.50% | 1991 | 27.00% |
| 2019 | 2.00% | 1990 | 28.00% |
| 2018 | 2.50% | 1989 | 29.00% |
| 2017 | 3.00% | 1988 | 30.00% |
| 2016 | 3.50% | 1987 | 31.00% |
| 2015 | 4.00% | 1986 | 32.00% |
| 2014 | 4.50% | 1985 | 33.00% |
| 2013 | 5.00% | 1984 | 34.00% |
| 2012 | 6.00% | 1983 | 35.00% |
| 2011 | 7.00% | 1982 | 36.00% |
| 2010 | 8.00% | 1981 | 37.00% |
| 2009 | 9.00% | 1980 | 38.00% |
| 2008 | 10.00% | 1979 | 39.00% |
| 2007 | 11.00% | 1978 | 40.00% |
| 2006 | 12.00% | 1977 | 41.00% |
| 2005 | 13.00% | 1976 | 42.00% |
| 2004 | 14.00% | 1975 | 43.00% |
| 2003 | 15.00% | 1974 | 44.00% |
| 2002 | 16.00% | 1973 | 45.00% |
| 2001 | 17.00% | 1972 | 46.00% |
| 2000 | 18.00% | 1971 | 47.00% |
| 1999 | 19.00% | 1970 | 48.00% |
| 1998 | 20.00% | 1969 | 49.00% |
| 1997 | 21.00% | 1968 and earlier | 50.00% Max |
| 1996 | 22.00% | ||
| 1995 | 23.00% |
Notes Applicable to Table 2
-
As noted above, the scale of allowances commonly referred to as “the Monsanto scale” (derived from the approach determined in Monsanto v Farris (VO) 1998 RA 217) continue to be applicable to Industrial buildings.
-
The scales refer to the actual age of the specific item. A notional age can be adopted where the item has undergone significant improvement or refurbishment.
-
The scales do not provide for physical obsolescence alone. They also reflect the expected degree of functional and technical obsolescence for an asset of that age.
-
Any extraordinary functional or technical obsolescence may result in an additional allowance being considered. Examples include superfluity for modern purposes or where new technology evidences that the actual asset is relatively inefficient. Where an additional allowance is made the reasons for it must be stated in the valuation notes.
-
An element of risk of failure and the requirement of the tenant to replace the item at the end of its useful life is incorporated in the allowances.
-
It should not be automatically assumed that because a property is old it merits an allowance. Age in itself is not a disability but rather what often flows from age.
-
The scales are intended to provide a degree of uniformity of allowance. They should be regarded as the maximum allowances to be given.
-
The scales should only be used as guidance in accordance with the principles outlined in the Rating Manual.
-
Allowances in excess of 50% for buildings or P&M should only be adopted in exceptional circumstances. It is unlikely that many very old buildings exist which have not undergone some form of modernisation or refurbishment. Where a building or piece of plant has obviously not undergone refurbishment or modernisation at some stage it is permissible to give allowances up to a maximum of 65% as indicated in the scales (below).
-
Allowances may be up to 50% higher from those shown in the scales for structures which are of a temporary nature and have continued in use well beyond their intended life span.
-
It should not be assumed automatically that because an item of plant or machinery is old it merits an allowance. If an asset is well maintained the amount of use may well not affect the item or its value. However, with age the risk of breakdown is likely to increase and functional and technological obsolescence factors are likely to become prevalent. These factors must be borne in mind when selecting an appropriate obsolescence allowance.
-
The scales of allowances therefore take into account the average use of items over a period of time, bearing in mind the physical, functional and technical obsolescence that may occur during the stated period.
-
Where judgement through actual knowledge of the item is inconsistent with the allowance scales the item should be valued accordingly recording the reasons for the divergence from the scale.
-
In any instance of variation from the scales in accordance with these instructions, the reasoning for this must be recorded in the valuation.
Table 3: Temporary Buildings Obsolescence Table (Category 3 buildings)
| Age | % Obsolescence | Age | % Obsolescence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 0.00% | 2002 | 31.50% |
| 2022 | 1.50% | 2001 | 33.00% |
| 2021 | 3.00% | 2000 | 34.50% |
| 2020 | 4.50% | 1999 | 36.00% |
| 2019 | 6.00% | 1998 | 37.50% |
| 2018 | 7.50% | 1997 | 39.00% |
| 2017 | 9.00% | 1996 | 40.50% |
| 2016 | 10.50% | 1995 | 42.00% |
| 2015 | 12.00% | 1994 | 43.50% |
| 2014 | 13.50% | 1993 | 45.00% |
| 2013 | 15.00% | 1992 | 46.50% |
| 2012 | 16.50% | 1991 | 48.00% |
| 2011 | 18.00% | 1990 | 49.50% |
| 2010 | 19.50% | 1989 | 51.00% |
| 2009 | 21.00% | 1988 | 52.50% |
| 2008 | 22.50% | 1987 | 54.00% |
| 2007 | 24.00% | 1986 | 55.50% |
| 2006 | 25.50% | 1985 | 57.00% |
| 2005 | 27.00% | 1984 | 58.50% |
| 2004 | 28.50% | 1983 and earlier | 60.00% Max |
| 2003 | 30.00% |
Appendix G1
Developed Land Values
| BA Code | Geographic Regions & Billing Authorities | Developed Land Values |
|---|---|---|
| South East | ||
| 3110 | Oxford | £2,000,000 |
| 435 | Milton Keynes | £1,250,000 |
| 405 | Aylesbury Vale | £1,100,000 |
| 3105 | Cherwell | £1,250,000 |
| 3125 | West Oxfordshire | £1,000,000 |
| 1705 | Basingstoke & Deane | £1,700,000 |
| 1765 | Winchester | £1,500,000 |
| 1780 | Southampton | £1,500,000 |
| 3805 | Adur | £1,500,000 |
| 2235 | Maidstone | £1,400,000 |
| 335 | Bracknell Forest | £1,900,000 |
| 340 | West Berkshire | £1,500,000 |
| 345 | Reading | £2,000,000 |
| 350 | Slough | £2,500,000 |
| 355 | Windsor & Maidenhead | £2,400,000 |
| 360 | Wokingham | £2,000,000 |
| 1410 | Eastbourne | £1,200,000 |
| 1415 | Hastings | £700,000 |
| 1425 | Lewes | £1,200,000 |
| 1430 | Rother | £1,000,000 |
| 1435 | Wealden | £1,350,000 |
| 1445 | Brighton & Hove | £1,750,000 |
| 2205 | Ashford | £1,250,000 |
| 2210 | Canterbury | £1,150,000 |
| 2215 | Dartford | £2,500,000 |
| 2220 | Dover | £550,000 |
| 2230 | Gravesham | £1,950,000 |
| 2245 | Sevenoaks | £2,000,000 |
| 2250 | Shepway | £890,000 |
| 2255 | Swale | £1,200,000 |
| 2260 | Thanet | £900,000 |
| 2265 | Tonbridge and Malling | £1,800,000 |
| 2270 | Tunbridge Wells | £1,500,000 |
| 2280 | Medway | £1,600,000 |
| 3605 | Elmbridge | £2,700,000 |
| 3610 | Epsom and Ewell | £2,400,000 |
| 3615 | Guildford | £2,400,000 |
| 3620 | Mole Valley | £2,300,000 |
| 3625 | Reigate & Banstead | £2,200,000 |
| 3630 | Runnymede | £2,600,000 |
| 3635 | Spelthorne | £2,700,000 |
| 3640 | Surrey Heath | £1,900,000 |
| 3645 | Tandridge | £2,000,000 |
| 3650 | Waverley | £2,000,000 |
| 3655 | Woking | £2,200,000 |
| 3810 | Arun | £1,500,000 |
| 3815 | Chichester | £1,550,000 |
| 3820 | Crawley | £2,300,000 |
| 3825 | Horsham | £1,550,000 |
| 3830 | Mid Sussex | £1,550,000 |
| 3835 | Worthing | £1,500,000 |
| 410 | South Buckinghamshire | £2,700,000 |
| 415 | Chiltern | £1,100,000 |
| 425 | Wycombe | £2,500,000 |
| 3115 | South Oxfordshire | £1,100,000 |
| 3120 | Vale of White Horse | £850,000 |
| 1710 | East Hampshire | £1,450,000 |
| 1715 | Eastleigh | £1,400,000 |
| 1720 | Fareham | £1,200,000 |
| 1725 | Gosport | £1,000,000 |
| 1730 | Hart | £1,500,000 |
| 1735 | Havant | £1,200,000 |
| 2100 | Isle of Wight | £750,000 |
| 1740 | New Forest | £1,000,000 |
| 1775 | Portsmouth | £1,500,000 |
| 1750 | Rushmoor | £1,700,000 |
| 1760 | Test Valley | £1,100,000 |
| East Midlands | ||
| 2820 | Kettering | £775,000 |
| 2230 | South Northamptonshire | £850,000 |
| 2465 | Leicester | £650,000 |
| 1055 | Derby | £545,000 |
| 3060 | Nottingham | £500,000 |
| 2515 | Lincoln | £450,000 |
| 2530 | South Kestevan | £350,000 |
| 2825 | Northampton | £850,000 |
| 3010 | Bassetlaw | £500,000 |
| 2410 | Charnwood | £525,000 |
| 2805 | Corby | £600,000 |
| 2810 | Daventry | £850,000 |
| 2815 | East Northamptonshire | £800,000 |
| 2835 | Wellingborough | £800,000 |
| 1005 | Amber Valley | £330,000 |
| 1010 | Bolsover | £400,000 |
| 1015 | Chesterfield | £400,000 |
| 1025 | Erewash | £265,000 |
| 1030 | High Peak | £425,000 |
| 1035 | North East Derbyshire | £350,000 |
| 1040 | South Derbyshire | £510,000 |
| 1045 | Derbyshire Dales | £375,000 |
| 2405 | Blaby | £525,000 |
| 2415 | Harborough | £575,000 |
| 2420 | Hinckley and Bosworth | £475,000 |
| 2430 | Melton | £450,000 |
| 2435 | North West Leicestershire | £450,000 |
| 2440 | Oadby and Wigston | £575,000 |
| 2505 | Boston | £230,000 |
| 2510 | East Lindsey | £300,000 |
| 2520 | North Kesteven | £400,000 |
| 2525 | South Holland | £325,000 |
| 2535 | West Lindsey | £275,000 |
| 3005 | Ashfield | £380,000 |
| 3015 | Broxtowe | £360,000 |
| 3020 | Gedling | £500,000 |
| 3025 | Mansfield | £350,000 |
| 3030 | Newark and Sherwood | £380,000 |
| 3040 | Rushcliffe | £400,000 |
| 2470 | Rutland | £400,000 |
| East | ||
| 505 | Cambridge | £1,200,000 |
| 1915 | East Hertfordshire | £1,350,000 |
| 1505 | Basildon | £1,500,000 |
| 530 | South Cambridgshire | £1,200,000 |
| 540 | Peterborough | £900,000 |
| 1550 | Rochford | £525,000 |
| 2625 | Norwich | £630,000 |
| 3515 | Ipswich | £800,000 |
| 1920 | Hertsmere | £1,200,000 |
| 1530 | Colchester | £650,000 |
| 510 | East Cambridgeshire | £500,000 |
| 515 | Fenland | £350,000 |
| 520 | Huntingdonshire | £1,100,000 |
| 1510 | Braintree | £625,000 |
| 1515 | Brentwood | £850,000 |
| 1520 | Castle Point | £550,000 |
| 1525 | Chelmsford | £850,000 |
| 1535 | Epping Forest | £1,050,000 |
| 1540 | Harlow | £1,300,000 |
| 1545 | Maldon | £500,000 |
| 1560 | Tendring | £515,000 |
| 1570 | Uttlesford | £800,000 |
| 1590 | Southend-on-Sea | £1,350,000 |
| 1595 | Thurrock | £2,000,000 |
| 2605 | Breckland | £415,000 |
| 2610 | Broadland | £365,000 |
| 2615 | Great Yarmouth | £365,000 |
| 2620 | North Norfolk | £250,000 |
| 2630 | South Norfolk | £415,000 |
| 2635 | Kings Lynn and West Norfolk | £450,000 |
| 3505 | Babergh | £305,000 |
| 3520 | Mid Suffolk | £340,000 |
| 3540 | East Suffolk | £310,000 |
| 3545 | West Suffolk | £475,000 |
| 1905 | Broxbourne | £1,700,000 |
| 1910 | Dacorum | £2,000,000 |
| 1930 | St Albans | £1,500,000 |
| 1935 | Stevenage | £1,600,000 |
| 1940 | Three Rivers | £2,700,000 |
| 1945 | Watford | £2,250,000 |
| 1950 | Welwyn Hatfield | £1,800,000 |
| 235 | Bedford | £900,000 |
| 240 | Central Bedfordshire | £900,000 |
| 230 | Luton | £1,500,000 |
| 1925 | North Hertfordshire | £1,500,000 |
| North East | ||
| 4510 | Newcastle-Upon-Tyne | £260,000 |
| 2935 | Northumberland | £140,000 |
| 4525 | Sunderland | £230,000 |
| 734 | Middlesborough | £200,000 |
| 1355 | Durham | £180,000 |
| 1350 | Darlington | £175,000 |
| 724 | Hartlepool | £180,000 |
| 728 | Redcar and Cleveland | £150,000 |
| 738 | Stockton-on-Tees | £185,000 |
| 4520 | South Tyneside | £215,000 |
| 4505 | Gateshead | £230,000 |
| 4515 | North Tyneside | £200,000 |
| North West | ||
| 4215 | Manchester | £675,000 |
| 4235 | Stockport | £575,000 |
| 2345 | Preston | £600,000 |
| 665 | Cheshire W & Chester | £325,000 |
| 4205 | Bolton | £575,000 |
| 4250 | Wigan | £500,000 |
| 915 | Carlisle | £400,000 |
| 930 | South Lakeland | £500,000 |
| 4310 | Liverpool | £440,000 |
| 655 | Warrington | £800,000 |
| 650 | Halton | £290,000 |
| 660 | Cheshire East | £500,000 |
| 905 | Allerdale | £165,000 |
| 910 | Barrow-in-Furness | £300,000 |
| 920 | Copeland | £150,000 |
| 925 | Eden | £300,000 |
| 2315 | Burnley | £450,000 |
| 2320 | Chorley | £600,000 |
| 2325 | Fylde | £400,000 |
| 2330 | Hyndburn | £475,000 |
| 2335 | Lancaster | £525,000 |
| 2340 | Pendle | £425,000 |
| 2350 | Ribble Valley | £550,000 |
| 2355 | Rossendale | £500,000 |
| 2360 | South Ribble | £600,000 |
| 2365 | West Lancashire | £395,000 |
| 2370 | Wyre | £400,000 |
| 2372 | Blackburn with Darwen | £500,000 |
| 2373 | Blackpool | £400,000 |
| 4210 | Bury | £615,000 |
| 4220 | Oldham | £550,000 |
| 4225 | Rochdale | £525,000 |
| 4230 | Salford | £550,000 |
| 4240 | Tameside | £525,000 |
| 4245 | Trafford | £850,000 |
| 4305 | Knowsley | £440,000 |
| 4315 | St Helens | £310,000 |
| 4320 | Sefton | £370,000 |
| 4325 | Wirral | £325,000 |
| South West | ||
| 1250 | Bournemouth | £1,100,000 |
| 1235 | Weymouth & Portland | £750,000 |
| 1110 | Exeter | £1,000,000 |
| 1115 | North Devon | £440,000 |
| 1160 | Plymouth | £440,000 |
| 840 | Cornwall | £350,000 |
| 3315 | Taunton Deane | £975,000 |
| 114 | Bath & NE Somerset | £1,200,000 |
| 119 | South Gloucestershire | £1,075,000 |
| 3935 | Swindon | £850,000 |
| 116 | Bristol | £1,075,000 |
| 121 | North Somerset | £725,000 |
| 835 | Isles of Scilly | £370,000 |
| 1105 | East Devon | £450,000 |
| 1125 | South Hams | £400,000 |
| 1130 | Teignbridge | £430,000 |
| 1135 | Mid Devon | £450,000 |
| 1145 | Torridge | £300,000 |
| 1150 | West Devon | £400,000 |
| 1165 | Torbay | £400,000 |
| 1210 | Christchurch | £925,000 |
| 1215 | North Dorset | £550,000 |
| 1225 | Purbeck | £750,000 |
| 1230 | West Dorset | £600,000 |
| 1240 | East Dorset | £650,000 |
| 1255 | Poole | £1,050,000 |
| 1605 | Cheltenham | £1,000,000 |
| 1610 | Cotswold | £850,000 |
| 1615 | Forest of Dean | £300,000 |
| 1620 | Gloucester | £1,000,000 |
| 1625 | Stroud | £915,000 |
| 1630 | Tewkesbury | £1,000,000 |
| 3305 | Mendip | £500,000 |
| 3310 | Sedgemoor | £740,000 |
| 3320 | West Somerset | £440,000 |
| 3325 | South Somerset | £860,000 |
| 3940 | Wiltshire | £800,000 |
| West Midlands | ||
| 4605 | Birmingham | £1,150,000 |
| 4610 | Coventry | £850,000 |
| 4620 | Sandwell | £575,000 |
| 4635 | Wolverhampton | £600,000 |
| 3415 | Lichfield | £650,000 |
| 3245 | Shropshire | £500,000 |
| 3455 | Stoke-on-Trent | £500,000 |
| 3725 | Warwick | £800,000 |
| 1835 | Worcester | £705,000 |
| 1845 | Wyre Forest | £700,000 |
| 1805 | Bromsgrove | £720,000 |
| 1825 | Redditch | £800,000 |
| 1840 | Wychavon | £650,000 |
| 1850 | Herefordshire | £550,000 |
| 1860 | Malvern Hills | £625,000 |
| 3240 | Telford & Wrekin | £500,000 |
| 3405 | Cannock Chase | £650,000 |
| 3410 | East Staffordshire | £625,000 |
| 3420 | Newcastle-under-Lyme | £500,000 |
| 3425 | Stafford | £525,000 |
| 3430 | South Staffordshire | £520,000 |
| 3435 | Staffordshire Moorlands | £420,000 |
| 3445 | Tamworth | £550,000 |
| 3705 | North Warwickshire | £720,000 |
| 3710 | Nuneaton and Bedworth | £750,000 |
| 3715 | Rugby | £775,000 |
| 3720 | Stratford-on-Avon | £800,000 |
| 4615 | Dudley | £575,000 |
| 4625 | Solihull | £700,000 |
| 4630 | Walsall | £575,000 |
| Yorkshire and Humber | ||
| 2715 | Harrogate | £625,000 |
| 2741 | City of York | £550,000 |
| 4705 | Bradford | £500,000 |
| 4710 | Calderdale | £490,000 |
| 4720 | Leeds | £825,000 |
| 4410 | Doncaster | £570,000 |
| 2002 | North East Lincolnshire | £345,000 |
| 2001 | East Riding of Yorkshire | £615,000 |
| 4420 | Sheffield | £630,000 |
| 4405 | Barnsley | £500,000 |
| 2705 | Craven | £600,000 |
| 2710 | Hambleton | £400,000 |
| 2720 | Richmondshire | £410,000 |
| 2725 | Ryedale | £325,000 |
| 2730 | Scarborough | £370,000 |
| 2735 | Selby | £450,000 |
| 4415 | Rotherham | £550,000 |
| 4715 | Kirklees | £525,000 |
| 4725 | Wakefield | £550,000 |
| 2002 | North Lincolnshire | £225,000 |
| 2004 | Kingston upon Hull | £470,000 |
| Central London, North | ||
| 5210 | Camden | £23,980,000 |
| 5030 | City of London | £23,980,000 |
| 5990 | City of Westminster | £23,980,000 |
| 5390 | Hammersmith & Fulham | £23,980,000 |
| 5570 | Islington | £23,980,000 |
| 5600 | Kensington & Chelsea | £23,980,000 |
| Central London, South | ||
| 5660 | Lambeth | £14,920,000 |
| 5840 | Southwark | £14,920,000 |
| 5960 | Wandsworth | £14,920,000 |
| Greater London, North West | ||
| 5090 | Barnet | £5,048,000 |
| 5150 | Brent | £5,048,000 |
| 5270 | Ealing | £5,048,000 |
| 5450 | Harrow | £5,048,000 |
| 5510 | Hillingdon | £5,048,000 |
| 5540 | Hounslow | £5,048,000 |
| Greater London, South West | ||
| 5630 | Kingston upon Thames | £6,960,000 |
| 5720 | Merton | £6,960,000 |
| 5810 | Richmond upon Thames | £6,960,000 |
| 5870 | Sutton | £6,960,000 |
| Greater London, North East | ||
| 5060 | Barking and Dagenham | £5,200,000 |
| 5300 | Enfield | £5,200,000 |
| 5360 | Hackney | £5,200,000 |
| 5420 | Haringey | £5,200,000 |
| 5480 | Havering | £5,200,000 |
| 5750 | Newham | £5,200,000 |
| 5780 | Redbridge | £5,200,000 |
| 5900 | Tower Hamlets | £5,200,000 |
| 5930 | Waltham Forest | £5,200,000 |
| Greater London, South East | ||
| 5120 | Bexley | £4,340,000 |
| 5180 | Bromley | £4,340,000 |
| 5240 | Croydon | £4,340,000 |
| 5330 | Greenwich | £4,340,000 |
| 5690 | Lewisham | £4,340,000 |
| South Wales (exc Cardiff) | ||
| 6825 | Carmarthenshire (1) | £210,000 |
| 6828 | Carmarthenshire (2) | £100,000 |
| 6829 | Carmarthenshire (3) | £200,000 |
| 6840 | Monmouthshire | £345,000 |
| 6845 | Pembrokeshire | £150,000 |
| 6855 | Swansea | £300,000 |
| 6910 | Blaenau Gwent | £185,000 |
| 6915 | Bridgend | £310,000 |
| 6920 | Caerphilly | £275,000 |
| 6925 | Merthyr Tydfil | £185,000 |
| 6930 | Neath Port Talbot | £148,000 |
| 6935 | Newport | £450,000 |
| 6940 | Rhondda, Cynon, Taff | £250,000 |
| 6945 | Torfaen | £310,000 |
| 6950 | Vale of Glamorgan | £330,000 |
| 6815 | Cardiff | £610,000 |
| Mid & North Wales | ||
| 6805 | Isle of Anglesey | £180,000 |
| 6810 | Gwynedd | £180,000 |
| 6820 | Ceredigion | £90,000 |
| 6830 | Denbighshire | £175,000 |
| 6835 | Flintshire | £225,000 |
| 6850 | Powys (1) | £160,000 |
| 6853 | Powys (2) | £150,000 |
| 6854 | Powys (3) | £175,000 |
| 6905 | Conwy | £190,000 |
| 6955 | Wrexham | £350,000 |
Appendix G2
Undeveloped Land Value
Amenity land values to be use by region
| Geographic Region | £ per hectare (ha) |
|---|---|
| Central London N | £250,000 |
| Central London S | £250,000 |
| GLNW | £200,000 |
| GLSW | £200,000 |
| GLNE | £200,000 |
| GLSE | £200,000 |
| North East | £50,000 |
| North West | £75,000 |
| Yorkshire & Humberside | £75,000 |
| East Midlands | £75,000 |
| West Midlands | £75,000 |
| East of England | £75,000 |
| South East | £100,000 |
| South West | £75,000 |
| Mid & North Wales | £35,000 |
| South Wales (excl Cardiff) | £35,000 |
| Cardiff | £40,000 |
1. Market Appraisal
1.1 In September 2011, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill received Royal Assent. This Act redefined the accountability of policing to the public, bringing about the dissolution of Police Authorities in England and Wales and introduced a Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to Police Forces. The role of the PCC is to hold the Chief Constable to account, set the annual precept and create a Police and Crime Plan for the area, whilst being answerable to the Police and Crime Panel for all aspects of local policing. Elections of PCCs took place 15 November 2012 and commenced business on 22 November 2012.
1.2 As with most publicly funded bodies, police forces throughout England and Wales have had to respond to cuts in budgets arising from the austerity measures designed to tackle the deficit. This has impacted on all areas of policing including estates; resulting in closure and rationalisation of police stations, together with several examples of centralisation of services. The move toward centralisation of custody facilities has continued with new custody centres being provided in several areas as forces seek to comply with the guidelines “Safer Detention and Handling of Persons in Police Custody (2012) and mitigate the costs of staffing multiple custody facilities throughout their estate.
2. Changes from the 2010 Practice Note
2.1 The Market Appraisal section has been re-written and there are changes to the overall valuation scheme, building costs, Age & Obsolescence scales, external works and undeveloped land.
3. Ratepayer Discussions
3.1 For the 2017 Rating List, police stations and premises have been the subject of a Group Pre-Challenge Review (35146196 – Police Stations and Premises and Freestanding Custody Centres). Both the ratepayer’s agents and the VO alike, have sought to eradicate the inconsistencies in the valuation approach adopted for Police hereditaments, which has occurred in previous Lists. The agents involved in these discussions include Avison Young, LSH, Gerald Eve and JLL. This memorandum of agreement (MoA) documents the conclusions drawn from these discussions.
3.2 The costs agreed within this memorandum are based upon divisional headquarters and custody centres and not campus-style Police Headquarters where each case is to be dealt with on its own merits.
4. Valuation Scheme
4.1 Purpose built police stations are a sui generis class for rating purposes, albeit due to the centralisation of specialist uses, many police stations are now only used for administrative purposes. It is therefore of vital importance to establish the facts on the ground for each property both at the Antecedent Valuation Date (AVD) and the material day before deciding on the valuation method to adopt.
4.2 Broadly speaking, police stations and premises will either be valued adopting the rentals or Contractor’s approach. The rentals basis will be adopted if there was no functioning custody facility as at the AVD and material day, or other specialist facilities present such as stables, firing ranges etc. The Contractor’s basis will be appropriate for police stations with operational custody, freestanding custody centres and specialist training facilities.
4.3 Rentals Basis
4.3.1 Where it is established as at both the AVD and material day that a police station is only used for administrative purposes, then the rentals method is appropriate. Many police stations are purpose built and will have an element of cell accommodation. However, if the custody suite was not in use/obsolete as at the AVD and there are no other specialist uses, then the rentals method should be adopted. Prevailing office values in the vicinity should be used (unless the property is a retail unit), with appropriate relativities applied to storage, garaging and other ancillary facilities. Where former cell accommodation is used for storage, it should be valued as such.
4.3.2 Valuers should consult with the individual police force to confirm the designated (full-time use), non-designated (emergency/overspill use) and obsolete custody suites as at the AVD and material day. Cells used part time or for over-spill at busy periods are to be treated as operational. Another valuable source of custody use information can be sought from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) (formerly known as HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)). HMICFRS produce reports at 4-5 yearly intervals confirming which sites have operational custody within each force area.
4.3.3 If custody is closed between the AVD and material day, further investigation is required to ascertain the reason for closure and determine the hypothetical tenant’s requirements as at the material date. Custody facilities may cease operational use for either economic reasons (i.e. cost saving) or as a consequence of a material change of circumstances in the locality e.g. the provision of replacement facilities elsewhere. The particular circumstances will determine whether it will be appropriate to reflect the lack of demand within the hereditament for custody accommodation and hence adopt the rentals method. If the cessation of custody use is driven by economic reasons only and that decision is not made until after AVD then the hereditament should continue to be valued on the contractor’s method as before with the full appropriate value attributed to the custody accommodation.
4.3.4 Where the rentals method is adopted, it has been accepted that no allowance will be made for sui-generis use. However, where a police station suffers from superfluity or disabilities of layout not associated with offices from which the rental base has been derived, an end allowance may be appropriate if not already reflected in the unit rate.
4.3.5 In adopting rental levels drawn from office premises it should be noted that some police stations are located in prime areas purely by historic accident. In such instances location in peak areas may not be operationally essential. Where it is not, it will be appropriate to adopt rental levels found in other areas within which the police station might alternatively be located without any operational detriment.
4.4 Contractor’s Basis
4.4.1 Police stations with functioning custody or other specialist facilities, stand-alone custody centres and specialist police training facilities should be valued adopting the Contractor’s basis of valuation. For the purposes of this MoA, training facilities will include stand-alone facilities such as firing ranges and riot training buildings but not police training colleges, which should be valued as educational establishments on the College of Education or University basis.
4.4.2 During GPCR discussions the building costs of a number of police stations with custody, stand-alone custody centres and training facilities, built from 2012 onwards. Examples of new facilities provided can be found by Internet enquiry.
4.4.3 In circumstances where the Contractor’s basis of valuation is deemed appropriate, it is to be applied in accordance with VOA Rating Manual - Part 3: The contractor’s basis of valuation using the guidance below in relation to each stage of the valuation process.
4.4.4 The costs shown in this section are for ease of reference. In all cases where a cost guide code is shown it is this that which must be input into the NBS template, not the costs shown here. Where the cost guide code shows options, the costs shown in this practice note should be used to aid selection. Should the cost guide show different costs to those shown in a current version of this practice note, please refer to the Class Co-ordination Team (CCT).
4.5 Stage 1 – Estimated Replacement Cost
4.5.1 Building Costs
4.5.2 With the exception of areas that are not used at the AVD and have no prospect of being used (principally redundant cells), the actual GIA of the station should be used to calculate the Estimated Replacement Cost (Stage 1) of the hereditament in accordance with Appendix A. Guidance in relation to the treatment of superfluity is given in the Rating Manual section relating to police stations at paragraph 8.7.
4.5.3 External Works
4.5.4 The cost of external works is to be added in accordance with Appendix B.
4.5.5 Location factors
4.5.6 Where appropriate costs should be adjusted for location by reference to the Location Factors set down in the 2017 Rating Cost Guide and included at Appendix C.
4.5.7 Contract Size Adjustment
4.5.8 Contract size adjustments should be made in accordance with the guidance given in the 2017 Rating Cost Guide and included at Appendix D.
4.5.9 Professional Fees and Charges
4.5.10 Professional fees and charges are to be added for in accordance with the guidance given in the 2017 Cost Guide and included at Appendix E.
4.6 Stage 2 – Age and Obsolescence
4.6.1 The Estimated Replacement Cost (ERC) established at Stage 1 above is converted to Adjusted Replacement Cost (ARC) by applying an age and obsolescence allowance.
4.6.2 The standard age and obsolescence allowances (non–industrial) to be applied to the ERC of the individual blocks of permanent buildings are set out in Rating Manual: Section 4 Part 3 - the Contractor’s basis of valuation. Adjustments for age and obsolescence should be made in accordance with Appendix F. Separate scales are provided within for 1) Police Stations, 2) Separate and distinct stores i.e. stand-alone garage/workshop(s) areas then the industrial age/obsolescence scale should be applied and 3) Temporary buildings.
4.6.3 The scales contained in Appendix F take into account the following salient points:
a. The age and obsolescence scales set out in the rating manual represent the combined age-related physical depreciation along with functional obsolescence and technological redundancy exhibited by buildings of each age typical for their quality/specification and condition. It is anticipated that the stated allowances will be adopted in the majority of cases and only either moderated or increased in exceptional circumstances.
b. Extensions are to be given an allowance appropriate to their age unless of a lower specification than would be expected of a building of that age in which case the allowance should be increased to a level appropriate to reflect the specification of the building as a whole.
c. In respect of physical depreciation, the above scales are intended to reflect normal wear and tear and/or deterioration due to the age of the building. The scales assume an average degree of cyclical refurbishment work will have been undertaken, to include whole or partial renewal of building sub-components, most particularly relating to mechanical and electrical services and internal fit-out, but also including periodic renewal of roof coverings and windows.
d. It follows from the above that no adjustment away from the scales is required in the majority of cases where older buildings have been subject to modernisation and refurbishment works, as these are explicitly assumed to have occurred. An exception to this would be for a building taken back to shell and reconstructed with significant renewal of structural elements, where an abatement of age-related physical obsolescence may be required.
e. An example of a building requiring an abatement of the allowances provided by the scales (due to the mitigation of physical depreciation) would be where a major renovation has occurred utilising the original building foundations, frame (including upper floors) but with comprehensive replacement of the external envelope (walls, windows), a complete internal refit and wholescale replacement of mechanical and electrical services.
f. Conversely, the above scales will be insufficient to reflect physical obsolescence in cases where buildings are substantially un-modernised and in any case, the scales do not apply in instances where the hereditament is not repairable at reasonable cost and where it falls to be valued rebus sic stantibus.
g. To qualify as a substantially un-modernised building it is expected that the building will predominantly have the following:
- single glazed windows
- original internal layout
- original ceiling height, with no suspended ceilings
- original external walls
- pre 1980 internal finishes (flooring, ceiling and walls, internal doors and fixtures and fittings)
This is not intended to be applicable to prestige buildings that add character and esteem to the hereditament.
h. In respect of functional and technological obsolescence, for buildings that remain in operational use, the scales include adjustments to reflect functional and technological deficiencies observable in buildings typical of their original period of construction but taking account of the level of assumed cyclical refurbishment reflected in the physical depreciation element of the scales.
i. The type of functional and technological obsolescence factors already reflected in the scales include the following:
- poor energy efficiency and/or environmental sustainability
- inappropriate layout inhibiting flexible and efficient space utilization
- modern health and safety, fire or building regulations that preclude or limit the original purposes of the building
- dated design practices that restrict modern usage (such as lack of/or minimal floor and ceiling voids)
- the absence of modern space heating or air conditioning systems within a building
j. It follows that only where buildings display specific functional deficiencies or issues of technological redundancy, that are atypical for their age, the age-related allowances provided by the scales should be increased.
k. One indicator that additional functional obsolescence is present such that the allowance provided by the scales should be adjusted is the presence of new and/or replacement facilities making the existing building surplus. Such replacement or other material redundancy should be considered and may result in the total redundancy of the pre-existing building, i.e. 100% obsolescence.
l. If at the Antecedent Valuation Date, where there are buildings, or parts of buildings, that through an established pattern of use have been unused for a number of years the area of these buildings, or parts of buildings, is to be excluded from the GIA.
m. This adjustment takes into account deficiencies in the actual building from an occupational point of view, which is not reflected in the ERC.
4.6.4 Flat roof allowance
Permanent Category 1 and 2 buildings with a flat roof are to receive an additional line entry allowance. The allowance is not to be applied to temporary buildings, stores, workshops or garages.
-
a) £80 per m2 ARC of the footprint of the flat roof for buildings constructed up to and including 2004. b) £60 per m2 ARC of the footprint of the flat roof for buildings constructed after 2004.
-
Where a building has varying roof types a reasonable apportionment should be made to arrive at the allowance.
-
What is flat as opposed to a pitched roof will generally be self-evident. Flat roofing allowances will automatically apply here to all types of flat roof. In instances where an allowance is sought for pitched roofing caseworkers should seek advice from the National Valuation Unit before proceeding.
4.7 Stage 3 – Land Value
4.7.1 Land value is to be arrived at by having regard to values prevailing in the locality, in accordance with Rating Manual Vol 4: Section 3 and the 2017 Land Value Practice Note.
- It is anticipated that developed land values will be generally based on industrial values in the locality with the exception of London where residential land values less 20% should be applied. Developed land values for all Billing Authorities on this basis are included at Appendix G1
- Undeveloped land is to be taken at the amenity value in the locality are included at Appendix G2
4.7.2 In this context developed land shall be taken to be the land upon which any building is situated, hard standing, artificial sports pitches and landscaping surrounding the buildings. Undeveloped land will consist of playing fields, open grass land, tree shelter belts etc.
4.8 Stage 4 – De-capitalisation rate
4.8.1 Generally the higher statutory de-capitalisation rate should be applied to the Effective Capital Value (ECV) to arrive at an annual equivalent, however there are some training facilities which may fall within the definition of educational hereditament within the meaning of The Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 and where they do so the lower rate is to be applied. In cases of doubt advice should be sought from the appropriate technical advisor in NVU. For ease of reference the prescribed decapitalisation rates are included in Table 1 below:
Table 1:
|
Country |
Rating List Year |
Standard or ‘Higher’ rate |
Public Sector or ‘Lower’ rate |
Public Sector Rate Application |
|
England |
2017 |
4.4% |
2.6% |
Healthcare, Education and MoD |
|
Wales |
2017 |
3.8% |
2.1% |
Healthcare, Education, MoD and Public Conveniences |
4.9 Stage 5 – End Adjustments
4.9.1 Any advantage or disadvantage which might affect the value of the occupation of the hereditament as a whole should be reflected at this last stage. An adjustment under this head should not duplicate adjustments made elsewhere. Most hereditaments will not warrant further allowances at this stage and where allowances are appropriate, it is expected that they should not normally exceed 15%.
Appendix A
Stage 1 Building Costs
|
ITEM |
COST GUIDE REF |
COST £/m2 |
REMARKS |
|
Police Stations with Custody |
63A00C |
£1,850 |
Including vehicle docks but excluding garages and workshops |
|
Stand-alone Custody Centres |
63A00D |
£2,540 |
Including vehicle docks, plant rooms and all component parts of the main building |
|
Garages/workshops |
63A00E |
£760 |
|
|
Vehicle examination facilities |
63A00J |
£1,130 |
Up to 500m2 |
|
63A00G |
£900 |
500m2 to 2000m2 |
|
|
Rifle ranges |
63A00H |
£1,800 |
|
|
Temporary Buildings |
98H006 |
£684 |
|
|
Stables |
63A00L |
£890 |
|
|
Kennels |
- |
- |
To be dealt with on their own merits |
Note 1
The Stage 1 Costs for Divisional and regional HQ and Stand-alone Custody Centre hereditaments have been analysed so as to derive a single cost for the entirety of the main building i.e. to include vehicle docks, plant rooms etc all at the single rate. The only elements that should be costed individually are those separate and distinct facilities such as detached garages and vehicle workshops etc.
Stand-alone custody centres are a relatively new development in the police estate, as forces move towards centralised facilities. It will usually be evident which buildings should be valued as stand-alone custody centres, the majority of which were built from 2012 onwards. The majority use will be the custody suite itself, with ancillary offices dedicated to the running of the custody facility.
Note 2
Solar panels and wind turbines should be added for at the appropriate figure as given in the 2017 Rating Cost Guide.
Note 3
Where external sports facilities are present at Regional HQ’s they are to be costed in accordance with the guidance in the 2017 Rating Cost Guide.
Appendix B
Stage 1 – The Addition for External Works
External Works
An addition for external works will be made within the range of 5-20%. The following percentages would typically apply but are not intended to be prescriptive.
Police stations with Custody and Stand-alone Custody Centres
|
Description |
Addition |
|
A site with almost 100% site coverage, will typically apply to central area sites with minimal ext. wks. |
5.0% |
|
A site with adequate car parking spaces for police vehicles and some staff/public parking but limited amount of landscaping. |
10% |
|
An extensive site with adequate car parking for police vehicles, staff and visitors and extensive landscaping. |
20% |
|
Stand-alone Custody Centre - a single rate of 15% will be adopted for all stand-alone custody centres. |
15% |
Notes:
1) External works are inclusive of external CCTV, fencing, security barriers, all hard standing and landscaped areas
2) Where multi-storey car parks are present, they are to be added for separately and an appropriate adjustment made to the external works addition if appropriate.
|
Description |
Cost Guide Ref |
Addition |
|
Multi-storey car parks |
98H011 |
£458 m2 or £10,300 per space |
|
Basement car parks |
98H012 |
£786/m2 or £17669/space |
|
Single deck (steel) car parks |
See note# |
£6,350 per space |
Note: Substantial multi-storey car parks should have a construction cost as per the above table. An additional cost code has been introduced to cover simple ‘meccano’ style car parks that consist of a single upper storey/deck. Consideration should be given to whether the cost should be applied to both the ground and upper deck. Where the single deck has been constructed over an existing concrete/tarmac car park with minimal alteration to the bottom storey then the cost should only be applied to the upper deck. In such circumstances the lower car park element will form part of the consideration to the external works addition.
Appendix C
Location adjustment
N.B. The Regions referred to are administrative areas and are not significant boundaries.
|
NORTH EAST REGION |
|
NORTH WEST REGION |
||
|
Durham County |
0.98 |
|
Cheshire |
0.91 |
|
Northumberland |
1.02 |
|
Greater Manchester |
0.91 |
|
Tees Valley |
1.01 |
|
Lancashire |
0.91 |
|
Tyne and Wear |
0.98 |
|
Merseyside |
0.91 |
|
|
|
|
Cumbria |
0.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YORKSHIRE and HUMBERSIDE REGION |
|
SOUTH WESTERN REGION |
||
|
East Riding and North Lincolnshire |
0.91 |
|
Cornwall |
1.03 |
|
North Yorkshire |
0.97 |
|
Devon |
1.01 |
|
South Yorkshire |
0.93 |
|
Dorset |
1.03 |
|
West Yorkshire |
0.91 |
|
Gloucestershire |
1.02 |
|
|
|
|
North Somerset |
1.01 |
|
|
|
|
Somerset |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
Wiltshire |
1.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAST MIDLANDS REGION |
|
WEST MIDLANDS REGION |
||
|
Derbyshire |
1.06 |
|
Herefordshire |
0.91 |
|
Leicestershire and Rutland |
1.04 |
|
Shropshire |
0.93 |
|
Lincolnshire |
1.05 |
|
Staffordshire |
0.92 |
|
Northamptonshire |
1.10 |
|
Warwickshire |
0.96 |
|
Nottinghamshire |
1.04 |
|
West Midlands |
0.94 |
|
|
|
|
Worcestershire |
0.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAST OF ENGLAND REGION |
|
SOUTH EAST REGION (EXCL. LONDON) |
||
|
Bedfordshire |
1.03 |
|
Berkshire |
1.12 |
|
Cambridgeshire |
0.99 |
|
Buckinghamshire |
1.11 |
|
Essex |
1.04 |
|
East Sussex |
1.14 |
|
Hertfordshire |
1.07 |
|
Hampshire |
1.09 |
|
Norfolk |
0.96 |
|
Isle of Wight |
1.08 |
|
Suffolk |
0.98 |
|
Kent |
1.13 |
|
|
|
|
Oxfordshire |
1.08 |
|
|
|
|
Surrey |
1.17 |
|
|
|
|
West Sussex |
1.12 |
|
WALES |
|
CENTRAL LONDON SOUTH |
||
|
North Wales |
|
Lambeth |
1.17 |
|
|
Flintshire |
0.90 |
|
Southwark |
1.17 |
|
Conwy |
0.94 |
|
Wandsworth |
1.19 |
|
Denbighshire |
0.91 |
|
|
|
|
Gwynedd |
0.98 |
|
GREATER LONDON NORTH EAST |
|
|
Isle of Anglesey |
0.96 |
|
Hackney |
1.15 |
|
Wrexham |
0.93 |
|
Haringey |
1.18 |
|
|
|
|
Newham |
1.08 |
|
Mid Wales |
|
Tower Hamlets |
1.15 |
|
|
Carmarthenshire |
0.98 |
|
Barking and Dagenham |
1.06 |
|
Ceredigion |
1.01 |
|
Enfield |
1.08 |
|
Powys |
0.99 |
|
Havering |
0.98 |
|
Pembrokeshire |
0.93 |
|
Redbridge |
1.05 |
|
|
|
|
Waltham Forest |
1.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Wales |
|
GREATER LONDON NORTH WEST |
||
|
Blaenau Gwent |
0.97 |
|
Barnet |
1.09 |
|
Bridgend |
0.95 |
|
Brent |
1.11 |
|
Caerphilly |
0.95 |
|
Ealing |
1.16 |
|
Cardiff |
0.96 |
|
Harrow |
1.06 |
|
Monmouthshire |
1.01 |
|
Hillingdon |
1.07 |
|
Neath Port Talbot |
0.90 |
|
Hounslow |
1.06 |
|
Newport |
0.96 |
|
|
|
|
Rhondda, Cynon, Taff |
0.94 |
|
GREATER LONDON SOUTH EAST |
|
|
Swansea |
0.94 |
|
Bexley |
1.12 |
|
Torfaen |
0.94 |
|
Bromley |
1.09 |
|
Vale of Glamorgan |
0.98 |
|
Croydon |
1.12 |
|
|
|
|
Greenwich |
1.13 |
|
CENTRAL LONDON NORTH |
|
Lewisham |
1.10 |
|
|
Camden |
1.19 |
|
|
|
|
City of London |
1.11 |
|
GREATER LONDON SOUTH WEST |
|
|
Hammersmith and Fulham |
1.18 |
|
Kingston Upon Thames |
1.14 |
|
Islington |
1.16 |
|
Merton |
1.13 |
|
Kensington and Chelsea |
1.23 |
|
Richmond Upon Thames |
1.12 |
|
Westminster |
1.19 |
|
Sutton |
1.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix D
Contract Size Adjustment
The adjustment for contract size should be made having regard to the total ERC (after adjustment for location but before the addition for fees) in accordance with the following scales:
|
ERC £ |
% Adjustment |
|
Up to 0.25 million |
+ 10% max |
|
0.5 million |
+ 8% |
|
0.75 million |
+6% |
|
1.0 million |
+4% |
|
1.5 million |
+2% |
|
2.0 million |
+1% |
|
3.0 million |
ZERO |
|
4.0 million |
-1% |
|
5.0 million |
-2% |
|
7.0 million |
-3% |
|
10.0 million |
-4% |
|
15.0 million |
-5% |
|
18.0 million |
-6% |
|
20.0 million |
-7% |
|
25.0 million |
-8% |
|
35.0 million |
-9% |
|
Over 40.0 million |
- 10.0% MAX |
|
NB. Intermediate figures may be interpolated. |
|
Appendix E
The addition for fees
Fees should be added at the percentages shown in the VOA published Cost Guide at Section 7. For convenience these are shown below inclusive of the 2% complexity addition. Note that minimum fees may apply to counter inversion.
|
Size of Contract |
% Adjustment |
Minimum fee |
|
Sums up to £750,000 |
14% |
|
|
£750,000 to £1,499,000 |
13% |
£105,000 |
|
£1,500,000 to £3,999,999 |
11.5% |
£195,000 |
|
£4,000,000 to £7,499,999 |
10.5% |
£460,000 |
|
£7,500,000 to £14,999,999 |
9.5% |
£787,500 |
|
Over £15,000,000 |
9% |
£1,425,000 |
Appendix F
Age and obsolescence scales
Table 1: Civic Buildings Obsolescence Allowances – Police Stations
|
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
|
2017 |
0.00% |
1985 |
40.00% |
|
2016 |
0.75% |
1984 |
40.75% |
|
2015 |
1.50% |
1983 |
44.00% |
|
2014 |
2.50% |
1982 |
47.25% |
|
2013 |
3.50% |
1981 |
50.50% |
|
2012 |
4.75% |
1980 |
53.75% |
|
2011 |
6.00% |
1979 |
54.50% |
|
2010 |
7.25% |
1978 |
55.00% |
|
2009 |
8.50% |
1977 |
55.50% |
|
2008 |
10.00% |
1976 |
56.00% |
|
2007 |
11.25% |
1975 |
56.50% |
|
2006 |
12.75% |
1974 |
56.75% |
|
2005 |
14.25% |
1973 |
57.25% |
|
2004 |
15.75% |
1972 |
57.50% |
|
2003 |
17.25% |
1971 |
58.00% |
|
2002 |
18.75% |
1970 |
58.25% |
|
2001 |
20.25% |
1969 |
58.50% |
|
2000 |
21.75% |
1968 |
58.50% |
|
1999 |
23.25% |
1967 |
58.75% |
|
1998 |
24.50% |
1966 |
59.00% |
|
1997 |
26.00% |
1965 |
59.00% |
|
1996 |
27.50% |
1964 |
59.25% |
|
1995 |
28.75% |
1963 |
59.25% |
|
1994 |
30.00% |
1962 |
60.00% |
|
1993 |
31.25% |
1961 |
60.00% |
|
1992 |
32.50% |
1960 |
60.00% |
|
1991 |
33.75% |
1959 |
57.50% |
|
1990 |
35.00% |
1958 |
55.00% |
|
1989 |
36.00% |
1957 |
55.00% |
|
1988 |
37.00% |
1956 |
55.00% |
|
1987 |
38.00% |
1955 and earlier |
55.00% |
|
1986 |
39.00% |
|
|
Table 2 – Industrial Buildings Obsolescence Table - Separate and distinct stores
|
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
|
2017 |
0.00% |
1985 |
27% |
|
2016 |
0.50% |
1984 |
28% |
|
2015 |
1.00% |
1983 |
29% |
|
2014 |
1.50% |
1982 |
30% |
|
2013 |
2.00% |
1981 |
31% |
|
2012 |
2.50% |
1980 |
32% |
|
2011 |
3.00% |
1979 |
33% |
|
2010 |
3.50% |
1978 |
34% |
|
2009 |
4.00% |
1977 |
35% |
|
2008 |
4.50% |
1976 |
36% |
|
2007 |
5% |
1975 |
37% |
|
2006 |
6% |
1974 |
38% |
|
2005 |
7% |
1973 |
39% |
|
2004 |
8% |
1972 |
40% |
|
2003 |
9% |
1971 |
41% |
|
2002 |
10% |
1970 |
42% |
|
2001 |
11% |
1969 |
43% |
|
2000 |
12% |
1968 |
44% |
|
1999 |
13% |
1967 |
45% |
|
1998 |
14% |
1966 |
46% |
|
1997 |
15% |
1965 |
47% |
|
1996 |
16% |
1964 |
48% |
|
1995 |
17% |
1963 |
49% |
|
1994 |
18% |
1962 |
50% |
|
1993 |
19% |
1961 |
50% |
|
1992 |
20% |
1960 |
50% |
|
1991 |
21% |
1959 |
50% |
|
1990 |
22% |
1958 |
50% |
|
1989 |
23% |
1957 |
50% |
|
1988 |
24% |
1956 |
50% |
|
1987 |
25% |
1955 and earlier |
50% |
|
1986 |
26% |
|
|
Notes Applicable to Table 2
-
As noted above, the scale of allowances commonly referred to as “the Monsanto scale” (derived from the approach determined in Monsanto v Farris (VO) 1998 RA 217) continue to be applicable to Industrial buildings.
-
The scales refer to the actual age of the specific item. A notional age can be adopted where the item has undergone significant improvement or refurbishment.
-
The scales do not provide for physical obsolescence alone. They also reflect the expected degree of functional and technical obsolescence for an asset of that age.
-
Any extraordinary functional or technical obsolescence may result in an additional allowance being considered. Examples include superfluity for modern purposes or where new technology evidences that the actual asset is relatively inefficient. Where an additional allowance is made the reasons for it must be stated in the valuation notes.
-
An element of risk of failure and the requirement of the tenant to replace the item at the end of its useful life is incorporated in the allowances.
-
It should not be automatically assumed that because a property is old it merits an allowance. Age in itself is not a disability but rather what often flows from age.
-
The scales are intended to provide a degree of uniformity of allowance. They should be regarded as the maximum allowances to be given.
-
The scales should only be used as guidance in accordance with the principles outlined in the Rating Manual.
-
Allowances in excess of 50% for buildings or P and M should only be adopted in exceptional circumstances. It is unlikely that many very old buildings exist which have not undergone some form of modernisation or refurbishment. Where a building or piece of plant has obviously not undergone refurbishment or modernisation at some stage it is permissible to give allowances up to a maximum of 65% as indicated in the scales (below).
-
Allowances may be up to 50% higher from those shown in the scales for structures which are of a temporary nature and have continued in use well beyond their intended life span.
-
It should not be assumed automatically that because an item of plant or machinery is old it merits an allowance. If an asset is well maintained the amount of use may well not affect the item or its value. However, with age the risk of breakdown is likely to increase and functional and technological obsolescence factors are likely to become prevalent. These factors must be borne in mind when selecting an appropriate obsolescence allowance.
-
The scales of allowances therefore take into account the average use of items over a period of time, bearing in mind the physical, functional and technical obsolescence that may occur during the stated period.
-
Where judgement through actual knowledge of the item is inconsistent with the allowance scales the item should be valued accordingly recording the reasons for the divergence from the scale.
-
In any instance of variation from the scales in accordance with these instructions, the reasoning for this must be recorded in the valuation.
Table 3 - Temporary Buildings Obsolescence Table (Category 3 buildings)
|
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
Year of Building Completion |
% Age and Obsolescence Allowance |
|
2016 |
1.5 |
2002 |
22.5 |
1988 |
43.5 |
|
2015 |
3.0 |
2001 |
24.0 |
1987 |
45.0 |
|
2014 |
4.5 |
2000 |
25.5 |
1986 |
46.5 |
|
2013 |
6.0 |
1999 |
27.0 |
1985 |
48.0 |
|
2012 |
7.5 |
1998 |
28.5 |
1984 |
49.5 |
|
2011 |
9.0 |
1997 |
30.0 |
1983 |
51.0 |
|
2010 |
10.5 |
1996 |
31.5 |
1982 |
52.5 |
|
2009 |
12.0 |
1995 |
33.0 |
1981 |
54.0 |
|
2008 |
13.5 |
1994 |
34.5 |
1980 |
55.5 |
|
2007 |
15.0 |
1993 |
36.0 |
1979 |
57.0 |
|
2006 |
16.5 |
1992 |
37.5 |
1978 |
58.5 |
|
2005 |
18.0 |
1991 |
39.0 |
1977 |
60.0 |
|
2004 |
19.5 |
1990 |
40.5 |
Pre 1977 |
By agreement |
|
2003 |
21.0 |
1989 |
42.0 |
|
|
Appendix G1
Developed Land Values
|
BA Code |
Geographic Regions and Billing Authorities |
Developed Land Values |
|
|
South East |
|
|
3110 |
Oxford |
£1,730,000 |
|
435 |
Milton Keynes |
£1,000,000 |
|
405 |
Aylesbury Vale |
£865,000 |
|
3105 |
Cherwell |
£1,235,500 |
|
3125 |
West Oxfordshire |
£990,000 |
|
1705 |
Basingstoke and Deane |
£1,500,000 |
|
1765 |
Winchester |
£1,250,000 |
|
1780 |
Southampton |
£1,250,000 |
|
3805 |
Adur |
£1,450,000 |
|
2235 |
Maidstone |
£1,350,000 |
|
335 |
Bracknell Forest |
£1,600,000 |
|
340 |
West Berkshire |
£1,200,000 |
|
345 |
Reading |
£2,000,000 |
|
350 |
Slough |
£1,750,000 |
|
355 |
Windsor and Maidenhead |
£1,700,000 |
|
360 |
Wokingham |
£1,500,000 |
|
1410 |
Eastbourne |
£1,000,000 |
|
1415 |
Hastings |
£750,000 |
|
1425 |
Lewes |
£1,000,000 |
|
1430 |
Rother |
£1,000,000 |
|
1435 |
Wealden |
£1,200,000 |
|
1445 |
Brighton and Hove |
£1,500,000 |
|
2205 |
Ashford |
£1,000,000 |
|
2210 |
Canterbury |
£1,000,000 |
|
2215 |
Dartford |
£1,500,000 |
|
2220 |
Dover |
£500,000 |
|
2230 |
Gravesham |
£1,350,000 |
|
2245 |
Sevenoaks |
£1,400,000 |
|
2250 |
Shepway |
£850,000 |
|
2255 |
Swale |
£1,100,000 |
|
2260 |
Thanet |
£650,000 |
|
2265 |
Tonbridge and Malling |
£1,350,000 |
|
2270 |
Tunbridge Wells |
£1,200,000 |
|
2280 |
Medway |
£1,250,000 |
|
3605 |
Elmbridge |
£2,000,000 |
|
3610 |
Epsom and Ewell |
£1,750,000 |
|
3615 |
Guildford |
£1,700,000 |
|
3620 |
Mole Valley |
£1,650,000 |
|
3625 |
Reigate and Banstead |
£1,600,000 |
|
3630 |
Runnymede |
£1,900,000 |
|
3635 |
Spelthorne |
£2,000,000 |
|
3640 |
Surrey Heath |
£1,600,000 |
|
3645 |
Tandridge |
£1,500,000 |
|
3650 |
Waverley |
£1,400,000 |
|
3655 |
Woking |
£1,600,000 |
|
3810 |
Arun |
£1,450,000 |
|
3815 |
Chichester |
£1,300,000 |
|
3820 |
Crawley |
£2,000,000 |
|
3825 |
Horsham |
£1,450,000 |
|
3830 |
Mid Sussex |
£1,450,000 |
|
3835 |
Worthing |
£1,450,000 |
|
410 |
South Buckinghamshire |
£2,000,000 |
|
415 |
Chiltern |
£925,000 |
|
425 |
Wycombe |
£1,235,500 |
|
3115 |
South Oxfordshire |
£990,000 |
|
3120 |
Vale of White Horse |
£445,000 |
|
1710 |
East Hampshire |
£1,250,000 |
|
1715 |
Eastleigh |
£1,100,000 |
|
1720 |
Fareham |
£950,000 |
|
1725 |
Gosport |
£800,000 |
|
1730 |
Hart |
£1,200,000 |
|
1735 |
Havant |
£1,000,000 |
|
2100 |
Isle of Wight |
£500,000 |
|
1740 |
New Forest |
£750,000 |
|
1775 |
Portsmouth |
£1,250,000 |
|
1750 |
Rushmoor |
£1,500,000 |
|
1760 |
Test Valley |
£800,000 |
|
|
East Midlands |
|
|
2820 |
Kettering |
£725,000 |
|
2230 |
South Northamptonshire |
£800,000 |
|
2465 |
Leicester |
£595,000 |
|
1055 |
Derby |
£545,000 |
|
3060 |
Nottingham |
£480,000 |
|
2515 |
Lincoln |
£320,000 |
|
2530 |
South Kestevan |
£320,000 |
|
2825 |
Northampton |
£800,000 |
|
3010 |
Bassetlaw |
£480,000 |
|
2410 |
Charnwood |
£500,000 |
|
2805 |
Corby |
£550,000 |
|
2810 |
Daventry |
£800,000 |
|
2815 |
East Northamptonshire |
£750,000 |
|
2835 |
Wellingborough |
£750,000 |
|
1005 |
Amber Valley |
£300,000 |
|
1010 |
Bolsover |
£350,000 |
|
1015 |
Chesterfield |
£350,000 |
|
1025 |
Erewash |
£250,000 |
|
1030 |
High Peak |
£425,000 |
|
1035 |
North East Derbyshire |
£300,000 |
|
1040 |
South Derbyshire |
£500,000 |
|
1045 |
Derbyshire Dales |
£375,000 |
|
2405 |
Blaby |
£500,000 |
|
2415 |
Harborough |
£550,000 |
|
2420 |
Hinckley and Bosworth |
£450,000 |
|
2430 |
Melton |
£450,000 |
|
2435 |
North West Leicestershire |
£400,000 |
|
2440 |
Oadby and Wigston |
£550,000 |
|
2505 |
Boston |
£225,000 |
|
2510 |
East Lindsey |
£300,000 |
|
2520 |
North Kesteven |
£320,000 |
|
2525 |
South Holland |
£325,000 |
|
2535 |
West Lindsey |
£275,000 |
|
3005 |
Ashfield |
£360,000 |
|
3015 |
Broxtowe |
£340,000 |
|
3020 |
Gedling |
£480,000 |
|
3025 |
Mansfield |
£325,000 |
|
3030 |
Newark and Sherwood |
£360,000 |
|
3040 |
Rushcliffe |
£370,000 |
|
2470 |
Rutland |
£400,000 |
|
|
East |
|
|
505 |
Cambridge |
£875,000 |
|
1915 |
East Hertfordshire |
£1,200,000 |
|
1505 |
Basildon |
£1,250,000 |
|
530 |
South Cambridgshire |
£875,000 |
|
540 |
Peterborough |
£750,000 |
|
1550 |
Rochford |
£500,000 |
|
2625 |
Norwich |
£525,000 |
|
3515 |
Ipswich |
£605,000 |
|
1920 |
Hertsmere |
£1,200,000 |
|
1530 |
Colchester |
£650,000 |
|
510 |
East Cambridgeshire |
£450,000 |
|
515 |
Fenland |
£300,000 |
|
520 |
Huntingdonshire |
£750,000 |
|
1510 |
Braintree |
£550,000 |
|
1515 |
Brentwood |
£800,000 |
|
1520 |
Castle Point |
£500,000 |
|
1525 |
Chelmsford |
£750,000 |
|
1535 |
Epping Forest |
£800,000 |
|
1540 |
Harlow |
£900,000 |
|
1545 |
Maldon |
£500,000 |
|
1560 |
Tendring |
£500,000 |
|
1570 |
Uttlesford |
£750,000 |
|
1590 |
Southend-on-Sea |
£1,250,000 |
|
1595 |
Thurrock |
£1,750,000 |
|
2605 |
Breckland |
£325,000 |
|
2610 |
Broadland |
£300,000 |
|
2615 |
Great Yarmouth |
£300,000 |
|
2620 |
North Norfolk |
£225,000 |
|
2630 |
South Norfolk |
£325,000 |
|
2635 |
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk |
£450,000 |
|
3505 |
Babergh |
£265,000 |
|
3510 |
Forest Heath |
£495,000 |
|
3520 |
Mid Suffolk |
£295,000 |
|
3525 |
St Edmundsbury |
£295,000 |
|
3530 |
Suffolk Coastal |
£245,000 |
|
3535 |
Waveney |
£295,000 |
|
1905 |
Broxbourne |
£1,700,000 |
|
1910 |
Dacorum |
£1,800,000 |
|
1930 |
St Albans |
£1,300,000 |
|
1935 |
Stevenage |
£1,300,000 |
|
1940 |
Three Rivers |
£1,800,000 |
|
1945 |
Watford |
£1,500,000 |
|
1950 |
Welwyn Hatfield |
£1,500,000 |
|
235 |
Bedford |
£800,000 |
|
240 |
Central Bedfordshire |
£800,000 |
|
230 |
Luton |
£1,300,000 |
|
1925 |
North Hertfordshire |
£1,300,000 |
|
|
North East |
|
|
4510 |
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne |
£235,000 |
|
2935 |
Northumberland |
£135,000 |
|
4525 |
Sunderland |
£200,000 |
|
734 |
Middlesborough |
£195,000 |
|
1355 |
Durham |
£180,000 |
|
1350 |
Darlington |
£175,000 |
|
724 |
Hartlepool |
£180,000 |
|
728 |
Redcar and Cleveland |
£150,000 |
|
738 |
Stockton-on-Tees |
£150,000 |
|
4520 |
South Tyneside |
£200,000 |
|
4505 |
Gateshead |
£205,000 |
|
4515 |
North Tyneside |
£195,000 |
|
|
North West |
|
|
4215 |
Manchester |
£650,000 |
|
4235 |
Stockport |
£525,000 |
|
2345 |
Preston |
£600,000 |
|
665 |
Cheshire W and Chester |
£225,000 |
|
4205 |
Bolton |
£550,000 |
|
4250 |
Wigan |
£450,000 |
|
915 |
Carlisle |
£370,000 |
|
930 |
South Lakeland |
£500,000 |
|
4310 |
Liverpool |
£440,000 |
|
655 |
Warrington |
£740,000 |
|
650 |
Halton |
£290,000 |
|
660 |
Cheshire East |
£220,000 |
|
905 |
Allerdale |
£150,000 |
|
910 |
Barrow-in-Furness |
£225,000 |
|
920 |
Copeland |
£150,000 |
|
925 |
Eden |
£250,000 |
|
2315 |
Burnley |
£450,000 |
|
2320 |
Chorley |
£600,000 |
|
2325 |
Fylde |
£400,000 |
|
2330 |
Hyndburn |
£475,000 |
|
2335 |
Lancaster |
£525,000 |
|
2340 |
Pendle |
£400,000 |
|
2350 |
Ribble Valley |
£550,000 |
|
2355 |
Rossendale |
£475,000 |
|
2360 |
South Ribble |
£600,000 |
|
2365 |
West Lancashire |
£310,000 |
|
2370 |
Wyre |
£400,000 |
|
2372 |
Blackburn with Darwen |
£500,000 |
|
2373 |
Blackpool |
£400,000 |
|
4210 |
Bury |
£575,000 |
|
4220 |
Oldham |
£500,000 |
|
4225 |
Rochdale |
£500,000 |
|
4230 |
Salford |
£500,000 |
|
4240 |
Tameside |
£475,000 |
|
4245 |
Trafford |
£800,000 |
|
4305 |
Knowsley |
£440,000 |
|
4315 |
St Helens |
£310,000 |
|
4320 |
Sefton |
£370,000 |
|
4325 |
Wirral |
£200,000 |
|
|
South West |
|
|
1250 |
Bournemouth |
£950,000 |
|
1235 |
Weymouth and Portland |
£750,000 |
|
1110 |
Exeter |
£800,000 |
|
1115 |
North Devon |
£275,000 |
|
1160 |
Plymouth |
£375,000 |
|
840 |
Cornwall |
£350,000 |
|
3315 |
Taunton Deane |
£925,000 |
|
114 |
Bath and NE Somerset |
£1,100,000 |
|
119 |
South Gloucestershire |
£1,000,000 |
|
3935 |
Swindon |
£850,000 |
|
116 |
Bristol |
£1,000,000 |
|
121 |
North Somerset |
£680,000 |
|
835 |
Isles of Scilly |
£350,000 |
|
1105 |
East Devon |
£400,000 |
|
1125 |
South Hams |
£300,000 |
|
1130 |
Teignbridge |
£350,000 |
|
1135 |
Mid Devon |
£300,000 |
|
1145 |
Torridge |
£375,000 |
|
1150 |
West Devon |
£300,000 |
|
1165 |
Torbay |
£400,000 |
|
1210 |
Christchurch |
£800,000 |
|
1215 |
North Dorset |
£600,000 |
|
1225 |
Purbeck |
£700,000 |
|
1230 |
West Dorset |
£600,000 |
|
1240 |
East Dorset |
£600,000 |
|
1255 |
Poole |
£950,000 |
|
1605 |
Cheltenham |
£1,000,000 |
|
1610 |
Cotswold |
£850,000 |
|
1615 |
Forest of Dean |
£250,000 |
|
1620 |
Gloucester |
£900,000 |
|
1625 |
Stroud |
£850,000 |
|
1630 |
Tewkesbury |
£900,000 |
|
3305 |
Mendip |
£430,000 |
|
3310 |
Sedgemoor |
£740,000 |
|
3320 |
West Somerset |
£310,000 |
|
3325 |
South Somerset |
£860,000 |
|
3940 |
Wiltshire |
£740,000 |
|
|
West Midlands |
|
|
4605 |
Birmingham |
£950,000 |
|
4610 |
Coventry |
£800,000 |
|
4620 |
Sandwell |
£495,000 |
|
4635 |
Wolverhampton |
£495,000 |
|
3415 |
Lichfield |
£600,000 |
|
3245 |
Shropshire |
£500,000 |
|
3455 |
Stoke-on-Trent |
£475,000 |
|
3725 |
Warwick |
£750,000 |
|
1835 |
Worcester |
£650,000 |
|
1845 |
Wyre Forest |
£650,000 |
|
1805 |
Bromsgrove |
£700,000 |
|
1825 |
Redditch |
£700,000 |
|
1840 |
Wychavon |
£620,000 |
|
1850 |
Herefordshire |
£475,000 |
|
1860 |
Malvern Hills |
£580,000 |
|
3240 |
Telford and Wrekin |
£500,000 |
|
3405 |
Cannock Chase |
£600,000 |
|
3410 |
East Staffordshire |
£600,000 |
|
3420 |
Newcastle-under-Lyme |
£475,000 |
|
3425 |
Stafford |
£475,000 |
|
3430 |
South Staffordshire |
£500,000 |
|
3435 |
Staffordshire Moorlands |
£400,000 |
|
3445 |
Tamworth |
£500,000 |
|
3705 |
North Warwickshire |
£700,000 |
|
3710 |
Nuneaton and Bedworth |
£700,000 |
|
3715 |
Rugby |
£750,000 |
|
3720 |
Stratford-on-Avon |
£700,000 |
|
4615 |
Dudley |
£515,000 |
|
4625 |
Solihull |
£550,000 |
|
4630 |
Walsall |
£515,000 |
|
|
Yorkshire and Humber |
|
|
2715 |
Harrogate |
£375,000 |
|
2741 |
City of York |
£375,000 |
|
4705 |
Bradford |
£500,000 |
|
4710 |
Calderdale |
£475,000 |
|
4720 |
Leeds |
£650,000 |
|
4410 |
Doncaster |
£550,000 |
|
2002 |
North East Lincolnshire |
£320,000 |
|
2001 |
East Riding of Yorkshire |
£615,000 |
|
4420 |
Sheffield |
£600,000 |
|
4405 |
Barnsley |
£500,000 |
|
2705 |
Craven |
£300,000 |
|
2710 |
Hambleton |
£350,000 |
|
2720 |
Richmondshire |
£300,000 |
|
2725 |
Ryedale |
£300,000 |
|
2730 |
Scarborough |
£325,000 |
|
2735 |
Selby |
£425,000 |
|
4415 |
Rotherham |
£550,000 |
|
4715 |
Kirklees |
£475,000 |
|
4725 |
Wakefield |
£550,000 |
|
2002 |
North Lincolnshire |
£225,000 |
|
2004 |
Kingston upon Hull |
£440,000 |
|
|
Central London, North |
|
|
5210 |
Camden |
£36,000,000 |
|
5030 |
City of London |
£36,000,000 |
|
5990 |
City of Westminster |
£36,000,000 |
|
5390 |
Hammersmith and Fulham |
£36,000,000 |
|
5570 |
Islington |
£36,000,000 |
|
5600 |
Kensington and Chelsea |
£36,000,000 |
|
|
Central London, South |
|
|
5660 |
Lambeth |
£13,600,000 |
|
5840 |
Southwark |
£13,600,000 |
|
5960 |
Wandsworth |
£13,600,000 |
|
|
Greater London, North West |
|
|
5090 |
Barnet |
£2,960,000 |
|
5150 |
Brent |
£2,960,000 |
|
5270 |
Ealing |
£2,960,000 |
|
5450 |
Harrow |
£2,960,000 |
|
5510 |
Hillingdon |
£2,960,000 |
|
5540 |
Hounslow |
£2,960,000 |
|
|
Greater London, South West |
|
|
5630 |
Kingston upon Thames |
£10,400,000 |
|
5720 |
Merton |
£10,400,000 |
|
5810 |
Richmond upon Thames |
£10,400,000 |
|
5870 |
Sutton |
£10,400,000 |
|
|
Greater London, North East |
|
|
5060 |
Barking and Dagenham |
£4,400,000 |
|
5300 |
Enfield |
£4,400,000 |
|
5360 |
Hackney |
£4,400,000 |
|
5420 |
Haringey |
£4,400,000 |
|
5480 |
Havering |
£4,400,000 |
|
5750 |
Newham |
£4,400,000 |
|
5780 |
Redbridge |
£4,400,000 |
|
5900 |
Tower Hamlets |
£4,400,000 |
|
5930 |
Waltham Forest |
£4,400,000 |
|
|
Greater London, South East |
|
|
5120 |
Bexley |
£5,600,000 |
|
5180 |
Bromley |
£5,600,000 |
|
5240 |
Croydon |
£5,600,000 |
|
5330 |
Greenwich |
£5,600,000 |
|
5690 |
Lewisham |
£5,600,000 |
|
|
South Wales (exc Cardiff) |
|
|
6825 |
Carmarthenshire (1) |
£209,950 |
|
6828 |
Carmarthenshire (2) |
£98,800 |
|
6829 |
Carmarthenshire (3) |
£185,250 |
|
6840 |
Monmouthshire |
£345,800 |
|
6845 |
Pembrokeshire |
£148,200 |
|
6855 |
Swansea |
£308,750 |
|
6910 |
Blaenau Gwent |
£185,000 |
|
6915 |
Bridgend |
£308,750 |
|
6920 |
Caerphilly |
£250,000 |
|
6925 |
Merthyr Tydfil |
£185,000 |
|
6930 |
Neath Port Talbot |
£148,200 |
|
6935 |
Newport |
£370,500 |
|
6940 |
Rhondda, Cynon, Taff |
£250,000 |
|
6945 |
Torfaen |
£308,750 |
|
6950 |
Vale of Glamorgan |
£370,500 |
|
6815 |
Cardiff |
£494,000 |
|
|
Mid and North Wales |
|
|
6805 |
Isle of Anglesey |
£160,000 |
|
6810 |
Gwynedd |
£160,000 |
|
6820 |
Ceredigion |
£90,000 |
|
6830 |
Denbighshire |
£135,000 |
|
6835 |
Flintshire |
£180,000 |
|
6850 |
Powys (1) |
£160,000 |
|
6853 |
Powys (2) |
£150,000 |
|
6854 |
Powys (3) |
£175,000 |
|
6905 |
Conwy |
£150,000 |
|
6955 |
Wrexham |
£370,000 |
Appendix G2
Undeveloped Land Value
Amenity land values to be use by region
|
Geographic Region |
£ per hectare (ha) |
|
Central London N |
£250,000 |
|
Central London S |
£250,000 |
|
GLNW |
£250,000 |
|
GLSW |
£250,000 |
|
GLNE |
£250,000 |
|
GLSE |
£250,000 |
|
North East |
£50,000 |
|
North West |
£75,000 |
|
Yorkshire and Humberside |
£75,000 |
|
East Midlands |
£75,000 |
|
West Midlands |
£75,000 |
|
East of England |
£75,000 |
|
South East |
£100,000 |
|
South West |
£75,000 |
|
Mid and North Wales |
£30,000 |
|
South Wales (excl Cardiff) |
£35,000 |
|
Cardiff |
£40,000 |
The definitions of the areas referred to above can be found in the 2017 Land Value Practice Note.
1. Co-ordination Arrangements:
This is a Group Class and responsible for co-ordination is detailed in Rating Manual section 6 part 1: practice note 1: 2005.
The 2005 Special Category Codes for Police Stations is 931. As a Group class the appropriate suffix letter is ‘G’.
2. Background:
From enquiries and discussions during the course of the 2005 Rating List, it has become clear that many Police Forces are working towards a policy of providing a point of presence in easily accessible locations for the public, with a view to moving custody and other specialised functions which are not so locationally sensitive to centralised facilities.
It is recognised however that some forces are well down this route, some are merely just beginning to implement such changes whilst others may still be very much at the planning stage. Consequently in some Police Authority areas there maybe as few as 3 designated large, purpose built custody suites while in others there maybe numerous custody suites often forming part of older centrally located police stations. In some older stations there may be cells which were not in use at the AVD, or which subsequently became disused with the completion of new detention facilities on-site or elsewhere; such cells add no value to the hereditament.
3. Valuation Method:
As this sector is in flux between the traditional type of policing structure that previous Practice Notes have referred and this new structure, and there is no consistent level of implementation between forces. This poses a significant problem when advising on the valuation approach to be adopted.
Previous Guidance on the Contractors Method for this class was by reference to the Equivalent Substitute building. For the 2010 List it is possible that the tenant’s alternative to a Traditional Police Station would be for operational and administrative duties to be located in buildings for which a rental market exists whilst custody and certain other specialised uses would be located in a centralised facility.
However, whilst custody exists within a Hereditament, it is correct that we should reflect the specialised nature and cost of these areas.
This property is valued using the non-bulk server. The manual can be accessed here.
4. Rental Basis:
For the 2010 List, given the considerations above, traditional Police Stations are to be valued by reference to local office tone for the Operational and Administrative accommodation.
In adopting rental levels drawn from office premises it should be noted that some police stations are located in prime areas purely by historic accident. In such instances location in peak areas may not be operationally essential. Where it is not, it will be appropriate to adopt rental levels found in other areas within which the police station might alternatively be located without any operational detriment.
Some police stations will include cells/custody suites which are disused or used for some other purpose than the holding of detainees, their function having been superseded by centralised facilities elsewhere. In these circumstances the accommodation should be valued accordingly. Where the use of cells/suites has changed since AVD, it is important to ascertain the operational reason for the change. In the majority of instances this will be as a consequence of a material change of circumstances in the locality e.g. the provision of replacement facilities elsewhere and in those circumstances it will be appropriate to reflect the lack of demand within the hereditament for custody accommodation. However if the change of use has arisen solely as a consequence of policy changes and/ or a fall in arrest and detention rates post AVD, then the cell/custody suite should continue to be valued on the basis that a demand exists for its original purpose. Some Police Authorities despite having introduced centralised custody suites may have kept some cells operational in local police stations for weekend or emergency use only. Such accommodation should be treated as fully operational facilities.
Where the custody area is still operational, an addition should be made to the basic price per square metre of
Cell / Custody Area Addition of £ 25 /m2
This figure has been arrived at by recapitalising the additional cost of constructing Custody Accommodation over that of main operational or admin areas. It is anticipated that most, if not all, valuations performed within RSA will require line entry adjustments to the custody suite/cell element to produce the required outcome. The quantum of the adjustment will depend upon the “main rate adopted” and the accommodation use code (AUC) utilised in the valuation.
5. Contractors Basis.
For the 2010 Rating List this method should only be used for stand alone specialised police hereditaments for which no evidence of Rental Value exists.
This would typically include the Centralised Custody Suites referred to earlier in this practice note.
For Advice on the valuation of these hereditaments please see Appendix 1 to this practice note.
1 Application.
The following guidance relates valuation on the contractors basis and should only be used for specialist stand alone hereditaments for which no evidence of rental value exists.
2.1 Stage 1 – Estimated Replacement Cost.
With the exception of areas that are patently not used and have no prospect of being used, the GIA of the specialist building should be used to calculate the Estimated Replacement Cost (Stage 1) of the building by applying the building costs in accordance with the table below :
The following costs are recommended, where recent actual costs are not available:
| Freestanding Custody Suites | £1825 - £1975 per sq m GIA |
| Garages/workshops | £690 per sq m GIA |
| Vehicle examination facilities | £900 per sq m GIA |
| Rifle ranges | £1725 per sq m GIA |
| Stables | £850 per sq m GIA |
| Kennels | £1235 per sq m GIA |
External Works.
An addition for external works will be made within the range of 5% - 15%. The following percentages would typically apply but are not intended to be prescriptive;
| Description | Addition |
| A site with almost 100% site coverage, will typically apply to central area sites with minimal ext. wks. | 5% |
| A site with limited car parking spaces for staff/public minimal amount of landscaping. | 7.5% |
| An extensive site with adequate car parking and sufficient landscaping. | 15% |
Contract Size & Location Adjustments.
Contract size adjustments should be made, and location factors applied in respect of this class in accordance with the scales in the cost guide.
Fees
General guidance on the amount to be added for fees is provided in the R2005 Cost Guide.
For Specialised Police Buildings a range of 13% to 15% will be appropriate. The lower end of this range will apply to more basic types, increasing with complexity up to the maximum.
2.2 Stage 2 – Age & Obsolescence
The standard age-related allowances scale contained in the R2010 Cost Guide should be applied in most circumstances. However, in the case of buildings that have been significantly refurbished a lower allowance may be applicable.
The same age related allowance scale applied to the buildings should also be applied to the external works.
2.3 Stage 3 - Land Value
Land value should be arrived at by having regard to values prevailing in the locality, in accordance with Rating Manual section 4 part 3. A reduction of up to 20% from the prevailing land use value may be appropriate to reflect the mode and category of use, but this need not be made where there is evidence of land being acquired at the full value for the prevailing use in the area.
With regard to land being acquired at full prevailing use value, it is understood that most new police buildings are built under the government’s PFI initiative, and as such by the time the land is to be acquired, details of the project are usually in the public domain. As a result land owners would usually press for a higher price and the hypothetical tenant would expect to have to pay at least the market value for prevailing use. This practice should not be used to justify a level in excess of prevailing use but where such evidence exists, any abatement from prevailing use value should be resisted.
2.4 Stage 4 - Decapitalisation Rate
The Adjusted Replacement Cost (ARC) of the hereditament shall be decapitalised to an annual equivalent by taking the prescribed rate. The prescribed rate may be different in England and Wales.
2.5 Stage 5 – End Adjustments
Any advantage or disadvantage, which might affect the value of the occupation of the hereditament as a whole should be reflected at this stage. An adjustment under this head should not duplicate adjustments made elsewhere.
3. I.T. Support.
Where the Contractors basis is appropriate the standard generic Contractors Spreadsheet should be used. A master copy of which is located in the R-Drive. All such valuations will be downloaded into the new non-bulk server. See IAs 100903 & 140503 for further details
1 Application.
The following guidance relates to the valuation of Police Training Colleges only and for all other types of Police Occupation reference should be made to Practice Note 1.
2 Method of Valuation.
The recommended method of valuation for stand alone police training colleges is the Contractors Method.
Most Police Training Colleges will have accommodation that is comparable to Colleges of Further Education. And for guidance on the levels of value to be adopted caseworkers are referred to the Colleges of Further Education Practice Note.
For those Police Training Colleges where all or part of the hereditament are of a significantly higher standard than accommodation found in Colleges of Further Education, it may be appropriate to adopt University levels of value for those parts.
This property is valued using the non-bulk server. The manual can be accessed here.
3 Decapitalisation Rate
The Adjusted Replacement Cost (ARC) of the hereditament arrived at in accordance with s.2 above shall be decapitalised to an annual equivalent by taking the prescribed educational decap.rate.
However valuers should exercise caution as some Police Training Colleges may be co-located with Headquarter Buildings or other non-educational uses. Where under the established principles of rating this forms one hereditament, it will be necessary to ascertain whether the educational decap rate is appropriate having regards to the proportions of educational vs non-educational use.
4. I.T. Support.
Where the Contractors basis is appropriate the standard generic Contractors Spreadsheet should be used, a master copy of which is located in the R-Drive. All such valuations will be downloaded into the new non-bulk server. See IAs 100903 & 140503 for further details