Rates revaluation of non-domestic properties in Scotland 2017

Revaluation 2017

8. Provisional revaluations were made available online at the Scottish Assessors Association website^[2] from 15 December 2016. Final revaluation notices were generally issued by the Assessors around mid-March 2017, with revaluations able to be viewed online from 1 April 2017. Rates bills for 2017-18 issued separately from local authorities.

9. Total rateable value for all properties on the valuation roll at 1 April 2017 was £7,358 million, compared with rateable value at 31 March 2017 of £6,815 million.

10. Table 1 shows that the largest proportional increases in rateable value have generally occurred in properties with smaller rateable values, many of which qualify for relief via the Small Business Bonus Scheme. As such, these properties are not necessarily seeing increases in their bill as a result of revaluation. The rateable value of larger properties has, in total, remained broadly constant. The rateable values for 'designated utilities' (typically large utility companies whose property is valued on a nationwide basis)^[3] have seen changes in rateable value that are not representative of the wider tax base, and have been set out separately throughout this document. The Annex discusses this and other data issues that affect this analysis of rateable values.

Table 1: Changes in rateable value at 2017 revaluation, by 'old'¹ RV band

1. 'Old' RV refers to RV at 31 March 2017. New RV refers to RV at 1 April 2017.
2. "Other" can refer to instances where a change in respect of an entry in the valuation roll means that a direct comparison cannot be made between 31 March 2017 and 1 April 2017. This could be due to a property split or merger, or an administrative change implemented at revaluation. The Annex describes the main factors affecting data analysis in more detail.

11. Aggregate-level data can obscure variations on a property-by-property level. Figure 1 shows the distribution of rateable value changes across the tax base.

Figure 1: Rateable value change distribution at 2017 revaluation

12. As can be seen in Figure 1, the majority of properties saw relatively moderate rises or falls in RV at revaluation. However, some outliers saw larger increases. The majority of these properties have relatively low RV, with nearly three-quarters having a new RV of under £15,000 (i.e. potentially eligible for 100% relief under the Small Business Bonus Scheme).

13. Table 2 shows total RV changes by sector^[4]. Shops and offices both show overall decreases in RV, while industrial and health/medical properties show an overall increase in RV. The category "other" includes a wide variety of different property classes, and the larger increase is driven by sub-sectors such as hotels and public houses. However other sub-sectors in this category, such as petrochemicals and quarries, show more modest rises in rateable value.

Table 2: Changes in rateable value, at 2017 revaluation by sector

1. Due to valuation roll entries for certain properties being split at revaluation, the reduction in RV for offices appears larger than it would on a like for like basis (where it would be closer to -3%).

14. Table 3 shows RV changes by local authority. Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Argyll and Bute have seen the largest overall increases in RV, with Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and West Lothian all seeing an overall decrease.

Table 3: Rateable value changes at 2017 revaluation, by local authority

15. Table 4 shows RV changes in more detail, in particular how many properties in each local authority have seen a rise, a fall or no change, together with average movements in RV.

Table 4: Proportion of properties with rateable value increase/decrease at 2017 revaluation, by local authority

Note: This table includes only properties shown in comparable entries on the roll both at 31 March and at 1 April (222,480 properties of the total 227,770 properties on the roll at 1^st April). It excludes those which, for various reasons (see paragraph 1 of the Annex), were not shown in comparable entries on both rolls.