RATING AND VALUATION (STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS) (Hansard, 25 March 1974)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)
I beg to move, That the Rating of Minor Structural Alterations to Dwellings (Specified Amount) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved. The House has sat a long time, you have been in the Chair for a long period, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that I shall be brief in moving the order. It is made under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, which was one of the last Acts passed by the previous Government.
That section has the effect of excluding proposals being made to change the valuation list between revaluations if structural alterations have been made to a property to install central heating or if the alterations would give rise to an increase in gross value not exceeding the prescribed amount. The purpose of the order is to prescribe the amount, and I believe that £30 is the right figure. It would mean that if a householder built a normal size garage the rateable value of his property would not be increased between revaluations. The same would apply to the building of porches, bay windows and so on.
I hope that if the order is approved we shall have got rid of one of the irritations of the rating system. We have heard this evening that there are many irritations in the rating system as a whole.
Many householders have complained that they have been penalised for improving their properties. The order will ensure that they at least get a respite. I cannot make the respite permanent—that would not be fair to other ratepayers—but at least we can remove the immediate source of complaint.
I therefore commend the order to the House.

§ Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing 232 the order. As he has told the House, it flows naturally from the Local Government Act 1974, for which my Government were responsible. Our gratitude will be equalled only by that of many ratepayers who will now have removed from them the irritation of having a proposal for increases in rates made to them consequential upon any improvements to their property that they may wish to carry out within certain limits, the limit laid down by the order being that of £30 value in the valuation list.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions about that figure because of the confusion in the House when we debated Section 21 of the Act on Report. Certain hon. Members confused the distinction between the value of the work carried out and the effect of that work on the valuation list. The £30 refers only to the changes in the valuation list, not to the value of the work carried out which might otherwise bring about a change in the valuation list.
Can the Minister give further guidance on that point? He has said that a £30 change in valuation is equivalent to the building of a garage. It is conceivable that ratepayers would hesitate to carry out alterations, not being, sure of the effect on the valuation list. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, for example, £1,000 worth of work would bring about a £30 change in the valuation list, or would it need to be a £1,500 or £2,000 value of work? There must be some relationship between the value of work carried out and the effect on the valuation list.
No doubt the valuers have a rule-of-thumb method by which they operate. Can the Minister give the public the benefit of that method? If he cannot answer the question, can he help the public by offering them a service whereby they can have inquiries answered before they carry out their work? Nothing could be worse than for a man to carry out alterations and then find that they bring about a £31 change in valuation, with the result that he has to pay rates on the whole sum, having missed the benefit of the order by only £1. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to see people suffer that sort of irritation. Therefore, can he suggest a method by which the public could make inquiries to the town hall, the valuation officer or his Department?

§ Mr. Oakes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for pointing out that the £30 is not £30 worth of work but £30 added to the valuation of the house. The cost of the work will be considerably in excess of £30.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what would be the value of the work and how it is assessed. It is difficult to reply, because valuation officers in different parts of the country value a structure in different ways. Indeed, in the negotiations that I have been having with many of my hon. Friends and delegations from throughout the country on another matter which the House debated much more excitedly earlier this evening, it is almost impossible to give a specific value of work, whether it be £1,000, £1,500 or whatever it might be, as giving rise to a specific increase in the value of a property. Value depends on the area, the situation of the house and many other factors.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the position of a householder who is to build a garage, a bay window or make an improvement or alteration to his property. We struck the figure of £30 as it would accommodate a normal-sized garage in most areas. It would not apply to a super-luxury garage for many cars. We have in mind the normal garage that an ordinary householder may want to build. The same applies to normal alterations such as a porch or bay windows. If there were a number of such improvements, they might give rise to a proposal by the valuation officers. I hope that local authorities, valuation officers and my Department would endeavour to be helpful to any individual who made an inquiry in advance, when seeing his builder about building a property, as to whether he was exceeding the limits.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the figure of £30 which we have in mind will take in the normal type of development. That is why that figure has been chosen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the replies which I have given. I commend the order to the House.