Use of Empty Rates Relief for Commercial and Industrial Properties

The request was partially successful.

Dear Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,
I would like to request responses to the following questions: 
1) For how many commercial properties within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have there been multiple applications for empty rates relief in the past three years with a time lapse of no less than approximately four and a half months between applications? 
2) For how many industrial properties within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have there been multiple applications for empty rates relief in the past three years with a time lapse of no less than approximately seven and a half months between applications? 
3) What are the addresses of the properties covered by your answers to questions (1) and (2) above? 
4) Who are the proprietors of the properties covered by your answers to questions (1) and (2) above? 
5) For each proprietor covered by your response to question (4), what is their interest in the property (for example, freehold or leasehold)? 
6) For each proprietor covered by your response to question (4), are they a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)? 
7) If the applicants for empty rates relief for the properties covered by your answers to questions (1) and (2) above are not the proprietors of those properties, who are the applicants? 
8) For each of the properties mentioned in your answers to the questions above, on what date did the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receive the most recent application for empty rates relief, and was such relief granted? 
Alternatively, if you already operate a publication scheme for any of the information requested above, please can you let me know where and how I can access this scheme in order to obtain that information? Of course, for any information requested above that is not part of a publication scheme, I would still like to receive that information from you by way of this Freedom of Information request. 
I understand that certain landowners are exploiting a loophole in the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 to avoid paying business rates for long periods of time while keeping their properties empty. 
An empty commercial or industrial property will be exempt from paying business rates for a certain period of time. After three months (for a commercial property) or six months (for an industrial property) of being empty, the landowner must start paying business rates again. 
I am aware that certain landowners will enter into a lease of at least six weeks at the end of this three or six month period with the sole intention of using this lease to avoid paying business rates for a further three or six months once the lease expires. 
This is done to get around regulation 5 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008, according to which a lease of less than six weeks would not achieve this goal. 
It is worth noting that, despite the six week lease, the property is likely to remain continuously empty by any reasonable definition of the word, as High Court case-law has found that simply installing Bluetooth apparatus into a premises is enough for that property to be “occupied”. 
I trust there will be no issues regarding the ‘personal data’ exemption to disclosing information. I understand that ‘personal data’ is limited to data about identifiable living individuals and does not extend to information about companies or organisations. To the extent that the vast majority of answers you can provide to my questions above will relate to companies and organisations, I expect you will be able to disclose those answers without breaching your obligations under the Data Protection Act. 
However, if you take the view that some of the requested information does constitute ‘personal data’, I trust you will be able to find a way of processing it fairly and lawfully such that you are able to fulfil your duties under the Data Protection Principles. I implore you to find a way of doing so, especially given the public interest in disclosing this information, given its importance to the public discussion on issues such as tax avoidance, homelessness and property speculation. Such importance was recently recognised by Judge Fiona Henderson, who noted in the context of a freedom of information case brought against Camden London Borough Council that “the public interest lies in putting empty properties back into use” and who thereby ordered the disclosure of certain information that would facilitate this. It is suggested that the information requested herein would also facilitate this, by contributing to the public discussion on properties that remain empty and hopefully driving forward public policy proposals that would bring such properties back into use.
Yours faithfully,
L Jones

Lowther, Jason: CP-ICT: RBKC, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

1 Attachment

Dear L Jones

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REF: 2018-0208

I am responding to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which we received on 10th February 2018, for information held by the Council.

RESPONSE;
Please see attached information for the first 4 questions.
We do not hold details of applications that were not granted so can only provide the number that were approved and the date the last request was granted.

The Council does not hold Owner details for all properties and we are unable to provide answers in respect of questions 5-7. Owner details can found at The Land Registry.

Please accept our apologies in the delay in getting this response to you

Complaints

I trust this has satisfied your request. Should you be unhappy with the handling of your request, the Council has an internal complaints process for handling FOIA complaints. Complaints are reviewed by the Chief Solicitor and Monitoring Officer or her nominee. A form is available from our website to lodge your complaint http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra... Please contact us if you do not have website access and we can provide you with a copy of the form. Following this review, should you still be unhappy with how your information request has been handled, you have a further right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who is responsible for ensuring compliance with FOIA.

Yours sincerely

Senior Information Governance and Management Officer
Information Management
Information Technology
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea || Westminster City Council

show quoted sections