Railway lands and property

[rgstn]

Did or do the railway companies pay rates/council tax on their lands? if so how is that calculated. If they have to pay rates for track bed then the costs must be enormous.

rgstn

[1H was 2E]

Certainly from around 1900 to at least nationalisation railway companies had to pay rates to the parish etc. council.
In rural areas it was said that 20% - 25% of the total rates income of rural councils came from the railways.
And what was that money spent on?
In that period; on surfacing the roads in the district.
So the railway companies were forced to subsidise their competitors,road haulage and buses, extensively.
In BR days the reason that many station footbridges lost their roof was because in the former state they counted as a building attracting commercial rates; in the latter, none.

[65447]

They would not pay Council Tax under the present system as almost all of the present estate is business or commercial and the occupants of habitable dwellings are liable for Council Tax. Business Rates would be chargeable on premises that fall within that system.

Prior to that rates were payable on all railway land and property and each company had (or retained) an Estates Surveyor (and supporting staff) on the establishment to deal with such matters. Indeed the most common and useful plans are usually those drawn up by that section. Under this old system land and premises were valued and the local authorities rate in the pound charged on that rateable value - that's why the services of a qualified professional were essential to ensure fair and accurate assessments.

Why should the railway companies not pay land and property taxes? If they did not then we would all be paying more to offset the losses.

[rgstn]

Thanks for the informative replies. I wonder then how modern heritage railways are affected especially as I assume they mostly registered as charities.

rgstn

[1H was 2E]

My earlier post contained an error.
The figure of 20% to 25% (on re-reading my source) relates to the rates NOT paid by the railway companies - i.e. in some parishes, the railway companies paid 75% to 80% of all rates.
Of course every occupier should pay rates for the services they enjoy; but the railway companies of course paid for their own infrastructure and it would seem, in my opinion, not unreasonable for road transport to similarly foot the bill for its own.
Of course, if road transport had indeed paid for its own infrastructure and charged its customers (obviously considerably more) to recover those costs the transport world would have been considerably different. But that may be considered straying into the taboo world of politics, so I'll leave it there.

[Caledonian]

Its a long time since I've been actively involved in railway lands and property so I can't quote any figures then or current, but essentially lands and buildings were not [are not?] separately assessed. Instead there was a fixed cummulo payment made based on the track mileage within the rating authority. When I say fixed, the rate was set by central government and levied uniformly in each area.That avoided complicated adjustments for the same line running through different rating authorities, especially when the railway was itself the boundary.

Longbenton Station to the north of Newcastle for example was originally built within the then City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne.* Local Government re-organisation in 1974 however saw the creation of the Borough of North Tyneside with the boundary running along the 6 foot, with the result that Platform 1 remains in Newcastle, while Platform 2 is in North Tyneside.

* and just as a further digression, not only was it the last station opened by the LNER, but the platform canopy pelmets are still painted in a shabby but unmistable LNER blue.

[2512silverfox]

Present heritage lines, providing they are registered charities, pay no more than 20% of the rates. However many councils and boroughs forgive all rates due from charitable activities, or in some cases negotiate a mid rate between 0 and 20%.