Sodbury Florist, Unit 3c-3d, Hatherells Yard, High Street, High Street, BS37 6BA
Retail and office premises Decided 22 February 2021 CHG100026003
Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 2 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (Units 3C and 3D, Hatherell's Yard, High Street, Chipping Sodbury, Bristol BS37 6BA). Every property is listed below.
The 2 properties in this decision
One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.
| Property | Original RV | Sought | Tribunal decided | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Units 3A and 3B, Hatherell's Yard, High Street, Chipping Sodbury, Bristol BS37 6BA | £17,250 | — | £14,750 | Allowed in part |
| Units 3C and 3D, Hatherell's Yard, High Street, Chipping Sodbury, Bristol BS37 6BAThis appeal | £15,500 | — | £13,000 | Allowed in part |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellants challenged the rateable values on the basis that the rental analysis was flawed and that the values were inconsistent with the High Street comparables. The tribunal found that whilst the rents agreed in 2013 (nearly two years before the antecedent valuation date) were good starting point evidence, adjustments were required to reflect the statutory hypothesis, including disregarding tenant fit-out costs and adjusting rent-free periods. The tribunal adopted a tone of £220 per m2 Zone A (lower than the VO's £260) as a reasonable compromise between the analysed rents and the need to have regard to the inferior location of the properties in the courtyard versus the High Street frontages.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was CDF (31) Limited, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence · decisive
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Evidence
- Rents, Earlier tribunal decisions, Photographs
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Edma (Jewellers) Ltd v Moore; Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee
- Hearing
- 16 February 2021
Similar decisions
- Home Bargains, Ground Floor, 21-27 South Walk, 21-27 South Walk, BS37 4AU — Allowed in part, 7 Feb 2024
- 20 West Walk, BS37 4AX — Dismissed, 7 Aug 2023
- Units 1-3, The Square, Long Down Avenue, Stoke Gifford, Stoke Gifford, BS16 1GU — Dismissed, 13 Jul 2023
- House Of Luxxe Ltd, 8 West Walk, BS37 4AX — Dismissed, 28 Sept 2021
All decisions in South Gloucestershire Council · Shops nationally
Is your own rateable value in line?
A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.
Check a propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.