Tribunals · Brentwood Borough Council · 2017 rating list

180, HUTTON ROAD, SHENFIELD,, CM15 8NR

Shop and premises Decided 17 March 2021 CHG100069536 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£55,000£700/m²
Ratepayer sought£43,500
VO conceded first£53,000−4% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£53,000£670/m²

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant sought a reduction in rateable value from £53,000 to £43,500, arguing for a price of £550/m² based on the lease renewal rent of £46,750 p.a. and comparable properties. The Valuation Officer maintained £53,000 based on £670/m² supported by rental evidence at 194 Hutton Road analysed at £673.58/m². The tribunal found that while the appeal property's own lease renewal was two years post-AVD and thus given little weight, the comparable rent at 194 Hutton Road agreed three months after the AVD and at £673.58/m² was the most persuasive evidence, justifying the maintained assessment. The appeal was dismissed.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Goldex Investments Essex Limited T/A Costa Coffee, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence · decisive
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Oldschool & Oldschool v Coll
Hearing
8 March 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in Brentwood Borough 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 property

The tribunal’s decision in full

Download the PDF · Find it on valuationtribunal.gov.uk

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.