Tribunals · Bristol City Council · 2017 rating list

UNIT 2,, CITY BUSINESS PARK,, EASTON ROAD,, EASTON ROAD,, BS5 0SP

Warehouse and Premises Decided 11 May 2021 CHG100075939 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£23,750£57.5/m²
Ratepayer sought£21,750
VO conceded first£22,750−4% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£22,750£57.5/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 to £21,750 RV based on £55.00 per m², arguing that analysis of rents on the subject property and comparable properties supported this rate. The Valuation Officer defended an amended assessment of £22,750 RV based on £57.50 per m² (less 1.5% for lack of central heating), arguing that the subject property's renewal rent in 2018 at £71.50 per m² indicated rents had increased and supported the higher unadjusted rate. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Valuation Officer's unadjusted rate of £57.50 per m² was reasonable based on comparative analysis of similar properties on the same business park, particularly Unit 3 and Unit 10 at City Business Park.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Resapol Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, Expert report
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
14 April 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in Bristol City Council · Industrial and warehouses 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.