Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · South Gloucestershire Council · 2017 rating list

Barnardo's, Units 3A To 3B, BS37 6BA

Shop and premises Decided 22 February 2021 CHG100076019 Maughan Mitchell

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV · 2017 list£17,250
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first£16,750−3% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£14,750from 1 Apr 2017

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 3A and 3B, 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.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
Units 3A and 3B, Hatherell's Yard, High Street, Chipping Sodbury, Bristol BS37 6BAThis appeal£17,250—£14,750Allowed in part
Units 3C and 3D, Hatherell's Yard, High Street, Chipping Sodbury, Bristol BS37 6BA£15,500—£13,000Allowed in part

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellants (landlords of two retail units) challenged the rateable values on rental evidence grounds. The tribunal accepted that the rents were agreed in 2013, some two years before the AVD, and made adjustments for rent-free periods and repairs obligations. The tribunal adopted a tone of £220 per m2 Zone A (reduced from the VO's £260 per m2) by reference to the analysed rents, the location in a less prominent alleyway off the High Street (rather than on the High Street itself which was valued at £265 per m2), and comparable assessments, resulting in reduced RVs.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was CDF (31) Limited, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
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

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 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.