Tribunals · Preston City Council · 2017 rating list

91B FISHERGATE, PR1 2NJ

Café and premises Decided 14 October 2021 CHG100390343 Ken Batty Chartered Surveyors - Sara

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV£53,500£800/m²
Ratepayer sought£38,750
VO conceded first£53,000−1% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£50,350£800/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 challenged the rateable value of £53,500, seeking a reduction to a base rate of £700/m² from £800/m², with additional allowances for masking, fragmentation, and frontage recess, proposing an overall RV of £38,750. The tribunal found the £800/m² base rate well-supported by comparable properties on Fishergate and rental evidence at the antecedent valuation date (1 April 2015), rejecting the reduction to £700/m². However, the tribunal awarded a 5% end allowance to reflect the disadvantages arising from the property being listed (limiting reorganisation flexibility), its poor layout, and the frontage recess, reducing the RV from £53,500 to £50,350.

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

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Quantum or end allowance · decisive
  • Other
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
22 September 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in Preston City Council · Pubs, hotels and leisure 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.