310/320, The Crescent, Colchester Business Park, CO4 9YQ
Warehouse and office space Decided 29 August 2023 CHG100706656 Cushman & Wakefield - Richard Proctor/Cushman & Wakefield - Mark Henderson
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 proposed valuing the property at £45/m² for the whole hereditament with uplifts for office space and a 3.5% end allowance for the split site, seeking to reduce the RV to £237,000. The Valuation Officer adopted a "hybrid" valuation treating the warehouse and offices separately, initially proposing £310,000 with a 5% split allowance. The tribunal accepted the hybrid valuation method as more realistic for a property with limited hypothetical tenants, confirming a RV of £305,000 with a 5% end allowance, which lay between the original £320,000 and the appellant's proposed £237,000.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Linklaters Business Services, represented.
Grounds argued
- Valuation method · decisive
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Quantum or end allowance
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments, Earlier tribunal decisions
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 4 August 2023
Similar decisions
- 9 EASTER PARK, AXIAL WAY, CO4 5WY — Dismissed, 22 May 2026
- Flakt Woods Ltd, Flakt Woods, CO4 5ZD — Allowed in part, 10 Sept 2025
- SEVERALLS HALL, SEVERALLS LANE, CO4 5JS — Dismissed, 7 May 2025
- UNIT 1/2, HYTHE QUAY, CO2 8JB — Allowed in part, 7 Aug 2023
All decisions in Colchester Borough 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 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.