Tribunals · Chichester District Council · 2017 rating list

UNITS G1-­G3 & UNIT N HILTON PARK, CHURCH FARM LANE, EAST WITTERING, EAST WITTERING, PO20 8RL

Industrial premises and workshops Decided 31 July 2023 CHG100752737 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£16,500
Ratepayer sought£9,400
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£16,500

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 4 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant argued that the rateable values should be reduced to their 2010 list levels on the basis that the market had remained static since 2003 and proposed values based on unchanged £/m² rates. The tribunal found that the appellant's assertion of market stagnation was not proven by the evidence and that the rental evidence provided by the valuation officer, comprising agreements reasonably close to the antecedent valuation date, supported the current valuations. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the RV of Unit A1 at £16,500.

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Rental evidence
  • Valuation method
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
10 July 2023

Similar decisions

All decisions in Chichester District 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.