Tribunals · London Borough of Lambeth · 2017 rating list

UNIT 4 AT 16, PORTEUS PLACE, SW4 0AP

Offices and premises Decided 16 December 2024 CHG100856740 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£16,000£325/m²
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£16,000£325/m²

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 2 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant challenged the unadjusted rate per m² of £325 on two office units, initially proposing £300 per m² (later revised to £275 per m²), arguing comparable evidence from properties outside the development supported a lower tone. The tribunal found the strongest evidence was rental data from comparable units within Porteous Place itself, which analysed to figures supporting the £325 per m² tone, and dismissed the appeal as the valuation was not unreasonable and fell within the range of comparable lettings in the development.

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Earlier tribunal decisions
Cases cited
Bunyan (VO) v Acenden Limited [2023] UKUT 17 (LC); Lotus & Delta v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City Council [1976] RA141; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
Hearing
20 November 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Lambeth · Offices 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.