Anaerobic Digester Plant, Bay Farm, Worlington, Worlington, IP28 6BS

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant argued that the Valuation Officer's standard 10% uplift to the tenant's share to reflect risk was insufficient for anaerobic digestion plants, which face greater risks than other renewable energy facilities. The tribunal found that whilst AD plants do carry greater risks than wind and solar farms, and the VO had not properly accounted for working capital requirements, the 10% uplift was too low. The tribunal increased the risk adjustment to 15% for both properties. For Oak Grove, this reduced the RV from £145,000 to £140,000, allowing that appeal. For Bay Farm, despite increasing the tenant's share, the valuation cap prevented a reduction, so that appeal was dismissed.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Oak Grove Renewable Energy Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

• Valuation method · decisive
• Comparable assessments (tone)

Evidence

Expert report, Trading accounts

Cases cited

Railway Assessment Authority v Southern Railway; Hong Kong Electric Co Ltd v Commissioner of Rating and Valuation; Fryer v Cox (VO); O'Brien v Harwood (VO); Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Houghton and Chester Le Street Assessment Committee; Sandown Park Ltd v Esher Urban District Council

Hearing

3 April 2025