(INC 1A ACTON MEWS) R/A 334 AT 1, DUNSTON STREET, E8 4EB
Restaurant and premises Decided 23 August 2024 CHG100875382 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester
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 RV of £41,000, arguing the subject property was incorrectly placed in the restaurant scheme at £220/m² and should instead be valued as a railway arch property at £100/m² plus 30% uplift for restaurant use. The tribunal found the VO's comparable properties were distant and different in use, while the appellant's comparables (338 Railway Arch, 337 Railway Arch, and 322-324 Railway Arch) were in close proximity with identical characteristics, supporting the lower rate. The tribunal allowed the appeal and confirmed the RV at £24,000 from 1 April 2018.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Tonkotsu Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 8 July 2024
Similar decisions
- Pembury Hotel, 326-328 Seven Sisters Road, N4 2AP — Allowed, 11 Feb 2022
- North End International Broadcast Centre, Olympic Park, E20 2ST — Dismissed, 9 Jul 2021
- Kent Hall Hotel, 414 Seven Sisters Road, N4 2LX — Allowed, 5 May 2021
- 146 Clapton Common, E5 9AG — Allowed, 5 May 2021
All decisions in London Borough of Hackney · 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 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.