Tribunals · London Borough of Camden · 2017 rating list

8 Pratt Mews, NW1 0AD

Studio and premises Decided 25 September 2025 CHG100887823 JMA Chartered Surveyors

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV£37,000£400/m²
Ratepayer sought£11,500
VO conceded first£24,500−34% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£17,750£210/m²

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, represented by a surveyor, challenged the rateable value of ground floor studio and office premises, arguing for a reduction from £37,000 RV based on comparable assessment evidence showing a tone of £210/m² for similar Victorian industrial conversions in the locality. The tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that comparable assessment properties (particularly 12/13 Pratt Street and 15 Kings Terrace) demonstrated a rate of £210/m² was more reasonable than the original £400/m², but rejected the appellant's argument that the studio space should receive a 0.5 relativity reduction due to lack of natural light, finding it remained suitable for studio use. The appeal was allowed-in-part with the RV reduced to £17,750.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Chris Turner Photo, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Floor area or measurement
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments, Photographs
Cases cited
Lotus & Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
29 August 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Camden · Shops 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.