A D Plant, Scottow Road, NR10 5GD

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellants challenged the Valuation Officer's valuation of two anaerobic digestion plants using the receipts and expenditure method. The core dispute concerned the percentage uplift to the tenant's share of capital assets to reflect risk. The Valuation Officer applied a standard 10% uplift across all renewable energy hereditaments. The appellants argued this was insufficient given the specific operational risks of AD plants including technological, process, regulatory, digestate management and insurance risks. The tribunal found that AD plants carried greater risk than solar and wind farms but less than nuclear power stations. The tribunal rejected the appellants' return-on-capital approach as producing unrealistic figures for Oak Grove, but accepted that the standard 10% risk uplift failed to account for working capital requirements. The tribunal increased the risk uplift to 15%, resulting in Oak Grove's assessment being reduced from £145,000 to £140,000 RV (appeal allowed). Despite the increased tenant's share for Bay Farm, the valuation cap prevented any reduction, so that appeal was dismissed.

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

Grounds argued

• Valuation method
• Quantum or end allowance

Evidence

Trading accounts, Expert report

Cases cited

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

Hearing

3 April 2025