UNIT 18 M11 BUSINESS LINK, PARSONAGE LANE, CM24 8GF
Warehouse and premises Decided 10 May 2024 CHG101053317 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester
Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 4 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellants argued that the rateable values of four warehouse units should be assessed at an unadjusted rate of £85/m² based on comparable properties on the same industrial estate with lower rates, rather than the assessed £87/m². The Valuation Officer demonstrated that Unit 15, which had a lease commencing on the antecedent valuation date with an analysed rent of £88.02/m², supported the £87/m² rate, and that a settled tone of £87/m² had been established for smaller units on the estate. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the original rateable values with the £87/m² rate.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Gamit Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 15 April 2024
Similar decisions
- 16 & 17, OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK, CM6 1XG — Dismissed, 4 Sept 2024
- UNIT 10 M11 BUSINESS LINK, PARSONAGE LANE, CM24 8GF — Dismissed, 10 May 2024
- UNIT 8 M11 BUSINESS LINK, PARSONAGE LANE, CM24 8GF — Dismissed, 10 May 2024
- UNIT 17 M11 BUSINESS LINK, PARSONAGE LANE, CM24 8GF — Dismissed, 10 May 2024
All decisions in Uttlesford District Council · Industrial and warehouses 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.