College Of Law, 2 Bunhill Row, EC1Y 8HQ
Law College Decided 22 August 2025 CHG101065791 Daniel Watney LLP - Alex Izett
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 University of Law appealed the valuation of 2 Bunhill Row, a former Royal Mail headquarters substantially redeveloped in 2005 for university use, challenging the Valuation Officer's use of office rental values at £2,030,000 RV. The appellant contended that converting back to office use would require major alterations (additional service corridor with lifts, air conditioning reconfiguration, raised floors, removal of ground floor facilities), exceeding the 'minor alterations' threshold established in Williams v Scottish & Newcastle. The tribunal found the appellant's contractor's basis valuation of £540,000 was appropriate, particularly persuaded by comparable evidence from Cass Business School directly opposite and the 2010 tribunal decision for the same property, and rejected the Valuation Officer's comparable office properties which were purpose-built offices subsequently fitted for university use requiring only minor modifications to revert.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was The University of Law, represented.
Grounds argued
- Valuation method
- Floor area or measurement
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Settled assessments, Earlier tribunal decisions, Photographs, Expert report
- Cases cited
- Williams (VO) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO)
- Hearing
- 6 August 2025
Similar decisions
- 2 Bunhill Row, EC1Y 8HQ — Allowed, 22 Aug 2025
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.