Tribunals · Rushcliffe Borough Council · 2017 rating list

Warehouses at Whitefields Farm, Tithby Road, NG13 8GQ

Warehouses and premises Decided 3 January 2025 CHG101084576 Bird and Howes - William Stevens

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£33,250£32/m²
Ratepayer sought£20,250
VO conceded first£30,250−9% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£30,250£29/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 argued that the subject warehouse property, located down an unadopted road with restricted internal access and no exclusive loading area, was overvalued at £29/m2 compared to comparable properties, and sought a reduction to £19/m2. The tribunal found that the property had some disadvantages which were already reflected in the Valuation Officer's reduction from £33,250 to £30,250 RV, and that the comparables cited were sufficiently different in age, size, access or locality to support the challenged assessment. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to persuade the tribunal that the RV was unreasonable.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Whitefields Doc Storage, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
6 December 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in Rushcliffe Borough 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 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.