Lotus Group Ltd, 37-39 Queen Elizabeth Street, SE1 2BT
Office and premises Decided 30 October 2025 CHG101089016 Conneely Tribe - Mr Paul Tribe
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 challenged the rateable value of an office converted from a Victorian warehouse, proposing a base rate of £250/m² against the Valuation Officer's £300/m². The tribunal applied the six propositions from Lotus & Delta v Culverwell, finding a settled tone of £300/m² based on comparable rental evidence and settlements of similar properties in the vicinity, supported by two comparable properties on similar lease terms with prices of £300/m². The tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof, placing little weight on CoStar growth indices and inter-list comparisons as the binding authority required reliance on actual rental comparables where available.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Lotus Group Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Valuation method
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments, Earlier tribunal decisions
- Cases cited
- Lotus & Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 3 October 2025
Similar decisions
- GND FL 96-108, GREAT SUFFOLK STREET,, SE1 0BE — Allowed, 25 Nov 2025
- 2 ND FL 96-108, GREAT SUFFOLK STREET,, SE1 0BE — Allowed, 25 Nov 2025
- The Salvation Army, 101 Newington Causeway, SE1 6BN — Allowed, 12 Nov 2025
- PT 7TH FLR (SOUTH), BLUE FIN BUILDING, 110, SOUTHWARK STREET, SE1 0SU — Allowed, 14 Jul 2025
All decisions in London Borough of Southwark · Offices 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.