Tribunals · Milton Keynes City Council · 2017 rating list

Dominos Pizza, 1 Thornbury, MK6 4BB

Warehouse and premises Decided 3 November 2025 CHG101094240 Colliers International

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£765,000£52.5/m²
Ratepayer sought£530,000
VO conceded first£755,000−1% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£755,000£52.5/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 sought to reduce the rateable value from £765,000 to £530,000 by reducing the tone from £52.50/m² to £40/m² and applying a 10% fragmentation allowance for the split-site building. The tribunal found that the basket of assessment evidence from 26 comparable modern distribution warehouses in Milton Keynes supported the existing tone of £52.50/m² or higher, and that the subject property—comprising a warehouse built in 2010 and separate HQ office block built in 2012—did not warrant a fragmentation allowance as each building could perform separate functions effectively.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Domino's Pizza Group Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Quantum or end allowance
Evidence
Settled assessments, Photographs
Cases cited
Lotus & Delta v Culverwell and Leicester City Council; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO)
Hearing
6 October 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in Milton Keynes City 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.