Tribunals · Birmingham City Council · 2017 rating list

Kitchen Unit, 69 Steward Street, B18 7AF

Ground floor Café Decided 15 May 2024 CHG101117056 Kyle Tidey

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£18,750£400/m²
Ratepayer sought£12,600
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£18,750£400/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 rateable value of £18,750 (£400/m² for 47m²) was excessive and proposed a reduction to £12,600, citing comparable properties in the area with lower price/m² values and arguing the subject property was in a poor industrial area compared to the jewellery quarter. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's comparable properties were not sufficiently similar (different use types and valuation bases), the subject property's actual rental agreement was a licence to occupy (given limited weight), and the Valuation Officer's comparable rental evidence from properties in Warstone Mews close to the antecedent valuation date and valued on the same basis provided more reliable evidence of the £400/m² tone.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Resolve Law Group, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Photographs, Expert report
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
26 April 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in Birmingham City Council · Pubs, hotels and leisure 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.