Tribunals · Bristol City Council · 2017 rating list

Sixth Floor, Programme, BS1 2LZ

Offices and premises Decided 10 February 2025 CHG101117982 Rabbette Chartered Surveyors

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£171,000£100/m²
Ratepayer sought£127,000
VO conceded first£159,000−7% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£159,000£100/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 £171,000 (£100 per m²) to £127,000 (£80 per m²) relying on rental evidence from Tower House and assessment evidence from comparable properties. The tribunal found that the most persuasive evidence was derived from within the subject building itself, where unrefurbished properties pre-dating the material date analysed at £94.43 and £102.41 per m². The tribunal concluded that a tone of £100 per m² for the refurbished subject property was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal, confirming the Valuation Officer's decision of £159,000.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Immersive Labs, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson; Simpsons Malt & Others v Craig Jones; Denton v TH White Ltd
Hearing
13 January 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in Bristol City Council · 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 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.