Tribunals · Rushcliffe Borough Council · 2023 rating list

FOCUS LABEL MACHINERY LTD, CHAPEL LANE, BINGHAM, BINGHAM, NG13 8GF

Workshop and premises Decided 4 February 2025 CHG101206298 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£111,000£47.5/m²
Ratepayer sought£71,500
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£111,000£47.5/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 argued that the rateable value of £111,000 (equivalent to £45/m² for the 1993 section and £50/m² for the 2003 section) was excessive, seeking a reduction to £71,500 based on rental evidence analysed at lower rates and comparable properties with reduced values. The tribunal found that no rental evidence was available for the subject property itself, but considered the most compelling comparable rental evidence came from properties within Bingham itself, particularly Units 59-61 Moorbridge Road (£54.09/m²) and Rear of Unit 4, 1st Floor Ranch, Chapel Lane (£48.55/m²), which supported the respondent's valuation. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the basis that this local rental evidence supported the existing rateable value.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Focus Label Machinery Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents
Hearing
10 January 2025

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.