Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant sought a reduction in rateable value from £18,250 to £11,750, proposing a tone of £75/m2 based on rental analysis of the lease at £86.08/m2 adjusted for incentives and car parking. The Valuation Officer proposed £113/m2 based on comparable evidence from other properties on St Andrews Crescent. The tribunal found that comparable rental evidence from 11 St Andrews Crescent and settled appeals established a tone of £113/m2 in the locality, and that the appellant had failed to provide evidence of any special quality defects in the subject property to justify a lower rate, upholding the VO's approach and reducing the RV from £18,250 to £17,500 to reflect the corrected floor area.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Hart Commercial Surveyors, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments, Photographs
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta Ltd v Culverwell; Stock Auto Breakers v Sykes; Poplar Metropolitan Borough Assessment Committee v Roberts; Dawkins v Ash Brothers and Heaton Ltd
- Hearing
- 18 May 2022
Similar decisions
- Unit 1, Ash Tree Court, Woodsy Close, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Pontprennau, Cardiff CF23 8RW — Dismissed, 20 Feb 2026
- 2nd Floor Unit E, Copse Walk, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Pontprennau, Cardiff CF23 8BB — Dismissed, 20 Feb 2026
- 2nd Floor Unit G, Copse Walk, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Pontprennau, Cardiff CF23 8BB — Dismissed, 20 Feb 2026
- Princes Trust 16, Ocean Way, Splott, Cardiff, CF24 5PE — Dismissed, 19 Dec 2025
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 of the Valuation Tribunal for Wales, published at valuationtribunalwales.net and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.