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 argued that the rateable value of £64,000 (£125/m²) was excessive, proposing £52,500 (£97.50/m²) based on an open market lease agreed in February 2015 with stepped rents and a penalty-free break clause at year 5. The Valuation Officer conceded a reduction to £60,000 (£115/m²) and argued that a tone of value had been established across the retail park by agreed assessments on comparable units. The Tribunal found the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof that £115/m² was excessive, being supported by the tone of comparable properties on the estate, and allowed the appeal in part to £60,000.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was AF Thomas & Sons Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence
- Valuation method
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; K Shoe Shops Ltd v Hardy; Oldschool & Oldschool v Coll; Vines Ltd v de Mauny; BPP Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Telereal Trillium v K Hewitt
- Hearing
- 5 February 2025
Similar decisions
- R/O Unit 3 Port Road, Maesglas Retail Park, Newport NP20 2NS — Allowed, 10 Mar 2021
- Shop and Premises, 27 High Street, Newport, NP20 1GH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
- Shop and Premises, 138 Commercial Street, Newport, NP20 2PH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
- Shop and Premises, 138 Commercial Street, Newport, NP20 2PH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
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.