Lotus Group Limited v Nicola Johnson (Valuation Officer) [2026] UKUT 185 (LC)

[2026] UKUT 185 (LC)

Case Nos: LC-2025-720

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF

THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Between

LOTUS GROUP LIMITEDAppellant

NICOLA JOHNSONRespondent

(VALUATION OFFICER)Respondent

8 May 2026

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

RATING – VALUATION – 2017 Rating List – rental evidence – comparable assessments – appeal allowed – Rateable Value determined at £435,000

37-39 Queen Elizabeth Street, London, SE1 2BT

Mr Peter D McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb

27 April 2026

Mr Austin Marshall for appellant

Mrs Lucy Weir for respondent

Introduction

[1]South of the River Thames, near Tower Bridge, there is an area of London which from the sixteenth century became known as Horselydown, derived from ‘Horse-lie-down’, because working dray horses would rest there before crossing London Bridge to take beer into the City. Sadly, today that name is only apparent from sites such as Horselydown Old Steps, the area has been subsumed into the borough of Southwark, and many of the former bonded warehouses and wharfs arranged around the original compact street pattern have been converted into office and residential uses. One development celebrates the life of a dray horse known as ‘Jacob’ with a splendid statue, but another, 37-39 Queen Elizabeth Street, SE1 2BT (‘the appeal property’) is the subject of this decision.

[2]It concerns an appeal by the ratepayer, Lotus Group Limited, against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (‘the VTE’) dated 30 October 2025, in which the VTE dismissed the ratepayers’ appeal concerning the rateable value of the appeal property in the 2017 Rating List. The VTE ‘confirmed’ the rateable value at £477,500 (in fact, the figure should have been £475,000 - the higher figure was as a result of a later transitional certificate which was not under appeal).

[3]Neither side now contends for this figure. The ratepayer seeks a rateable value of £387,500, while the Valuation Officer now contends that the correct assessment should be £435,000.

[4]I heard the appeal under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure on 27 April 2026. The ratepayer was represented by Mr Austin Marshall MRICS IRRV, acting in the dual capacity of expert witness and advocate as he was permitted to do under that procedure, having confirmed he was not instructed on an incentivised-fee arrangement in either role. The Valuation Officer was represented by Mrs Lucy Weir, who called Mr Lewis Crossley MRICS to give expert evidence.

[5]The following morning, I undertook an inspection of the appeal property accompanied by the experts, and an external view of an agreed list of comparable properties. Facts

[6]The appeal property is a freestanding office building on the corner of Queen Elizabeth Street and Curlew Street, about three blocks back from the Thames. Originally a five-storey warehouse, it was converted to offices in 1990, and a further storey was added behind a parapet wall. The main entrance on Queen Elizabeth Street leads to a small entrance hall with access to the stairs, and a separate lift lobby behind, with an eight-person passenger lift serving all floors. There is a second, currently unused, entrance on Curlew Street. Two w.c. cubicles serve each floor, which have comfort cooling and central heating. They also have raised floors, the nature and valuation consequences of which are in dispute.

[7]It was subsequently refurbished between May and August 2017, but since this work post-dated the material day of 1 April 2017 the parties agree this can be left out of account in assessing value, and instead the appeal property should be valued having regard to its original post-conversion state. This became apparent shortly before the hearing, and meant further evidence was submitted at a late stage.

[8]The agreed floor area is 1,440.5 sqm, all of which is to be valued as ‘main space’.

[9]The appeal property was entered into the 2017 rating list at £475,000 with effect from 1 April 2017. It was subject to four ‘checks’ under the Check, Challenge, Appeal regulations, the last of which progressed to the ‘challenge’ stage, which resulted in the VOA considering that the rateable value should be increased to £477,500 owing to the presence of raised floors. The 2017 list being closed, the VOA issued a transitional certificate at the higher figure with effect from 31 March 2023. The VTE subsequently rejected the ratepayer’s appeal. Statutory Basis of valuation

[10]Rateable value is defined in accordance with the familiar paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It is equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year on a date which for the 2017 rating list is 1 April 2015 (the antecedent valuation date, or AVD), on the assumption that the property is in a state of reasonable repair when let and on the basis that the tenant undertakes to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of the repairs, insurance and other expenses necessary to maintain the property in a state able to command that rent.

[11]By paragraph 2(6) and (7)(a) of Schedule 6, matters affecting the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament are taken to be as they were on the ‘material day’ of 1 April 2017. The dispute in broad terms

[12]The ratepayer contends for a rateable value of £387,500. Mr Marshall’s valuation was based on a rate of £250 per sqm, to which he applied two uplifts. The first was an agreed adjustment of 5% for comfort cooling. The second was for the raised floors. Before the VTE, and in the Statement of Case attached to his notice of appeal to the Tribunal dated 27 November 2025, he reflected this by adding further 5%. In his expert evidence to the Tribunal, this was reduced to 2.5% because he said the raised floor of around 50mm was more limited than that normally seen in office buildings.

[13]Mr Marshall applied his two uplifts on a compound basis, to arrive at an adjusted rate of £269.06 per sqm. His valuation was therefore: 1,444.50 sqm @ £269.06 per sqm £388,657, say £387,500 RV. (It would be customary to apply each uplift to the main space rate, rather than on a compounded basis, but the resultant £388,209 would also be rounded down to £387,500 under the VOA’s rounding policy).

[14]For the VO, Mr Crossley considered the appropriate base rate to be £275 per sqm, to which the presence of comfort cooling and raised floors should each be reflected in an uplift of 5%, thus: 1,444.50 sqm @ £302.50 per sqm £436,961, say £435,000 RV.

[15]In a helpful statement of agreed facts, the experts agreed schedules of rental evidence and of other rating assessments. The main difference in approach was that Mr Marshall placed little if any weight on any of the rental evidence; in his view rents had been subsumed into a settled tone of the list, and there was no need to go behind it. The valuer could simply consider how the appeal property should be valued having regard to the other assessment evidence. Mr Crossley had regard to both rental and assessment evidence, preferring the former. ‘Lotus and Delta’ etc

[16]That this was a straightforward valuation dispute with relatively limited parameters did not deter the parties from quite unnecessary references to previous, and historic, decisions of the Tribunal and before that the Lands Tribunal. Indeed, in a simplified procedure case it might even be thought surprising that an authorities bundle should be required at all. While I have mentioned several decisions below, I have not referred to them at the start of the decision as nothing turns on them.

[17]Both experts referred to the series of propositions suggested by the Member, Mr J H Emlyn Jones, in the Lands Tribunal decision of Lotus and Delta Limited v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City Council [1976] RA 141 regarding the order in which evidence should be considered. As I indicated in Lamb (VO) v Go Outdoors

[2015] UKUT 366 (LC)

, these propositions are useful guidance, but should not be regarded as rules or repeated as some form of mantra. All evidence should be considered in the round.

[18]Mr Marshall also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Futures London Limited v Stratford (VO) [2005] RA 75 regarding the relativities between rating lists. I do not consider Futures, another appeal heard under the simplified procedure, in which neither side had legal representation, and in which the Member (Mr P H Clarke) reached his decision ‘with some hesitation’ can safely be regarded as providing any guidance on matters of principle.

[19]Both parties also referred to the recent decision of the Tribunal (Mrs Diane Martin TD MRICS FAAV and Mr Mark Higgin FRICS FIRRV) in Robert Dyas Holdings Ltd v Moore (VO)

[2025] UKUT 163 (LC)

, but nothing in that decision affects my determination of the rateable value of the appeal property.

[20]In a case such as this the experts should concentrate simply on valuation, and comparable evidence, to which I now turn. Issues

[21]I can deal swiftly with the secondary dispute about the value implications of the raised floor. Mr Marshall, now, says being only 2 inches above the concrete slab floor limits the raised floor’s flexibility, and is inferior to a modern raised floor which generally attracts an uplift of 5%. As I indicated above, this is contrary to his position before the VTE and in his Statement of Case on behalf of the appellant. Since the appeal was heard under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure, I was content to allow Mr Marshall to depart from his pleaded case, but he could not provide a persuasive reason for this change of position, and in my judgement it is without merit. On my inspection of the appeal property, I saw floor boxes being used in the usual way, and I am content that the uplift to the basic rate should be 5%.

[22]That leaves the substantive dispute concerning the basic rate to be applied to the agreed floor area.

[23]The parties provided a helpful joint schedule of evidence comprising two tables – one of other rating assessments, upon which Mr Marshall chiefly relied, and one of rental evidence. Mr Crossley analysed both. Rental evidence

[24]A schedule of 12 rental transactions was agreed. The properties concerned were: Address 1 2nd Flr 21-27, Queen Elizabeth Street 2 Gnd Flr 21-27, Queen Elizabeth Street 3 2 The Canvas House Jubilee Yard, Queen Elizabeth Street 4 4th Fl Nutmeg House, Gainsford Street 5 1st Flr Nutmeg House, Gainsford Street 6 3rd Fl (Right) Nutmeg House Gainsford Street 7 Pt 3rd Fl East (Front) Nutmeg House Gainsford Street 8 2nd Flr India House, 45, Curlew Street 9 2nd Flr The Malt Mill Anchor Brewhouse 50, Shad Thames 10 75, Bermondsey Street 11 1 Ravens Wharf 14-16, Lafone Street 12 1st Fl Units 3 & 4 Eagle Wharf, Lafone Street

[25]Despite these being agreed as factually accurate, Mr Marshall did not engage with or comment on them in any meaningful way. His position was that only one – 75 Bermondsey Street - provided helpful rental evidence as it was of comparable size to the appeal property, but the others were of buildings that were not comparable. His written evidence described his approach as follows:

“6.8 On the present material, the only genuinely larger building for which there is meaningful rental information of any substance is 75 Bermondsey Street. The other larger buildings in the evidence are principally assessment evidence rather than rental evidence. In my opinion, that further supports the adoption of a tone-led methodology in this case. 6.9 To adopt the alternative route would, in my opinion, risk inviting the Tribunal to undertake, on incomplete material, the very exercise which the valuation officer could have pursued when the statutory machinery remained available. Unless the whole of the relevant evidential picture were before the Tribunal, including what other transactions were considered, what was excluded, and why, the Tribunal would effectively be asked to go behind the tone blind, without the information necessary to do so reliably. 6.10 I have therefore adopted what I consider to be the more reliable and proportionate approach, namely to begin with the best comparable assessment evidence, to identify the proper tone indicated by that evidence, and then to stand back and test that tone against such rental evidence as is genuinely comparable and useful only as a cross-check.”

[26]So, I only have Mr Crossley’s opinion of the rental evidence. He put less weight on four of the 12 comparable rental transactions. The first two were lettings within 21-27 Queen Elizabeth Street, some 40 yards from the appeal property; one of which was a 2013 underletting of the second floor at £347.33, or £329.96 if a 5% allowance for comfort cooling was applied, but was open to doubt depending on how a mezzanine floor was analysed. The second was a letting of the ground floor in April 2016 which Mr Crossley analysed at £510.03 to a three-year break, He placed no weight on this post-AVD letting, but noted that comparing the two suggested a rising market either side of the AVD. The building had higher ceilings and better natural light than the appeal property.

[27]The third was a letting at 2 The Canvas House a short distance north of the appeal property. This was former four storey Victorian warehouse, within the cobbled Jubilee Yard, with exposed internal beams and brickwork, single glazed windows and electric heating. Two lightwells allow natural light into the lower-level office space. Mr Crossley analysed the June 2013 letting at £312.61 per sqm, assuming a 75% relativity for the lower ground floor space (a 50% ratio would suggest £351 per sqm for the main space). He considered the building inferior to the appeal property, with poorer access, and being compromised by the Pyramid Building (literally a large glass pyramid) being directly outside, obstructing the view.

[28]The fourth of Mr Crossley’s lower weight comparables was a letting of the second floor of the Malt Mill, Anchor Brewhouse, at £237 per sqm, in March 2015. The access to this space was extremely poor, up steps from Shad Thames or Horselydown Old Stairs.

[29]Mr Crossley placed most weight on four transactions within Nutmeg House, a short distance from the appeal property on the opposite diagonal corner of the block formed by Queen Elizabeth Street, Curfew Street, Gainsford Street and Lafone Street. He considered Nutmeg House to be a strong comparable as regards age, construction, size and internal specification. He analysed a February 2013 letting of the fourth floor at £388.93 per sqm, or £350.03 as a base rate after deducting 10% for air-conditioning. In April 2013 the first floor was let, which he analysed at £328.54, or £295.68 per sqm on the same basis.

[30]Two rent reviews with effect from 1 January 2015 were agreed covering different parts of the third floor let to the same tenant. Neither party was represented, and the rents equated to £389 and £398 per sqm, the higher figure being for slightly smaller space. A break clause was available to the tenant but was not exercised.

[31]Mr Crossley acknowledged the discrepancy in the rents achieved in the two lettings, with the later rent being lower, despite a rising market. Applying more weight to the to the April letting would suggest a value in excess of £300 per sqm two years before the AVD. The two rent reviews in January 2015, he said, confirmed that the market was rising.

[32]Each valuer relied on India House, but for different reasons. Mr Crossley referred to a May 2015 letting of the second floor comprising 613 sqm, which he analysed at £431 per sqm, or £386 per sqm after two 5% deductions for comfort cooling and raised floors, if analysed to a 5-year break, or £381 per sqm over the 10-year term. He considered the main advantages of India House over the appeal property to be its refurbished space and superior manned reception, but found it improbable that these would be reflected in an uplift in excess of £80 per sqm. Mr Marshall relied on the assessment evidence within the building, which I deal with below.

[33]75 Bermondsey Street is located closer to London Bridge station, in a more commercial area some 0.5 miles southwest of the appeal property. It was refurbished between May 2013 and February 2014 to a Cat A condition. It has full air-conditioning, two small roof terraces but no raised floors. The whole building was let in January 2014 for 10 years. According to the VOA’s records the tenant spent £761,000 in Cat B fitting out works. Mr Crossley analysed the headline rent of £480,018 per annum to equate to £442 per sqm, or £398.14 per sqm net of air-conditioning. Both valuers found this transaction useful, being the only letting of a whole building, albeit in a better location.

[34]Mr Crossley added two further rental comparables when it became clear that the appeal property should be valued having regard to its condition prior to refurbishment.

[35]1 Raven Wharf is 50m northwest of the appeal property, built in 1990. No 1 is one of two office units, the remainder of the building is residential. In October 2014 it was let on a new 10-year underlease, with a five-year break, contacted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, on internal repairing terms. The VOA records indicate it was last refurbished in 1990. Mr Crossley analysed the rent at £273.31 per sqm.

[36]Eagle Wharf is another mixed-use former warehouse, last refurbished in 1988. Units 3 and 4 are first floor offices, having neither raised floors nor air-conditioning. They were subject of a lease renewal in September 2014 at a rent of £75,175. Mr Crossley said that the VO’s records indicated a 5% allowance for poor natural light; making the same adjustment produced a rent of £301.16 per sqm. Assessment evidence

[37]The experts agreed a schedule of 24 other assessments in the 2017 rating list. In brief, they were: Address Basic Rate per sqm 1 160 Tooley Street £425 2 1st floor west, Cottons Centre £380 3 19 Queen Elizabeth Street £300 4 3rd floor Shackleton House, Hays Galleria £350 5 75 Bermondsey Street £300 6 1st floor, Goldings House, Hays Galleria £350 7 5th floor west, Cottons Centre £380 8 4th floor India House, Curlew Street £300 9 3rd floor Colechurch House £180 10 2nd floor east, the Clove Building £300 11 2nd floor west, the Clove Building £300 12 2nd floor, 21-27 Queen Elizabeth Street £300 13 1st floor Shand House, Shand Street £325 14 4th floor west, Nutmeg House, Gainsford Street £300 15 1st floor, Nutmeg House, Gainsford Street £300 16 2 The Canvas House, Jubilee Yard £300 17 1st floor, 21-27 Queen Elizabeth Street £300 18 Pt B/ment & Grd floor, Butlers’ Wharf £300 19 1st floor east, 136 Tooley Street £300 20 2nd floor east, 136 Tooley Street £300 21 11 Raven Wharf, Lafone Street £275 22 1st floor, 23 Jacob Street £250 23 2nd floor, 134 Tooley Street £300 24 3rd floor, 139 Tooley Street £340

[38]Mr Marshall focussed on three as his prime comparables, all of which he said had been assessed at £300 per sqm, like the appeal property, but were, he said, obviously better. They were as follows. Item 8. India House, 45 Curlew Street

[39]Situated in a parallel street to the appeal property on the corner of Curlew Street and Gainsford Street, this is a former 19th century warehouse of 3,658 sqm over seven floors. It has a large, manned reception hall. Mr Marshall relied on a suite of fourth floor offices which had been refurbished in 2015. In his view they were superior to the appeal property, with higher ceilings, better natural light, and refurbished only two years prior to the material day. Items10. and

11. The Clove Building, 6 Maquire Street

[40]Close to Shad Thames and nearer to the river than the appeal property, The Clove Building is a former warehouse converted to offices by Sir Terrance Conran in 1987. It has a large double-height reception hall. The relevant assessment related to second floor offices, refurbished in 2016, assessed at a basic rate of £300 (as had all the assessments in the building) with 10% for air-conditioning and 5% for raised floors. One of the assessments was a Challenge settlement. Mr Marshall said that this landmark building, with a substantial reception offered a stronger office product than the appeal Item 3. 19 Queen Elizabeth Street

[41]On the same street as the appeal property, one block to the west on the corner of Lafone Street. Mr Marshall said that his firm acted for the ratepayers of this and the appeal property in the 2010 rating list, both being agreed at £225 per sqm. No 19 was taken out of the rating list in November 2013 when redevelopment works started, including the introduction of some residential units. It was reassessed on completion of the works in 2016 at £250 per sqm, inadvertently using the same floor areas as before, despite the commercial floor space having changed.

[42]Both buildings have been assessed at £300 per sqm in the 2017 list, despite 19 being of better quality.

[43]It will be evident from the above that the thrust of Mr Marshall’s principal evidence was that the appeal property was inferior to other nearby buildings yet had been assessed at the same rate. He considered that if they were at £300 per sqm, the appeal property should be at £275 per sqm.

[44]That argument, of course, is premised on the other buildings being correctly assessed. Of the 24 assessments in the agreed schedule, Mr Crossley observed that one was an unchallenged assessment, five were ‘BARs’ (as a result of billing authority reports), and three were ‘check cases’. Check cases, he said, were not evidence of agreed values, but instead were simply the first stage in the check, challenge, appeal process in which ‘pattern valuations’ were carried out by a non-valuer – essentially a computer-based process based on the survey data the VOA held for the property. The output of a check case might have been scrutinised by an interested party or their valuer, but no challenge made. Similarly, BARs are alterations to the rating list made as a result on an alert from a billing authority who believe, for instance, that a property has been redeveloped and should be brought back into the rating list. Rental and assessment evidence is not exchanged, and the process is carried out by a non-valuer. Finally unchallenged assessments are not indicative of a settled tone, but simply the VO’s opinion of value on the evidence available to them when the rating list was drawn up. As the list progresses, additional evidence becomes available through forms of return, which might alter the picture.

[45]For these reasons, Mr Crossley placed no weight on nine of the 24 assessments, including Mr Marshall’s top three comparables - India House, the unchallenged assessment within The Clove Building, and 19 Queen Elizabeth Street, all three of which had been assessed following BAR notifications.

[46]As for the assessment within the Clove Building which was challenged, within the second floor west, Mr Crossley said that the challenge requested a 15% temporary allowance for the effects of the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The challenge was ‘disagreed’ and a 5% allowance applied. The challenge did not, he said, dispute the £300 basic rate, rental evidence was not scrutinised or exchanged, and the settlement was not evidence of an agreed tone.

[47]As regards 19 Queen Elizabeth Street, Mr Crossley agreed the series of events which Mr Marshall described, in that the property was re-entered into the rating list based on old survey data, which was taken forward into the 2017 list. Having been alerted to the inaccuracy, he had requested that the building is fully inspected and measured to correct the assessment entry.

Discussion

[48]In reality, there is little between the experts. Having dealt with the raised floor, the dispute is limited to whether the appropriate rate is £250 or £275 per sqm.

[49]Mr Marshall’s decision to not engage with the rental evidence was puzzling. It is, of course, necessary to consider all of the available evidence, and it would have been helpful for him to have done so.

[50]Having viewed them on my walking tour, I can immediately discount the evidence from some of the largely purpose-built office buildings much closer to London Bridge station, such as The Cottons Centre and Colechurch House, and those within the Hays Galleria on the riverfront such as Shackleton House and Goldings House, each of which is sufficiently different to be of little assistance in this exercise. 160 Tooley Street was by agreement in a much better location than the appeal property, reflected by its assessment at £425 per sqm, and can also be discounted.

[51]In my view the better evidence comes from buildings in the area of tight streets surrounding the appeal property, which comprises both rental and assessment evidence, and in several cases both types of evidence for the same building.

[52]Before I analyse that evidence, I should say that I do not agree with Mr Crossley that noweight can be placed on assessments which the VOA has placed on hereditaments as a result of BAR’s etc. I accept what he says about the process being carried out by non-valuers (conscious that limited resources are dealing with the whole country), but the ratepaying public should be able to assume that the assessments which the VOA puts into the list are its best estimate at that stage as part of its obligation to maintain an accurate rating list. So, I put some, albeit perhaps qualified, weight on those assessments. They might indeed alter when placed under scrutiny, but they should be taken as the valuation officer’s estimate of value at that time. The exception is perhaps 19 Queen Elizabeth Street, which is agreed to be incorrect.

[53]Nutmeg House is a similar corner building to the appeal property, on the opposite corner of the block. We have the four rental transactions, and two rating assessments. Mr Crossley identified the discrepancies in the rental evidence, with two lettings at £295 and £350 per sqm within a few months of each other, but two years before the AVD in a generally rising market. The two rent reviews, each with a rent review date of January 2015 some months before the AVD, at around £390 per sqm. On the other hand we have two rating assessments, each at £300 per sqm, which Mr Crossley places no weight on. In the light of the rental evidence, the assessments do appear to me to look light.

[54]We also have both rental and assessment evidence on the Canvas House, in the Jubilee Yard, a short distance from the appeal property. Mr Crossley devalues the rent at £312.61 per sqm, in June 2013 some two years before the AVD, and the rating assessment is at £300 per sqm. I agree that the value of this property is compromised by its slightly odd location immediately behind a large glass pyramid, and the quality of the accommodation is poor. That would point to the assessment of the appeal property needing to be something higher.

[55]We also have two lettings and two assessments at 21-27 Queen Elizabeth Street, again a short distance from the appeal property. Mr Crossley disregards the April 2016 letting as post-AVD, but I agree with him that the two taken together, £330 to £510 per sqm, indicate rental growth. Again, the assessments at £300 look modest in the light of the rental evidence, but both experts consider the internal specification to be better than that of the appeal property.

[56]India House also yields rental and assessment evidence, and both experts place weight on the building as comparable evidence. Mr Marshall says it is superior to the appeal property, yet both have been assessed at £300 per sqm. Mr Crossley places no weight on the assessment, generate by a BAR report. He analyses the rent at just over £380 per sqm. The letting is post-AVD, but only by a month, and in my view, it is compelling evidence. The experts agree it is better than the appeal property, with a refurbished manned reception and new comfort cooling to the office space. Again, the assessment looks light compared with the rental evidence.

[57]75 Bermondsey Street has also been assessed at £300 per sqm, Mr Crossley placing no weight on this as a BAR report assessment. It is the one rental transaction upon which both experts place at least some weight – Mr Marshall departing from his position of disinterest to comment that it is the one property let as a whole. Mr Crossley analyses the rent, from January 2014, at just under £400 per sqm 14 months before the AVD in a rising market. In my view the utility of this comparable is limited, being much closer to London Bridge Station, but I agree it is the only property which, like the appeal property, is a whole property letting where the occupier has their own front door and control over the whole building.

[58]We only have assessment evidence from the Conran-inspired Clove Building, with its superior reception area; at the challenge stage the rate of £300 was not disputed. This is perhaps not a surprise, as it is arguably too low.

[59]Mr Crossley’s remaining two rents comprise £275 per sqm for a contracted out tenancy, and £301.61 per sqm allowing for poor natural light. The remaining assessments, upon which neither expert places much weight, add much to the analysis.

[60]Standing back, my conclusions are these. The appeal property has the benefit of being self-contained. The ground floor reception area is little more than a hall, but the hypothetical tenant could, as the ratepayer has done, solve this by having a first-floor reception – a practical solution. The space is somewhat dated, and would have been more so prior to the existing refurbishment which we are required to ignore.

[61]There is only so much that can be learned from smaller suites in multi-occupied buildings. I agree with Mr Marshall that the appeal property is inferior to many of the comparable buildings in the immediate vicinity. But my general view is that they appear to have been underassessed in the light of the rental evidence available.

[62]In my judgment Mr Crossley’s base value at £275 per sqm is reasonable. Given that I also agree with him on the raised floors, I adopt his valuation of £435,000. The appeal from the VTE’s decision is therefore allowed, to that extent.

Disposal

[63]I therefore determine that the rateable value of the appeal property should be £435,000 with effect from 1 April 2017.

[64]I make no order for costs. Mr Peter D McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb Right of appeal