Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

NON-DOMESTIC RATING
2010 RATING LIST
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

Inspection Date: 29 September 2016 Hearing Date: 22 March 2017

Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Address: Clee Hill Plant Ltd, Clee Hill Plant Ltd, Philpotts Yard, Dartford, DA4 9HQ

Rateable Value: 52,000 Effective From:

Valuation Tribunal Reference and Item Number: 221526291814/537N10/151

CVS Surveyor: Saul Campbell

Telephone: 02073678483
Mobile: 07841203144

Valuation Office Caseworker: Mark Lawley / Lee Hayes Billing Authority: Dartford
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. A Statement of the issues in dispute:

The physical survey details shown in the Valuation Office Summary Valuation for the Appeal Hereditament
are disputed.
The Rateable Value of 52,000, shown in the 2010 Rating List with effect from the 1st April 2010 is
disputed by the Appellant, on the grounds that the Rateable Value does not represent the rental value of
the hereditament under the rating hypothesis at the Antecedent Valuation Date 1st April 2008 reflecting
the physical factors of the property and locality as at the Material Date 1st April 2010.
The rating assessment on the Appeal Hereditament is not in line with assessments on comparable
properties in the locality, taking into account the differences in the physical attributes between the
properties.
The economic climate affecting the appeal property as at the Antecedent Valuation Date is disputed.
The subject hereditament has been jointly inspected by CVS and the VOA.
Land to rear in dispute. This is used as a turning circle on occasion when there is an overflow on the hard
surfaced land currently valued. The land is not under exclusive occupation whilst it could be argued it is
also too transient with regard to boundaries.
The need for this land is specific to the occupiers and therefore they should not be penalized for this. We
are valuing the hereditament vacant and to let not the business in occupation.
A hypothetical tenant fresh to the scene would be disinterested in a grass land area attached to a site of
this ilk in my professional opinion. Needless to say why an added valuation to this part does not reflect
rating principles.
The access to the site is poor, not only for the current occupiers but since we are valuing a storage depot
and premises, access in and out of the site multiple times a day is a key feature for a hereditament of
this nature.
The scheme states workshops, offices and portable buildings attract no further valuation as these parts
have been subsumed within the unadjusted rate of the hereditament.
The mezzanine is a timber platform with no fixed access point (typically a ladder) and is not rateable.
The temporary office space is not of superior quality to the main space and therefore should not be

Page 1 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

uplifted as a high tech area. Again, vacant and to let this would be removed and not considered.
Steel lorry containers are beyond economic repair and have been dumped on site prior to the
appellants being in occupation which further emphasizes a lack of exclusive occupation to this grassland.
It is accepted the hard surfaced land currently valued is indeed this as opposed to unsurfaced land
following the joint inspection.
The warehouse space is heated and roof lined but does not have wall insulation. The VOA are of the
opinion that because the single breeze block walls have better insulation properties than a single sheet
of corrugated metal this qualifies as insulated. It does not.
The only other assessment within scheme 75014 is G K N Steelstock Ltd, Station Road, South Darneth,
Dartford DA4 9HQ which is 12970.8m2 in total (42.50/m2). It is situated adjacent to Farningham Road
rail Station and has good access via Station Road. The land at this hereditament does not have a value
attributed to it and therefore the same should be replicated on the subject premises if the scheme is to
be adhered to.
Failing this, the scheme is to be reviewed as the subject premises is owner occupied and therefore has no
rent passing to ascertain a base price. The aforementioned scheme comp is too owner occupied to my
knowledge whilst being 19x the size (based on current areas) so not comparable in any way and would be
subject to a different market.
160A Main Road, Sutton at Hone, Dartford, DA4 9HP is subject to scheme 184082 (Industrials built after
1995 starting with post codes DA4 9 and valued between 70.00-85.00/m2). The subject premises has a
build age of c. 1960 yet is valued at an unadjusted rate of 70.00/m2. Of the 37 industrial assessments
within DA4 9, 21 are valued below the subject hereditaments base price. I will be referring to these
assessments of varying ages and sizes and it would be appreciated if the Valuation Office could provide
the basket of evidence used to ascertain the current levels. A list of these assessments can be found
attached. I believe a UAR of 60.00/m2 to be fair and reasonable for an industrial premises (not storage
depot) of this ilk in this location.
37 comparable properties were referred to in my email to the VOA on 03/01/17 which will be referred to
in more detail at the hearing.
As an alternative means of valuation Land used for storage and premises has been reviewed and will be
presented to the Tribunal also. Of the 14 similar sites in DA4 9 the three applicable schemes all value
hard surfaced land at 8.00/m2 with buildings treated as ancillary.

2. An explanation of the decision sought from the Tribunal:

The appellant will contend that the Tribunal should determine a Rateable Value at 25,750 or
37,000 dependant on method of valuation for the Appeal Hereditament with effect from the
effective date 1st April 2010 in accordance with the valuation set out in Appendix A.

Page 2 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

3. Details of the arguments in support of the appeal including legal arguments:

The Rateable Value should be assessed in accordance with Paragraph 2 (1) Schedule 6 of the Local
Government Finance Act 1988 as amended by The Rating (Valuation) Act 1999 and paragraph 2(7)
of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The property and its locality must be
considered as they physically existed at the Material day 1st April 2010 but at the rental levels
and economic climate existing as at the Antecedent Valuation Date 1st April 2008.
The Material Date for the purposes of this appeal in accordance with The Non-Domestic Rating
(Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1992 (as amended) for the purposes of this appeal
is the 1st April 2010.
The hierarchy of rental evidence should be determined in accordance with the Lands Tribunal
Decision in Lotus and Delta v. Culverwell (VO) [1976] RA141
Robinson Bros (Brewers) Ltd v Houghton and Chester-le-Street Assessment Committee (1938)
28 R&IT 197 & (1937) 26 R&IT 228 rebus sic stantibus. Confirmed the long established principle
The hereditament to be valued...is always the actual house or other property for the occupation
of which the occupier is to be rated, and that hereditament is to be valued as in fact is rebus sic
stantibus.
Scottish & Newcastle Retail Limited & Allied Domecq Retailing Limited v R F Williams (VO)
(Court of Appeal) (2001) (RA/480/1993 & RA/484/1993) examination of rebus sic stantibus.
K Shoe Shops Ltd v Hardy (VO) & Westminster City Council (Lands Tribunal) (1980) RA 333 at
353 (Court Of Appeal) (1983) RA 26; 3 All ER 609 consideration of tone of the list.
Jafton Properties Ltd v Prisk (VO) (1997) RA 137 consideration of tone of the list.
Futures London Ltd v Stratford (VO) (Lands Tribunal) (2005) rejected the actual rent passing in
favour of a settled pattern of assessments.
Barnard & Barnard v Walker (VO) (1975) RA 383 examination of carrying forward end
allowances between Rating Lists.
OBrien v Harwood (VO) (2003) RA 244 explanation of tone of the list and the 3 stages leading
to the establishment of a tone of the list.
Shearson Lehman Bros Ltd v Humphrys (VO) & Hackney LBC (1991) (Lands Tribunal) RA 125
discussion about impugning a Rating List.
ITM Corporation Ltd v Mooney (VO) (1983) (Lands Tribunal) RA 145 at 154 discussion about
impugning a Rating List
Burroughs Machines Ltd v Mooney (VO) (1977) (Lands Tribunal) RA 45 at 54 examination of
tone of the list.
Lamb V Minards (1973) - examination of carrying forward end allowances and relativities
between Rating Lists.
Oldschool & Oldschool v Coll (VO) (1995) RA/312/1994 - Burden of proof and duty of the
Valuation Officer
Greater London Council v Rush & Tompkins Ltd (1988) ADR.L.R. examination of the without
prejudice rule and the inadmissibility of evidence relating to discussions between the parties in
their attempts to negotiate a settlement before trial .

Page 3 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

The meaning of the word Locality can be found in the Lands Tribunal case K Shoes Shops Ltd v
Hardy (VO) (1980 RA 333). R C Walmsley Esq. FRICS

"The Locality in which the hereditament is situated ".

"The expression Locality has no statutory definition. For my purpose, I propose to adopt
the meaning that was put on this term by the Valuation Officer and not challenged by the
ratepayers, namely an area within which it was likely there would be sufficient rental evidence
to produce a reasonably expected rent and outside which it was likely there would be
sufficient rental evidence to produce a reasonably expected rent and outside which the
reasonably expected rent might be different.

The survey details of the Appeal Hereditament have been measured in accordance with the RICS
Code of Measuring Practice as shown in the survey details forming the valuation in Appendix A,
although this is no longer in accordance with Section 5 of the RICS property measurement
guidance (1st Edition May 2015) which provides guidance on the change to measuring practice.
CVS has been informed by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) that there has/will be no changes in
the adopted approach to measuring offices for taxation purposes.

The rents set out in Appendix B support the level of rental value for the Appeal Hereditament as
at 1st April 2008 and provide more accurate rental evidence than the rents provided by the
Valuation Officer in the Regulation 17 Notice.

4. Details of the evidence relied on in support of the appeal:

The rental evidence shown in Appendix B will be provided to the Tribunal to support the
appellants valuation of the Appeal Hereditament
The schedule of comparable assessments set out in Appendix C will be provided to support the
Appellants valuation of the Appeal Hereditament.
The financial collapse which began in September/October 2007 affected the economy in general
and the property market in particular prior to the Antecedent Valuation date 1st April 2008. An
account of the Economic Crisis will be provided in the UK Economic and Property Market
Performance 2007 2010 which is an independent research report commissioned by CVS which
establishes the impact of the economic crisis on the property market at the Antecedent Valuation
Date.

Page 4 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

REVISED VALUATION APPENDIX A (UAR 60.00/m2 Storage Depot & Premises)

Description Area m2 Price /m2 Relativity Total

Warehouse 425.68 58.50 0.975 24,902
0.731 (0.75 of
Portakabin Office 43.92 43.88 main space) 1,927
0.695 (No
heating or
External Storage 167.99 41.71 insulation) 7,007
0.25 (/m2
stated within
Shipping containers 17.04 15.00 scheme) 256
0.15 (Agreed
Canopy 25.48 9.00 with VOA) 229
Stated within
scheme
Hard Surfaced fenced currently
land 1199.36 4.00 adopted 4,797

Total before
adjustments 39,118

Allowances 5% Access - 1,956

Sub total 37,162
RV 37,000

REVISED VALUATION APPENDIX Ai (UAR 8.00/m2 Land used for storage & Premises)

Description Area m2 Price /m2 Total

Warehouse 425.68 30.00 12,770

Portakabin Office 43.92 25.00 1,098

External Storage 167.99 20.00 3,360

Shipping containers 17.04 15.00 256

Canopy 25.48 9.00 229

Hard Surfaced fenced

land 1199.36 8.00 9,595

Total before
adjustments 27,308

Allowances 5% Access - 1,365

Sub total 25,943
RV 25,750
Page 5 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

COMPARABLES OF 2010 RENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL APPENDIX B

ADDRESS RENT SCHEME ITMS pm

Subject Premises Freehold 75014 554.67 70.00
G K N Steelstock Ltd, Station Road, South 75014
Freehold 12,476.80 42.50
Darneth, Dartford DA4 9HQ

COMPARABLES OF 2010 RATING LIST LAND ASSESSMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL APPENDIX C

Page 6 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Page 7 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Page 8 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Page 9 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Page 10 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

Page 11 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

COMPARABLES OF 2010 RATING LIST LAND ASSESSMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL APPENDIX Ci

ADDRESS Land pm ITMS ALLOWANCES AGENT

Yards 1-12 Oak view Stud Farm,
Lombard Street Dartford DA4 9DF
8.00 VARIOUS N/A VARIOUS
11x assessments.
West Yard, Station Road, South
8.00 522.53m2 N/A
Darneth, Dartford DA4 9JB
East Yard, Station Road, South
8.00 732.75m2 N/A
Darneth, Dartford DA4 9JB

Page 12 of 13
Valuation Office Reference: 26291814 CVS Reference: APP111880

CONCLUSION

From the evidence set out above it is my contention that The Valuation Officer:
(Mark X as applicable in right hand column)

A Has not interpreted or reflected correctly the available rental evidence. X

B Has incorrectly and unfairly assessed the hereditament. X
C Has provided no evidence to support the Rateable Value in the 2010 Rating List. X
D Has not made any appropriate adjustment for disabilities. X
E Has used survey areas which are out of date and incorrect. X
F Needs to effect a Merger/Split hereditament.

Other Comments:
More images will be presented at the hearing to illustrate the above.

List of copies of any basic documents essential for the argument.

Location plans and photographs of the appeal property and comparables will be put before the panel at the
hearing.

I submit that the above statement complies with the standard direction issued by the Tribunal with the
Notice of the Hearing.

I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge, I have made clear which
they are and that I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and
complete professional opinion.

I confirm that my report includes all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions which I have
expressed and that attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of those opinions.

I confirm that my duty to the Tribunal as an expert witness overrides any duty to those instructing or paying
me, that I have understood this duty and complied with it in giving my evidence impartially and objectively,
and that I will continue to comply with that duty as required.

I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest of any kind other than those already disclosed in this report.

I confirm that my report complies with the requirements of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS), as set down in Surveyors acting as expert witnesses: RICS practice statement.

Signed :

Surveyors Name:

Dated:

Page 13 of 13