UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

UT Neutral citation number: [2015] UKUT 00003 (LC)

UTLC Case Number: RA/20/2014

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

RATING valuation shop in 1970s precinct VT decision on other property application by

VO to comparables allowances for narrowness, location and loading appeal allowed
rateable value determined at 18,250

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF

THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND

BETWEEN:

SHARAD N KOTECHA Appellant

and

ANDREW MCKILLOP (VO) Respondent

Re: 21A Churchgate, Hitchin,

Herts, SG5 1 DN

Before: P D McCrea FRICS

Sitting at: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

on

3 November 2014

Mr Prakash Kotecha for the appellant

Mr John Harding, Valuation Office Agency, for the respondent

CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015

1
The following cases are referred to in this decision:

Lotus & Delta Limited v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City Council (LVC/376/1975)
Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809
Barnard and Barnard v Walker (VO) [1975] RA 383

2
 DECISION

Introduction

1. This is an appeal by the ratepayer, Mr Sharad Kotecha (the appellant), against a decision of
the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) dated 3 March 2014 in which the VTE reduced the
assessment in the 2005 rating list of Unit 21A Churchgate, Hitchin, Herts, SG5 1DN (the appeal
property) from RV 24,750 to RV 20,000 with effect from 1 April 2005.

2. The appeal was conducted in accordance with the Lands Chambers simplified procedure. The
appellant appeared in person and was represented by his brother, Mr Prakash Kotecha. For
convenience I will refer to Mr Sharad Kotecha as the appellant, and to his brother as Mr Kotecha.
The Valuation Officer, Mr Andrew Mckillop BSc (Hons) IRRV (Hons), gave expert valuation
evidence and was represented by Mr John Harding of the Valuation Office Agency.

3. The parties agreed that I would not be assisted by an inspection of the appeal property.

4. The material day and the effective date are both 1 April 2005. The antecedent valuation date
(AVD) is 1 April 2003.

Facts

5. In the light of the evidence I find the following facts. The appeal property is situated in the
market town of Hitchin, within North Hertfordshire District. The Churchgate Centre (the Centre),
of which the appeal property forms part, was built in 1971 and comprises approximately 22 retail
units. It is a fairly typical 1970s shopping precinct, uncovered but with overhanging canopies
affording some cover from the elements. It is located to the east of the original Market Place, to the
west of the new market site and forms a pedestrian link between the two. At the material day the
market opened on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

6. The appellant has operated an electronics business from the appeal property for over 30 years.
It is a two-storey retail unit. The ground floor has a fully glazed frontage and a small return frontage,
and comprises predominantly retail space but with some storage at the rear. The first floor, accessed
from stairs within the retail area, provides storage space benefitting from some front glazing, a small
amount of office accommodation, and WCs.

7. The appeal property was formed by the division of Unit 21 originally a Fine Fare outlet but
long since occupied by Iceland. The appellant took a 25 year sublease of the new Unit 21A in 1982.
The sublease had five yearly upward-only rent review provisions. The current rent is 23,000 per
annum, which has remained unchanged since it was determined by an independent expert at the 1992
sublease rent review. Since expiry of the sublease in 2007, the appellant has held over, paying rent
directly to the superior landlord. Iceland remain in the smaller Unit 21.

3
8. The appeal property has a total net internal floor area of 430.01 sqm comprising:

Floor Description Area (SQM)

Ground Retail Zone A 50.93
Ground Retail Zone B 50.93
Ground Retail Zone C 45.26
Ground Retail Remainder 39.77
Ground Retail Remainder 7.27
Ground Storage 95.25
First Storage 140.6

9. The majority of units within the centre are smaller, typically 120.00 to 175.00 sqm, but there
are some other larger units including Unit 21 (784.9 sqm) and Unit 14-16 (489 sqm).

10. In November 2005, early in the life of the 2005 rating list, the then Hertfordshire Valuation
Tribunal (the panel) heard an appeal by the occupier of Unit 19 which was to have significant effect
on the assessment of rateable values in the Centre during the currency of that list. In its decision, the
panel noted that Unit 19 .was a long narrow unit located at the end of a row of shops flanked on
one side by a much larger unit [the appeal property] and that in the 1995 rating list the same panel
had made a reduction to reflect the narrowness of the property. The appeal was the first relating to
the 2005 rating list to be heard by the panel, and had been listed following a request by the ratepayer
for an early hearing. Accordingly the panel noted that no tone of the list had yet been established.
Having considered points about its location, the panel noted that the VO had accepted that Unit 19
was most probably..in the worst location in the development. The panel was also mindful of
the previous Valuation Tribunal decision where an allowance had been given to reflect the
narrowness of the property and it made an end adjustment of 12.5% to reflect the disadvantages of
unit 19 (my emphases).

11. Later in the 2005 List, a tone did emerge. This showed 275 per sqm along the Market
Place frontage (Units 1 and 2), 225 per sqm along both the north (Units 4 to 12) and south (Units 3
to 19) sides of the main pedestrian thoroughfare, and 225 per sqm along the western side of the
market site (Units 18 to 24). The three larger units, (Units 14-16, 21, and the appeal property) were
assessed at 210 per sqm.

12. In the 2000 rating list, the Valuation Officer had reflected return frontages of retail units by
making an addition derived from applying a rate per linear metre of return frontage. In the 2005
rating list, this approach was changed to applying an additional 5% to the floor area of that retail
space which benefitted from the return frontage.

4
The Issues

13. The issues between the parties comprise the appropriate Zone A value to be applied to the
agreed floor area; how the comparable evidence should be devalued; how return frontages should be
treated; and the end allowance that should be made, if any, to reflect the size, width, and shared
loading access of the appeal property.

Statutory Framework

14. Section 56 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 gives effect to Schedule 6 to the 1988
Act which sets out the statutory basis on which the rateable value of a hereditament is determined.
Rateable value is taken to be equal to the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be
expected to let from year to year on certain statutory assumptions, set out in paragraph 2(1) of
Schedule 6, as follows:

(a) the first assumption is that the tenancy begins on the day by reference to which the
determination is to be made;

(b) the second assumption is that immediately before the tenancy begins the hereditament
is in a state of reasonable repair, but excluding from the assumption any repairs which a
reasonable landlord would consider uneconomic;

(c) the third assumption is that the tenant undertakes to pay all usual tenants rates and
taxes and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses (if any)
necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command the rent mentioned
above.

Evidence

15. I summarise the evidence on by reference to the hierarchy set out in the decision of the Lands
Tribunal (Mr J H Emlyn Jones FRICS) in Lotus & Delta Ltd v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City
Council (LVC/376/1975).

The rent on the appeal property

16. Where the hereditament which is the subject of consideration is actually let that rent should be
taken as the starting point. The more closely the circumstances under which the rent is agreed both
as to time, subject matter and conditions relate to the statutory requirements the more weight should
be attached to it.

17. Neither party placed weight on the rent passing. Mr Kotecha said that the rent had been set in
1992, had not changed since then, and should not carry any weight. Mr Mckillop agreed that the rent
was not useful.

5
Other rental evidence

18. Where rents of similar properties are available they too are properly to be looked at through
the eye of the valuer in order to confirm or otherwise the level of value indicated by the actual rent of
the subject hereditament.

19. Mr Mckillop gave a brief outline of the rental transactions in the Centre upon which he relied
and which comprised:

Unit 1 Letting - August 2001 270/sqm

Unit 1 Lease renewal - September 2002 394/sqm

Unit 5 Letting - October 2002 334/sqm

Unit 7 Letting - December 2001 250/sqm

Unit 12 6 month Licence February 2002 130/sqm

Unit 15 6 month Licence June 2003 225/sqm

Unit 14-16 6 month Licence February 2002 76/sqm

Unit 21/21A Rent Review June 2001 262/sqm

20. He did not place weight on the Licence agreements, as they reflected the possibility of
redevelopment which should be ignored under the statutory hypothesis. In general, he considered that
the available rental evidence supported a rate of 210 per sqm for the larger units.

21. Mr Kotecha did not place any weight on the rental evidence derived from transactions on the
standard, smaller units, but considered that the key rental evidence was that from the larger Units 14-
16 and Unit 21. He considered that the tenant pool for larger units was different to that for standard
units and that the most comparable unit was 14-16 which at 489 sqm compared with the 430 sqm of
the appeal property. Both had space over two floors, without lifts or air conditioning. Unit 21 was
larger at 784.9 sqm, had both a lift and air conditioning and therefore was less comparable.

22. Unit 14-16 had been the subject of two transactions. Having been vacant for three years, in
February 2002 it was let on licence at 10,000 per annum. In December 2005, the licensee then
signed a new five year lease at a rental of 22,500 per annum. Mr Kotecha pointed out that at AVD
the rent passing on the unit was 10,000 per annum, paid by a tenant who had been in continuous
occupation for 16 months and who had a reasonable prospect of continuance of occupation. Mr
Kotecha referred to both Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 and an internal VOA joint paper in
support of his contention. He submitted that the rental level of 10,000 per annum reflected market
conditions for large properties at the AVD. The unit had been vacant for three years before that
licence was entered into, and it could be assumed that the landlord could not let for a higher amount.
Further, the landlord could not persuade the licensee to pay a higher rent than 10,000 for a three
year period. Mr Kotecha did not consider that the licensee of unit 14-16 would have paid a higher

6
rent than 22,500 had the final lease been entered into at the AVD. Referring to a Colliers Rental
Report (which indicated that the rental market was stable between 2003 and 2005), he considered
that there may be a case that the rental value might have been between 10,000 and 22,500, but not
higher. However he concluded that the letting at 22,500 was the best evidence available, being an
open market letting on a unit which was most the comparable to the appeal property.

23. Mr Kotecha also referred to a brief letting of units 13 and 15 to Maher Books. Upon their
vacation the landlord split the double unit back in single standard sizes. No rental evidence was
submitted in respect of this transaction.

24. He said that since there was only one rent lower than 225 per sqm in the whole centre, there
was no evidence to support the valuation officers contention that rental levels achieved had been
affected by the background threat of redevelopment of the Centre. This had been public knowledge
since the early 1990s, and no tenant would believe that they would be given a notice to quit any time
soon.

25. Both parties commented on the June 2001 rent review of the headlease of the combined unit
21 and the appeal property, which resulted in an increase from 65,000 to 72,500 per annum
equating to 262 per sqm. Mr Mckillop said that, whilst 20 months after the AVD, this represented a
significant increase. Mr Kotecha questioned the usefulness of the rent review as evidence, pointing
out that the sublease rent review of the appeal property the following year was agreed at nil increase,
equating to 239 per sqm. Referring to the VOA rating manual, he emphasised that rent review
evidence was low in the hierarchy of evidence and should be afforded less weight than a new letting.

26. Mr Kotecha submitted that the treatment of return frontages must be consistent between
different rating lists (see paragraph 34). He analysed the letting of unit 14-16 at 22,500 by
deducting 12.6% for the return frontage, to arrive at 19,665.00, which based on an area in terms of
main space of 143 sqm equated to 138.00 per sqm. He applied that rate to the appeal property
which, after a deduction of 15% (see paragraph 37) resulted in a rateable value of 12,857, which he
asks me to determine.

Assessments of comparable properties

27. The next step in Lotus is to consider the rateable value of other properties within the centre.

28. Mr Kotecha said he did not dispute that a tone of 225 per sqm had been established for the
smaller retail units but they had no comparative relationship to the appeal property. In support of this
he referred to a Valuation Tribunal decision on a Sainsburys property in York. He maintained that
the rateable value on the larger units provided better evidence.

29. The essence of Mr Kotechas scepticism concerning the settlement evidence was that the
allowance made by the VTE in respect of unit 19 being 12.5% in respect of both the location and
the narrowness of that unit had been applied to other units within the centre. However neither units
14-16 nor 21 had the narrowness or locational difficulty of unit 19 and therefore those settlements
did not bear any scrutiny.

30. Mr Kotecha considered that by using a lower Zone A rate of 210 per sqm for size, compared
with the standard tone of 225 per sqm but then also giving a further reduction of 12.5% which was,

7
in part, also for size, the VO had double counted. The VO had not provided any real explanation as
to why a 12.5% allowance had been applied to the appeal property it was neither reasonable nor
transparent. Mr Kotecha he had been told that the split of the allowance was 4.5% for narrowness,
and 8% for location, although accepted that there was no documentary evidence of this. He also
referred to the assessment of 20 Market Place which had an end allowance of 5% for being long and
narrow.

31. In respect of the extent to which the VT decision on unit 19 made an allowance for
narrowness, Mr Kotecha analysed that unit in comparison with the others. He calculated that the
appeal property had a width to depth ratio of 1:4.62; unit 19 had a similar ratio of 1:4.66; but both
unit 14-16 (1:1.56) and unit 21 (1:2.4) were less narrow in ratio to their lengths. Any element of
narrowness that was included in the 12.5% for units 14-16 and 21 should therefore result in a higher
end allowance for the appeal property.

32. Mr Kotecha said that if none of the 12.5% end allowance applied to units 14-16 and 21 was in
respect of narrowness, then it must be solely in respect of location, meaning that they must have been
judged to be in an inferior location to unit 19. He referred to another VT decision in respect of unit
26, which fronted the market site, in which an end allowance of 15% was applied since that unit was
judged to be in the worst location in the Centre. Mr Kotecha considered that unit 14-16 was in a
prominent corner location with 20m clear frontage to the market site, visible to the public car park
and Queen Street. This was clearly better than that of unit 19, but had been given a higher end
allowance (assuming there was no element for narrowness). Iceland had a full and clear frontage to
the market site, and was also visible from a large car park on Queen Street. The appeal property was
invisible from Biggin Lane or the car park itself. He considered the VOs approach to be unfair and
unreasonably contradictory.

33. In essence, his point was that whether the end allowance was for location or for narrowness, in
both cases the appeal property was inferior to the two main comparables and should be awarded a
larger end allowance than 12.5%.

34. In respect of the settlement of unit 14-16, Mr Kotecha also questioned the change in the VOs
method of reflecting return frontages. In the 2000 rating list, the units return frontage had been
reflected by adding a rate per linear amount of return frontage, which had the effect of increasing the
rateable value by the equivalent of 12.6%. In the 2005 rating list the revised method was to apply an
uplift of 5% to the retail area that benefitted from the return frontage. He disputed that this was fair
and reasonable, referring to a decision of the Lands Tribunal in Barnard and Barnard v Walker (VO)
[1975] RA 383 and a VTE decision in respect of a property at Watling Avenue, Edgware. He
submitted that these cases showed that differentials had to be consistent between one rating list and
the next. Applying an addition for return frontage of 12.6%, consistent with the 2000 rating list,
would reduce the settlement of unit 14-16 to a main space rate of 168.00 per sqm.

35. Mr Kotecha said that unit 21 had two advantages over the appeal property it had a lift and it
had air-conditioning. He referred to the VOAs valuation scheme notes which indicated that air
conditioning should be reflected by applying a rate of 7.00 per sqm to the area benefitting from it. A
nearby property, 29 Market Place, had been valued in this way. In respect of the lift, he referred to a
VT decision in respect of a factory in the East Midlands, in which upper floors without lift access
were valued at 65% of main space rate, whereas those with lift access were valued at 80%. He also
referred to a Tayside Valuation Board document which applied a 10% addition to storage space
benefitting from lift access compared to that which did not.

8
36. The Appellant and Mr Kotecha also made representations regarding the shared service access
that the appeal property had with unit 21, which meant that on many occasions throughout the day,
rear loading access to the appeal property was hampered owing to the presence of Icelands vehicles.

37. In summary, Mr Kotecha said that the two main comparable units showed, on a proper
analysis, 155.00 per sqm in respect of unit 21, and 168.00 per sqm in respect of unit 14-16. He
considered unit 14-16 to be the most comparable, and adopted 168.00 per sqm in his valuation. He
said that an end allowance of 15% should be applied to reflect the lack of a lift, air conditioning and
shared rear access. On this basis, Mr Kotecha arrived at a rateable value of 15,745.00 based on
settlement evidence, but stressed his preferred valuation based on rents of RV 12,857.

38. Mr Mckillops starting point was that that a tone had developed with Nos. 1 and 2 Churchgate
showing 275 per sqm, Units 4-12 and 3-19 showing 225 per sqm including Unit 4-6 which was a
double unit agreed on appeal by the occupier. Appeals on Units 2, 8, 3 and 13 were all withdrawn.

39. In respect of Unit 19, Mr Mckillop noted the VT decision which incorporated an end
allowance of 12.5% which he said referred to both location of that property and its narrowness but
that no split of the allowance had been given.

40. He said that No.26 had also been determined by the VT which upheld the tone of 125 per
sqm and gave an allowance of 15% for problems of its location. Unit 18-20, the immediately
adjacent unit, was subsequently granted the same allowance by a VO Notice.

41. Unit 14-16 was originally assessed at 225 per sqm with a 5% uplift for return frontage. On
appeal, a revised tone of 210 per sqm was agreed together with an end allowance of 12.5% in line
with the VT decision on Unit 19 and with a 5% uplift for return frontage. Unit 21 was agreed on
appeal at 210 per sqm with an end allowance of 12.5% which appeared only to be for location and
was for the largest unit in the development.

42. The subject appeal property was originally assessed at 225 per sqm. At the VTE hearing the
VO had proposed RV 20,000 based upon 210 per sqm in line with units 21 and 14-16 and an end
allowance of 12.5% in line with units 19, 21 and 14-16. The VTE agreed and determined
accordingly.

43. In respect of the points raised by Mr Kotecha on allowances, Mr Mckillop made several
observations. On return frontage, he accepted that the VOA had changed the way in which it
calculated these, and that on some properties this had the effect of reducing the overall addition.
However in other properties it resulted in a higher increase. When such change was made, there
were always winners and losers. In respect of the presence of air-conditioning in unit 21, this had
been unintentionally omitted in the 2005 rating list settlement an error that had been rectified in the
2010 list. He did not consider that there was any evidence so support the contention that an
allowance should be made for the presence of the lift, and this had not been reflected in the valuation.
He did not consider that the shared access arrangement was sufficiently onerous to be reflected in an
end allowance.

44. Mr Mckillop maintained that his valuation and the VTE decision were correct, and asked me to
confirm the rateable value of the appeal property at 20,000 with effect from 1 April 2005.

9
Conclusions

45. In respect of the rent passing on the appeal property, I accept that this is not especially helpful.
The most that might be said is that the maximum rental that the property would command at the
AVD was 23,000 but that is not a premise built on particularly strong foundations. It is possible
that Iceland might have been able to obtain an increase on the sublease rent review of the appeal
property following its own headlease review in June 2001. But the fact remains that they did not and
the rent passing of 23,000 at the AVD and indeed to date, has remained the same for the last 22
years. In the light of this, I have not placed great weight on this evidence in determining rateable
value.

46. As regards other lettings within the centre, there were both short term licences and longer
leases. There was no evidence to suggest, nor was it argued, that the licence agreement rents should
take precedence. There may have been some uncertainty surrounding the possible redevelopment of
the centre, but there were many leases granted with that as a background, both before and after the
AVD.

47. An important comparable transaction is the letting of unit 14-16 at 22,500 in December 2005.
It is of a similar size to the appeal property, has similar facilities and is diagonally opposite. Where it
differs is in respect of the return frontage that unit 14-16 enjoys. Adopting the VOs floor area,
having factored in the return frontage at 5%, the rent equates to 149 per sqm or thereabouts.

48. Mr Kotecha considered that the 12.6% addition for return frontage should be carried through
to the 2005 list, but I reject that. The VOA would have arrived at 5% as an addition to that retail
space that benefitted from the return frontage on the basis of all of the evidence available to it when
preparing the 2005 rating list, and devaluation of retail evidence would have been carried out on that
basis. It is inappropriate to pick one element of a previous rating list in isolation and apply it to a
later list, as that would result in a level of rent that had not been valued as the comparable evidence
had been devalued. Mr Kotecha referred to Barnard but in that case there was a presumption that
differentials between assessments in the old list were correct and continued to apply in the absence of
evidence to rebut the presumption. I am satisfied that there is such evidence in the revised way the
VO has calculated the value of return frontages in the 2005 list. At all events not much turns on the
point since Mr Kotechas devaluation was 139.74, within 10 per sqm of the VOs figure.

49. I prefer the VOs figure of 149.00, but whether 139.74 or 149.00, the transaction must be
considered in the context of the other rental evidence. Mr Kotecha was correct in his assertion that
open market lettings are preferable to rent review evidence when considering the hierarchy of
evidence. But those lettings must be considered in the context of all of the available evidence in
order to ensure that they are not, for reasons unknown, unusually high or low. Mr Kotecha
produced an extract from the VOA rating manual on this topic. The final paragraph of the section
upon which he relied, and which I endorse, says:

Ultimately the levels of value to be applied will depend on the weight to be attached to
the range of evidence, and there can be no hard and fast rules as to which type is more

10
 reliable. Suffice to say that all evidence must be subjected to the most rigorous
scrutiny.1

50. Iceland agreed a rent review based upon 262.00 in June 2001, and it seems unlikely that a
company of its size and standing would have done so without professional advice. There is also the
letting of unit 5 at 334.00 per sqm only six months before the AVD, and the lease renewal of unit 1
at 394.00 per sqm with effect from the previous month. Accordingly against the background of
those transactions, I am not persuaded that the letting of unit 14-16 at a rent of either 139.74 or
149.00 can safely be relied upon in isolation. On balance, I accept Mr Mckillops view that, when
considered overall, the rental evidence tends to support a base rate of 210.00 per sqm for the larger
units.

51. I now turn to the rating settlements within the centre. There is no dispute between the parties
that the general tone for small units was 225 per sqm but that the larger units should be and were
treated differently. Mr Mckillops relatively simple approach before me was that the three large units,
Nos. 14-16, No 21, and the appeal property, had all been assessed at 210 per sqm less a 12.5% end
allowance.

52. I do not accept Mr Kotechas devaluation of the assessment of unit 21. What he has done is to
make a deduction for air-conditioning and the lift from an assessment which doesnt include an
addition for them. The lack of air-conditioning in the assessment was clearly an error which the VO
said he had rectified in the 2010 list. I accept Mr Mckillops evidence regarding the lift. I also reject
Mr Kotechas devaluation of the assessment of Unit 14-16. Again, he has made a deduction of
12.6% from an assessment which has been valued in a different way, which results in an artificially
low figure.

53. Decisions of the VTE and its predecessors are not binding upon me, and I have generally
placed little weight on the VT decisions that Mr Kotecha relied upon, many of which were in respect
of hereditaments in different parts of the country. However, the decision of the panel in respect of
unit 19 had an effect on other rateable values that lie at the heart of this dispute and I have had regard
to it. I have no doubt from the wording of its decision that in respect of unit 19 the panel applied a
12.5% discount for both narrowness and location.

54. In the VOA valuation breakdowns, submitted as evidence by Mr Kotecha, the assessments of
both unit 14-16 and unit 21 have an end allowance of 12.5% for VT decision 19 Churchgate. It is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that following the VT decision on unit 19, this allowance was applied
to other assessments in a relatively indiscriminate way, without reference to the ingredients of the
allowance. Neither large unit suffers from the factors which made up the allowance of 12.5%, yet it
was applied anyway. Mr Harding, on behalf of the valuation officer, accepted that this was less than
ideal but given that the 2005 list was closed the VO was unable to amend this wording. Mr Mckillop
was not involved in these settlements and I accept Mr Hardings submission that it is difficult to go
back into the minds of the negotiating parties in analysing how those settlements were arrived at.

55. However, to an extent that is all now irrelevant. The evidence has moved on, and the fact is
that the other two large units in the centre that form the key comparables, rightly or wrongly, were
settled at 210 per sqm less a 12.5% end allowance.

1
http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume4/sect5/d-rat-man-
vol4-s5-pn2-1995.html#P153_15658

11
56. I am satisfied that the appeal property should be valued on a base rate of 210.00 per sqm,
which would equate to 23,120 as valued by Mr Mckillop, less an end allowance of 12.5%. That
would put the appeal property on the same general tone as the other large units within the centre. I
must then consider whether any further allowances should be made having regard to the nature of the
appeal property in comparison with the other two large units.

57. Mr Kotecha raised the issue of location but I do not think there is any substance in this. Unit
14-16 is more prominent to the east, but its return frontage has already been allowed for with a 5%
addition to the retail space area. In my judgement the difference between the appeal property and unit
21, immediately next door (which had no return frontage addition for its eastern elevation) is too
marginal to have any effect on value and I make no deduction.

58. Mr Kotechas ratios of width to depth, estimated as a lay person, went largely unchallenged by
the VO. A cursory glance at the goad plan would suggest that the ratio of unit 21 cannot be quite as
he suggests but there is no doubt that the appeal property, with a width to depth ratio of something in
the order of 1:4.62 is notably narrower, in relation to its length, than the other two large units, and
had similar proportions to unit 19. In my judgement it is appropriate to make an allowance for this. I
consider that an appropriate end allowance of 5% should be made.

59. I should add for completeness that the end allowance for frontage to depth in respect of 20
Market Place appears to me not, as Mr Kotecha asserted, to reflect the unit being long and narrow,
but for being wide and shallow as the goad plan appears to show. It is common for an allowance
to be made when a hereditament has an unusually high proportion of Zone A space.

60. In respect of the shared nature of the rear loading access, I am satisfied that an end allowance
should also be made. The appellants access to the rear loading door for servicing or customer
collection would be inhibited if Iceland are also loading or unloading at the same time, and it is
common for such an arrangement to be reflected in an end allowance. I make a further end
allowance of 2.5% for this.

61. Accordingly in my judgement an appropriate end allowance, when applied to a base value of
210 per sqm, is 20% to reflect the above factors and I determine a rateable value of 23,120 less
20% giving 18,496 but say RV 18,250.

Decision

62. The appeal is allowed. I direct that the assessment of the appeal property in the 2005 rating
list be reduced to RV 18,250 with effect from 1 April 2005.

63. In appeals conducted in accordance with the Lands Chambers simplified procedure costs are
only awarded in exceptional circumstances. Neither party suggested that there were any such
circumstances, and I make no order as to costs.

Dated 14 January 2015

12
 P D McCrea FRICS

13