[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Warren v Carson (VO) [2001] EWLands RA_25_2000 (12 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2001/RA_25_2000.html Cite as: [2001] EWLands RA_25_2000

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[2001] EWLands RA_25_2000 (12 January 2001)


 


RA/25/2000

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

RATING – shop – poor location – partially obscured visibility – comparison with other shops – whether evidence of reduction in value of appeal premises – appeal dismissed.

IN THE MATTER of an APPEAL against a DECISION of the

MANCHESTER SOUTH VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN HARRY WINSTON WARREN Appellant

and

ANDREW CARSON Respondent

(Valuation Officer)

Re: 25 Festival Village, Trafford Centre,

Manchester, M17 8AA

Before: P R Francis FRICS

Sitting at: Manchester Combined Tax Tribunal, Warwickgate House,

Warwick Road, Old Trafford, Manchester.

on

5 December 2000

The appellant did not appear, and was not represented.

The respondent valuation officer in person with leave of the Tribunal.

DECISION

1. This is an appeal, heard under the Simplified Procedure (rule 28 Lands Tribunal Rules 1996) by the ratepayer of a shop against the decision of a local valuation tribunal which reduced the valuation officer's proposed assessment in the 1995 rating list from RV £21,700 to RV £20,700.
2. The appellant ratepayer, Mr. H W Warren, produced no written evidence subsequent to his Notice of Appeal (dated 23 March 2000) and failed to appear at the hearing. The respondent valuation officer, Mr. A Carson BA, ARICS (Dip Rating) appeared in person with leave of the Tribunal.
3. 25 Festival Village ("the appeal premises") is a purpose built retail unit with three splayed frontages adjacent to entrance 'A' to the Festival Village wing of the Trafford Centre, a major out-of-town shopping centre of approximately 1.3 million sq.ft. retail and leisure space, about 5 miles west of Manchester City Centre. Festival Village has a total of 49 separately assessed hereditaments comprising 4 clusters of small retail units located within the central area of this enclosed east wing of the Trafford Centre, surrounded by inward-facing perimiter units, of which the subject premises is one. There are 3 pedestrian accesses from the external car parks, and a further link at two levels, known as Peel Avenue, from the main Centre.
4. The subject premises have an area of 51.74 sq.m. and are partially obscured by five pillars (as are corresponding units elsewhere within the village). The appeal hereditament was included in the rating list as a new entry on 11 January 1999 at a rateable value of £25,750 with effect from 10 September 1998, the date the Centre opened. The appellant ratepayer commenced trading from the premises on 21 November 1998. On 15 February 1999, the appellant made a proposal seeking a reduction in the assessment to £100 rateable value. Failing agreement between the parties, an appeal was listed for hearing by the Manchester South Valuation Tribunal on 17 February 2000 at which the valuation officer submitted a revised assessment of £21,700 rateable value
5. By a decision dated 28 February the valuation tribunal determined an assessment for the subject premises in the sum of £20,700 on the basis of £400 per sq,m., concluding on the evidence that unit G1d, which was on the other side of the same entrance and was also partially obscured by pillars, was the best comparable. That unit, which was not subject to an appeal, had been agreed at £400 per sq.m.
6. On 23 March the appellant gave notice of appeal to this Tribunal on the following grounds:

i. The landlord has recognised that this is a problem unit and has reduced the rent twice from £35,000 pa down to £22,000 pa after 6 months, and then further to £15,000 pa from September 1999.

ii. The footfall is markedly reduced on the subject property's side of the village for many factors, but largely there being only 800 spaces on this side as opposed to over 6000 spaces and a coach park on the opposite side of the village.

iii. By the valuation officer's own admission, rental growth applied between 1993 and 1998 at 65 per cent was a "massive increase".

iv. The Trafford Centre was only completed in 1998, and is otherwise on an industrial estate – there are not any previous retail patterns.

v. No account has been taken of Festival Village being distinctly down-market compared with the rest of the Centre.

vi. The decision assessment was grossly excessive compared to the ratepayer's other stall in the Royal Exchange in the heart of Manchester.

vii. The shops in the Trafford Centre pay significantly less per metre squared than the subject property.

viii. The 'erratic pattern of rents' illustrates their unrealism.

ix. The premises in question is [sic] obscured by five large pillars, and is not totally visible from any projection angle, of which [sic] remains difficult to locate.

Mr. Warren did not include, within his grounds of appeal, a proposed revised rateable value.

7. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show, on the evidence before me, that the lower tribunal was wrong to confirm a revised assessment of £20,700 rateable value. No such evidence was forthcoming prior the Lands Tribunal hearing, and by not appearing at the appointed time Mr. Warren has failed to make out his case.
8. The valuation officer produced his evidence that set out the background to the appeal, the basis of his initial approach to the assessments in Festival Village, a comprehensive list of comparables and a revised valuation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. That valuation was an acceptance of the valuation tribunal's determination based upon 51.74 sq.m. at £400 per sq.m. = £20,696, say £20,700.
9. On the basis that no evidence has been produced by the appellant to prove that the valuation tribunal was wrong, and the valuation officer has accepted the determination, I dismiss this appeal.
10. It is normal, in cases heard under the simplified procedure, for no costs to be awarded except in exceptional circumstances. Bearing in mind the appellant's failure to attend the hearing, or to communicate his intentions to the court office beforehand, I offered the respondent valuation officer the opportunity to seek his costs. However, no costs were sought, and I therefore make no award.

DATED: 12 January 2001

(Signed) P R Francis FRICS