The appeals of Lucy Dyer (Valuation Officer) & Anor

The ratepayer’s appeals to the VTE, heard together, concerned two hereditaments within 85 Uxbridge Road, London, marketed in 2014 as ‘Ealing Cross – one of the best buildings in West London’. They comprised 354 sqm on the ground floor west, and 731 sqm on the 5th floor, both occupied by Allied Irish Bank. The nine-storey building dated from 1965 and was refurbished in 2009. Both hereditaments were held by the ratepayer on a single lease for a term of 15 years (without a break) from 29 September 2014, at a headline rent of £377,197 pa. They were let on a Cat A basis, with the tenant fitting to Cat B.

The hereditaments were brought into the 2017 rating list from 1 April 2017, assessed at a rate of £315 per sqm (£300 per sqm, plus 5% for sprinklers) as:

Following challenge notices by the ratepayer, the VO removed the 5% uplift for the sprinkler system, and issued Challenge Decision Notices at £105,000 and £219,000 respectively. The ratepayer appealed.

The VTE’s decision of 6 February 2025 (predating the Tribunal’s 9 July decision in Shoosmiths) determined that a rate of £280 per sqm was reasonable, reducing the assessments to £99,000 and £204,000 RV.

The VO now appeals against that decision.

In his written evidence, Mr Bailey first looked at rents within the building, all but one of which derived from lettings on a Cat A basis. In accordance with the Tribunal’s guidance in Acenden, these were analysed to any break date, otherwise to the term of the lease. He tabulated the rental evidence within the building as follows:

Suite	Date	Size sqm	Rent/sqm
Ground floor east	April 2014	775	£240
Subject hereditaments	September 2014	1085	£299
2nd floor east wing	May 2015	764	£305
2nd floor east wing rear	August 2015	318	£285 (Cat B sublet?)
5th floor left	September 2015	864	£327

This evidence, he said, suggested a clear growth in rents through the AVD period for similarly sized suites suggesting a Cat A rental value of say £300 per sqm.

While Cat B evidence would be preferable, Mr Bailey said this was virtually impossible to come by, with only one transaction, as above. This was a subletting of space on the 2nd floor east, of less than four years, terminating in line with the headlease. While the rent equated to £285 per sqm, the sub-tenant had indicated on its Form of Return that it was ‘supplied with a fit out allowance from Landlord to fit out office shell’. Mr Bailey placed little weight on this transaction, the details of which were far from clear. It seems to me that the VOA had the resources to have investigated this transaction more thoroughly, or indeed to have cast the net rather wider for Cat B evidence.

In the absence of any, I am again left in the familiar unsatisfactory position of having to accept that the only route to a Cat B assumption is by adding to the Cat A evidence an uplift to reflect a Cat B fit out.

As regards the fit out costs of the appeal hereditaments, Mr Bailey said that ‘despite requests, the details of the actual fit out and associated costs have not been forthcoming from the ratepayer for the subject suites’. This is becoming a familiar complaint in these cases, but the answer remains in the VO’s hands. As the Tribunal indicated in Acenden, an application to the Tribunal for an order for disclosure or a witness summons is likely to more effective in producing the desired information. From Forms of Return completed by ratepayers within the building, Mr Bailey produced the following analysis of fit out costs:

Suite	Date	Size sqm	Fit Out Cost	Fit Out/ sqm
6th and 7th floors	March 2012	2,469	£1.5m	£607
3rd and 4th floors	March 2013	3,267	£1.5m	£459
Grd floor west	Feb 2014	351	£133,000	£379
2nd floor east front	April 2014	446	£154,827	£347
2nd floor east rear	Aug 2015	318	£30,285 (possibly alterations to existing fit out)	£95
5th floor left	Sep 2015	864	£850,000	£984

Ignoring the outliers of £95 and £984 per sqm, Mr Bailey noted the average costs at £448 per sqm, but adopted a more conservative figure of £350 per sqm which was ‘on a par with the well documented costs in [Acenden]’ where the property was predominantly open-plan space befitting a finance company occupier, compared with £560 per sqm in Shoosmiths where a more cellular layout was provided for legal use.

Mr Bailey then amortised the cost of the Cat B fit out, using a borrowing cost of 4.5% ‘following its acceptance in the Shoosmiths appeal’ (as will be evident from paragraph 24 above, that puts it slightly higher than was actually the case). Applying this to his adjusted average £350 per sqm, he arrived at a fit out uplift, having deducted a three-month fit out period, of £81 per sqm, £49 per sqm, and £32 per sqm for contractual terms of 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. This industry resulted in the following analysis, on a Cat A and Cat B basis, for term certain (to break date where applicable; Mr Bailey also provided data on a whole-lease basis on each transaction, but this resulted in a reduction of less than 5% from when analysed to a break date):

Suite	Date	Size sqm	Cat A Rent/sqm	Cat B addition	Cat B rent
Ground floor east	April 2014	775	£240	£81	£321
Subject hereditaments	September 2014	1085	£299	£32	£331
2nd floor east wing	May 2015	764	£305	£34*	£339
5th floor left	September 2015	864	£327	£81	£407

Based on the above, Mr Bailey concluded that the compiled list tone of £315 per sqm was firmly supported by the evidence of rents in the building, when adjusted for fit out.

He then referred to other evidence which the ratepayer relied upon before the VTE, namely Ealing Gateway at 26-30 Uxbridge Road, a similar building a short distance away. The 2017 List assessments were based on £280 per sqm, £35 per sqm less than the appeal hereditaments, but this was on a Cat A basis; no Cat B uplift had been applied, and the VO is now unable to do so because the 2017 Rating List is closed.

Mr Bailey evidence included a copy of the ‘London Agreement’. It appears that following the Tribunal’s decision in Acenden, the VOA came to an agreement with a group of leading national rating agents known as the ‘G7’ as to the appropriate uplift for Cat B fit out, settling at £25 per sqm. Mr Bailey noted that the London Agreement did not extend to all London Boroughs, but related to:

The appeal property lies some three miles outside that area.

As he indicated, in Shoosmiths the Tribunal disapproved of the VTE’s approach of applying arbitrary adjustments of £15 per sqm for Manchester and £10 per sqm for Liverpool.

In summary, Mr Bailey considered that the appeal hereditaments were entered into the 2017 List based on their Cat A values, and from the evidence it appeared that £315 per sqm was reasonable on that basis. But the value of Cat B fit out needed to be reflected, which he did by amortising costs over the term certain (to break dates where appropriate) at 4.5%. £315 was certainly not too high, and indeed following a proper addition for Cat B could be considered conservative.

Accordingly, Mr Bailey considered that the original assessments should be reinstated, as follows:

I can deal with this appeal in short order. The rent passing on the appeal property, on a Cat A basis, is analysed at £299 per sqm, set six months or so before the AVD in a rising market. It is supported by other lettings within the same building either side of the AVD. I have little difficulty in accepting that assuming fitted to Cat B, the appeal property would attract a rental value at least equivalent to Mr Bailey’s £315 per sqm. The appeal therefore succeeds.

That is not to say that I accept that Mr Bailey’s amortisation of a basket of fit out costs provides a reliable method of analysis. The range of costs are wildly diverse, unsurprisingly since they would reflect completely different requirements of a range of occupiers. Indeed, even Mr Bailey effectively abandons the averaging exercise, adopting a rate which is below that of four of his six ‘comparables’. To my mind that demonstrates the unreliability of the ‘adding Cat B costs’ method.

In Shoosmiths an amortisation rate of 4.5% was accepted as reasonable if it was necessary to derive a Cat B rent by that method, but the Tribunal preferred reliance on comparable evidence. Here, I have sufficient evidence of rent on the appeal property and within the building, to provide a solid base of Cat A rental value, to which even a nominal uplift to Cat B would reach the value Mr Bailey seeks.

As the Tribunal has consistently stated, it would have been preferable to have had wider (indeed, in this appeal, any) Cat B evidence, but on the evidence before me, and in the absence of any evidence or submissions from the ratepayer, I accept the main thrust of Mr Bailey’s evidence, and am satisfied that a valuation based on £315 per sqm is reasonable.

The VTE described the appeal property thus:

The building is within the area covered by the London Agreement. It was originally entered into the 2017 Rating List at a Rateable Value of £1,010,000 (based on £390 per sqm) with effect from 1 April 2017. The tenant then vacated, and the hereditament was deleted from the list when works were undertaken.

Upon completion of the works, on 30 November 2021 the property was relet to ICS Medical Ltd in a Category A state. The tenant carried out Category B fit out works prior to occupation, following which the hereditament was re-entered into the List at £1,140,500 (£440 per sqm) with effect from 28 May 2022.

Following a challenge proposal by the ratepayer, in its Challenge Decision Notice, the VO reduced the rateable value to £1,110,000 (£425 per sqm). ICS Medical appealed to the VTE. In its decision dated 17 November 2025, having analysed the comparable evidence available as ranging between £351 per sqm and £409.50 per sqm, the VTE determined a rateable value of £1,010,000 based on £390 per sqm.

The VO now appeals against that decision.

Throughout his witness statement Mr Bailey referred to evidence from the ‘Challenge Supporting Document’ relied upon by the ratepayer’s agent (Mr Simon Berkley MRICS of Knight Frank) before the VTE. This material was not originally before the Tribunal, which limited my understanding of what Mr Bailey had to say about it. At my request the VO subsequently provided a copy, and I refer to it at various stages below, conscious that Mr Berkley has not given evidence and the material is untested.

Before the VTE, it was common ground that the 2021 letting to the ratepayer provided little assistance in valuing the property at the AVD of April 2015.

Happily, in this appeal there is Cat B evidence to consider.

In considering rental evidence within the building, Mr Bailey adopted Mr Berkley’s method before the VTE of reflecting rental growth over time, ‘toning’ to the AVD of 1 April 2015, by reducing (in the case of post-AVD transaction dates) or increasing (pre-AVD) analysed rents by a factor of 1.1% per month, capped at 12 months. Thus, on Mr Berkley’s table before the VTE, any transaction which lay outside a 12 month window either side of the AVD attracted a reduction or addition of 13.2%, whereas for instance a transaction that took place in December 2015, eight months after the AVD, was reduced by 8.8%.

Mr Bailey referred to a letting of the seventh floor of the appeal building in May 2013 to Trayport Limited. He had no evidence to suggest that the floor had been refurbished, so assumed the letting was on a Cat A basis. Starting with £379.11 per sqm, Mr Bailey adjusting this at 1.1% a month, capped at 12 months, to give an adjusted Cat A rate of £432 per sqm (I make the result to be £429.15, from £379.11 x 113.2%, but no matter). Adding the London Agreement addition of £25 per sqm, would, he said, easily support the VO’s proposed tone of £425 per sqm for the appeal property (I note that had the transaction actually been on a Cat B basis, on my analysis the letting would be remarkably close to £425 per sqm proposed by Mr Bailey as appropriate for the appeal property).

The first to third floors had been occupied by law firm Shearman Sterling LLP from 2003, so Mr Bailey considered that at the compilation of the 2017 list the Cat A and Cat B fit outs of those floors would have been dated, hence assessed at £390 per sqm. The company sublet some of the third floor north in February 2015, months before the AVD, at a rent which Mr Bailey analysed at £382 per sqm. Mr Bailey’s analysis sheet suggests that the sub-tenant was Decision Resources International. The incoming sub-tenant spent £173,000 on refurbishment, which when analysed over the term of the 9.75 year sublease gave a total net rent of £400 per sqm for what Mr Bailey described as adapted Cat B within a dated Cat A fit out. While treating it with caution, because the head leaseholder would be concerned simply with saving costs, Mr Bailey thought the analysis suggested a considerably higher figure would be appropriate for newly refurbished fitted space such as that at the appeal property.

Before the VTE, Mr Berkley had relied upon Cat B rental evidence from two other buildings - 201 Bishopsgate and Broadgate Tower, Primrose Street. In each case, the evidence had been adjusted for time at 1.1% per month from the AVD of 1 April 2015, capped at 12 months. Mr Berkley had summarised the evidence as follows:

Property	Size sqm	Analysed rent	Toning 1.1% capped at 12 months
201 Bishopsgate, EC2M 3UG
Part 2nd floor New letting from 1 Dec 2015, 12 year 9 month term, no rent free period (rfp), break option Jan 2020 with 18 months rfp if not exercised. Amortised to break date.	1,204.07	£452.58	£412.75
Part 4th floor New letting from 1 Nov 2013 for 12 years. Break option ‘in year 7’. 18 months rfp with additional 12 months if break not exercised. Amortised to break date.	524	£352.93	£399.52
Part 5th floor New letting from Jan 2015. 14 year term, 15 months rfp. Break option after 5 years. Amortised to break date.	1,088.9	£339.72	£350.93
Broadgate Tower, EC2A 2EW
22nd floor New letting from April 2014, 9 year 8 month term, 20 months rfp. Break in February 2019. Amortised to break.	1,213,90	£356.84	£403.93
6th floor New letting from Jan 2013, 10 year term, 3 year rent reviews, 27 months rfp. Amortised over term.	1,208.58	£339.18	£383.95
6th floor Same demise as above – assignment of lease from February 2016.	1,208.58	£460.11	£409.50

The VTE placed weight on this evidence, and ultimately determined a rateable value based on the average rate it produced, adopting £390 per sqm.

Mr Bailey considered it unfortunate that before the VTE the VO did not really address this evidence, and took the opportunity to do so in this appeal.

The evidence within 201 Bishopsgate, he said, all related to sublets from a headlease held by law firm Mayer Brown International LLP and, ‘in the light of the Shoosmiths case this type of evidence needs to be treated with caution’. Mayer Brown had become an accidental landlord and had invested in fit out which they no longer need. The likely reason for sub-letting space was a cost saving measure, he said, which is unlike a typical landlord who is looking to maximise return on their investment.

Mr Berkley’s evidence was that the sublease of the second floor space took place in 2015. Mr Bailey said that it actually occurred in 2012, but the sublease was then re-geared in 2015, at the same rent but extending the lease to co-terminate with that of the head lease. The subtenant, law firm Locke Lord, indicated on their Form of Return that work that they described as ‘mostly finishes’ cost £440,000, which Mr Bailey calculated to be £365 per sqm. He noted that this was similar to the sum spent on the Cat B fit out in Acenden of £350 per sqm, 3 years later and closer to the AVD. This had not been accounted for in Mr Berkley’s analysis; amortising the declared cost of £440,000 over the contractual term at 4.5%, assuming a three-month fit out period, would add a further £45 per sqm, but since this was above the £25 per sqm in the London agreement, Mr Bailey took the lower figure, which produced £437.74 per sqm. This, he considered, supported the £425 per sqm which he proposed for the subject assessment.

Mr Bailey said that the November 2013 fourth floor subletting was to Scotiabank Europe plc, which had indicated in its Form of Return that the rent free period quoted was in lieu of Cat B fit out works, which were completed in January 2014. No cost information was provided. Mr Bailey considered that again Mr Berkley’s analysed rate of £399.52 should be uplifted by £25 per sqm, to give £425 per sqm.

Finally on 201 Bishopsgate, the VOA had no details of the January 2015 subletting, save that from a SDLT return it was apparent that the subtenant was again Lorde Lock. Assuming the tenant would have carried out Cat B fit out, the equivalent rent would have been £375 per sqm. That this was considerably lower that the previous rents, Mr Bailey thought, was owing to the 5 year break clause, and perhaps indicative of Mayer Brown’s desire to dispose of the space.

Mr Bailey then turned to Mr Berkley’s evidence within Broadgate Tower, which like 201 Bishopsgate, was built in 2008. Again the transactions related to sub-leases from a law firm, in this case Reed Smith, which had taken a lease of floors 22 to 33 in 2008.

As regards the April 2014 subletting of the 22nd floor, Mr Bailey said that the subtenant, Ricoh UK Ltd, had indicated on its Form of Return that two months of the 18-month (Mr Berkley said 20 months) rent free period was for fit out. Mr Bailey said that no costings were provided, but that the company’s fit out team posted a time-lapse video of the fitting out process on YouTube

. I note that the video indicates that £330,000 was spent as an ‘investment to make the alterations for Ricoh’s requirements’, which would equate to around £270 per sqm, but much of the cost appears to be in relation to expensive-looking kit, and is not therefore capable of proper analysis for our purposes. This reinforces scepticism concerning reliance on fit out costs in Forms of Return as a proper basis for analysis. Mr Bailey was content to apply the £25 per sqm addition from the London Agreement to Mr Berkley’s £404 per sqm.

As for the two transactions on the sixth floor, Mr Bailey said that the 2013 subletting was not on a Cat B basis. The subtenant, Hill Dickinson, stated that the floor was a shell developed to Cat A. The form indicated that the subtenant was responsible for more than Cat B fit out, rendering the letting unreliable evidence. The later letting of the same space was a fully fitted out sublet; since the VOA had no other details, Mr Bailey considered the letting unreliable, while noting that the analysis was just below that of his £425 per sqm valuation of the subject hereditament.

Mr Bailey said that the tone of evidence within the ten-storey subject building demonstrated that un-refurbished floors were generally assessed at £390 per sqm, but that those floors which had been refurbished since 2019 (including the subject fourth floor, and the fifth and sixth floors) attracted a rate based on £440 per sqm.

In his Challenge Supporting Document, Mr Berkley had noted the discrepancy between the refurbished fourth to sixth floors which the VOA had assessed at £440 per sqm, and the seventh to ninth floors, refurbished at a similar time, at £390 per sqm. There was, Mr Berkley said, no significant difference between the refurbishments of each floor to account for the difference. Mr Bailey said that the seventh to ninth floors had been “missed” by the VOA at list compilation, and that all of those floors should have been assessed at the higher rate of £440 per sqm.

Mr Berkley also referred to other buildings where refurbished floors had ‘mistakenly been valued at higher rates’ by the VOA, many of which then had their assessments reviewed at the Challenge stage, including space on 5th floor Aldersgate House (£500 per sqm reduced after CCA to £450 per sqm), 5th floor Eagle House (£950 to £700 per sqm), 2nd floor Sutton Yard (£420 to £400 per sqm), 3rd floor 2 Minster Court (£475 to £425 per sqm), and 4th floor Northdown House (£550 to £450 per sqm). In response, Mr Bailey considered those transactions to be generally supportive of his position, given the specification and locality of the buildings, with Eagle House being an error on the VO’s part. It was accepted, he said, that Cat B fit out adds value, as evidenced by the London Agreement.

Mr Berkley had provided evidence of other instances of offices in the immediate locality that- had been revalued following refurbishment before being reassessed at their prior level, including 1 Appold Street (valued at £410 per sqm before and after), the 11th floor, 10 Exchange Square (£440 per sqm), and the 20th floor, Broadgate Tower (again, £440 per sqm). Mr Bailey’s evidence was that the refurbishment of 1 Appold Street was confined to the reception area, and that the compiled list tone of £410 pre-refurbishment supported his position (a later, 2024 refurbishment, had not yet been reflected). 10 Exchange Square had been refurbished in 2020, and the tone of £440 was applied supported by the evidence of a lease renewal of the 8th floor at £460 per sqm. Broadgate Tower was built in 2008, so by 2017 the Cat A elements would be well into their expected life span; the tone applied of £440 per sqm was supported by a rent review of the 14th floor suite in June 2015, where an Independent Expert determined a rent of £561 per sqm, which again supported his position.

Before the VTE, Mr Berkley had summarised his position as follows. The rent passing was of little assistance, on a Cat A basis well after the AVD. There were three Cat B lettings in nearby 201 Bishopsgate at £412, £399, and £350 per sqm; within Broadgate Tower, there were three Cat B lettings at £404, £384 and £410 per sqm. Together, these six lettings suggest a Cat B tone of £400 or lower for those two buildings. But they were newly constructed in 2008, and formed part of the superior Broadgate Estate; 9 Appold Street would be valued at a lower rate. A value of less than £400 per sqm was supported by the fact that only the subject hereditament and the fifth and sixth floors had been assessed at £440 per sqm, the remaining floors, assessed at £390 per sqm, better reflected the age of the building.

Mr Berkley had said that his position was supported by better buildings in the superior Broadgate area being assessed at £400 per sqm (1 Snowden Street), £440 per sqm (10 Exchange Square), and £410 per sqm (1 Appold Street, overlooking Exchange Square). Buildings more comparable to the subject hereditament, Earl Place and 12 Appold Street, while built earlier than 9 Appold Street had been refurbished at a similar time, had been assessed at £385 per sqm. In his view, a value of £390 per sqm was appropriate. But the valuation must take account of the oversupply of offices in the City at the Material Day – an increase of 14.5 million square feet since 2017. His valuation was:

Before the Tribunal, Mr Bailey provided a helpful table of what he considered the most useful rents and assessments in order of evidential hierarchy:

Building	Age	Tone	Toned Rent + fit out (Date)	Comments
1 Snowden Street EC2A 2DQ	2004 Refurb 2015	£400/m²	£460/m² (Apr 2015)	Newer build same development, similar refurbishment. AVD rent. Tone too low
7th Flr 9 Appold St EC2A 2AA	2000 Refurb 2015	£390/m²	£457/m² (May 2013)	Similar refurbished floor in the subject building. Tone too low
Pt 5th Flr Aldercastle House EC2v 7JU	2000 Refurb 2017	£450/m²		Tone agreed with Knight Frank
3rd Flr 2, Minster Court EC3R 7BB	1991 Refurb 2018	£425/m²		Older building similar refurbishment. Altus did not appeal tone, after Decision Notice served
22nd Flr Broadgate Tower EC2A 2EN	2008	£440/m²	£429/m² (Apr 2014)	Sublet of dated space, Cat B fit out renewed by incoming tenant

In Mr Bailey’s opinion, the evidence demonstrated that the VO was correct in determining the Rateable Value as follows:

Consideration of this appeal requires a more nuanced approach than that for 85 Uxbridge Road. As I have said, Mr Berkley did not give evidence to the Tribunal; I have included much of his evidence to the VTE, mainly to provide a background to what Mr Bailey said about it. But it is untested which inevitably limits the weight I can place on it.

I can start with some basic principles. The rent passing on the appeal property might provide strong evidence of rateable value, but I agree with Mr Bailey that in this case it is too remote to do so.

Rental values come next. While Mr Bailey was content to accept Mr Berkley’s method of indexation, to my mind applying an adjustment for time of 1.1% per month, capped at 12 months, raises an eyebrow (although I would put it no stronger than that). As I indicated in Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) at [49], the further one moves away from the valuation date, the less weight can be safely applied to a transaction. Certainly, indexation over a very long period reduces reliability, and has been criticised by the Tribunal in the past, but it is arguable that not applying any at all outside a certain window makes the comparable even less reliable. However, since Mr Bailey accepted Mr Berkley’s method before the VTE, I say no more about it.

What sort of transactions are reliable? I have no difficulty in accepting evidence from sub-lettings per se. There is nothing in the rating hypothesis to suggest that the hypothetical landlord is a freeholder; he or she is simply a lessor. If a market is made up largely of subletting evidence, which physically is proximate and similar to the appeal property, there is no reason to my mind why it should be excluded. Indeed, it might be the best guide to value.

The difficulty in Acenden was that the Cat B subletting evidence was mainly derived from much smaller suites, in town centre locations, making it difficult to apply them to a large floorplate out of town hereditament. It was their physical characteristics, rather than the tenure in which they were held, that was problematic.

Here, we have several instances of sub-lettings in very similar buildings to the appeal hereditament, in the same part of town. In some cases the nature of business of the head and sub-lessees was the same – law firm Mayer Brown sub-letting to the law firm formerly known as Locke Lord (now Troutman Pepper Locke) at 201 Bishopsgate, or Reed Smith sub-letting to Hill Dickinson within the Broadgate Tower. That Locke Lord described on their form of return the nature of their fit out as ‘mostly finishes’ indicates to me a) a general refresh, b) a change to corporate colours and branding etc. One might imagine that the general layout of law firm premises would likely be similar, and different from, say, a call centre.

Whilst undoubtedly head-lessees who become ‘accidental landlords’ are looking to trim costs, to my mind that doesn’t undermine the rental evidence generated by sub-leases. The market is the market, and I do not reject the evidence of sub-lettings as readily as did Mr Bailey.

Within the subject building, we have the 2013 seventh floor letting to Trayport. Mr Bailey said there was no evidence that this floor had been refurbished (Mr Berkley’s evidence was that the floor was not refurbished until 2017), so it is fair to assume it was let on a (dated) Cat A basis.

We also have the February 2015 subletting of the third floor, which Mr Bailey analysed at £382 per sqm. This has the attraction of being within months of the AVD. Again, if Mr Bailey’s assumption that the letting was on a dated Cat A specification is correct, on his figures this would add £18 per sqm, which would point to a Cat B spec in a refurbished Cat A space being something higher, and probably within the realms of the London Agreement’s £25 per sqm.

The limited rental evidence within the appeal building, while not categoric, would seem to support Mr Bailey’s position. But we must look elsewhere to see where they fit in the broader evidence.

Mr Bailey did not dispute Mr Berkley’s view that 201 Bishopsgate and the Broadgate Tower were better locations than the appeal building. As I have indicated, I am not persuaded that the Mayer Brown transactions at 201 Bishopsgate need to be treated with particular caution simply because they are sublets. Two of them are very close to the appeal hereditament in size, are on similar floors of a multi-occupied building within a five-minute walk. I accept Mr Bailey’s evidence that Mr Berkley’s analysis of the 2nd floor subletting to Locke Lord requires adjustment to £437.50 per sqm. However, his assumptions as to the two other transactions seem to me to be partly supposition, as the evidence isn’t clear. At worst, to Mr Bailey’s case, we have two transactions in a better located building at £399 and £350 per sqm (or on his analysis £375 per sqm). But they might equally be analysed at a higher rate.

As for Broadgate Tower, the picture is again mixed. The subletting to Ricoh, on the company’s own promotional material, would suggest that applying the London Agreement would result in an unsurprising figure in comparison. But if so, Mr Bailey would be at £429 per sqm in a better located building. I would not be as quick as Mr Bailey to reject the two transactions on the sixth floor. The later letting of the same space can, I think, be safely regarded as on a Cat B basis, which on Mr Berkley’s analysis would be £409.50, again for space in a better building.

Turning to other rating assessments, I am not persuaded that much weight can be placed on those within the subject building; even Mr Bailey is not suggesting that the original assessments at £440 per sqm can be defended. Mr Berkley was not present to give evidence on the ‘mistaken’ assessments, and as Mr Bailey said, we have Aldersgate House at £450 per sqm, Sutton Yard at £400 per sqm, Minster Court at £425 per sqm, and Northdown House at £450 per sqm. And Mr Bailey seemed to have answers to the points Mr Berkley had made which I outline at paragraph 74.

The evidential picture is mixed, but taking all of the above into account, and in the absence of any tested evidence from the ratepayer, I accept Mr Bailey’s evidence that £425 per sqm is a reasonable assessment for the appeal hereditament. The appeal therefore succeeds.

In the appeal of Lucy Dyer (VO) – LC-2025-090 – the appeal is allowed. The entry in the rating list for the hereditaments known as Ground Floor West Front and Fifth Floor Right, 85 Uxbridge Road, London, W5 5TH, shall be amended to £111,000 and £230,000 RV respectively, with effect from 1 April 2017.

In the appeal of Nicola Johnson (VO) – LC-2025-755 – the appeal is allowed. The entry in the rating list for the hereditament known as 4th floor, 9 Appold Street, London, EC2A 2AA, shall be amended to £1,110,000 RV with effect from 28 May 2022.

Since there is no respondent to either appeal, I make no orders for costs.

Mr Peter D McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb