Emma Owen v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer)

A rating appeal is confined to the alteration sought in the proposal. A ratepayer cannot introduce, at the tribunal stage, a new request to delete a hereditament as domestic where neither the check nor the challenge raised that alteration.

For valuation under Local Government Finance Act 1988, the hypothetical letting disregards the actual occupier’s personal circumstances. Personal planning conditions may nevertheless affect the hypothetical tenant’s bid. Repairs are assumed unless a reasonable landlord would regard them as uneconomic. That question depends on the evidence and the functional importance of the facility. Comparable assessments require adjustment for relevant locational and physical differences.

The appellant challenged the 2017 rating-list assessment of a horse racing yard and stud farm. The Valuation Tribunal for England had reduced the rateable value from £35,250 to £24,250.

On appeal, the appellant sought deletion of the hereditament as domestic, or a further reduction. The Valuation Officer contended that deletion was outside the scope of the check and challenge, and disputed the proposed valuation.

The Upper Tribunal considered the scope of the proposal, the statutory assumptions governing a hypothetical letting, the effect of personal planning permissions and disrepair, the valuation of the racing-yard facilities, end allowances, and agreed stud-farm relief.

1. Appeal allowed. The assessment was determined at a rateable value of £15,600.

2. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider deletion of the hereditament as domestic. Under the check, challenge and appeal regime, the proposal defines the scope of the appeal. Neither the check nor the challenge sought deletion or asserted domestic use. The subsequent assertion was therefore outside the appeal, consistently with Nelson Plant Hire Ltd v Bunyan (VO) [2022] UKUT 309 (LC).

3. The valuation required the statutory hypothetical letting under Local Government Finance Act 1988. Probate litigation and the actual occupier’s residence in the lodge were irrelevant. The hereditament was assumed vacant and available to let as a whole, including the lodge for a suitable yard worker.

4. Personal planning permissions were an intrinsic circumstance capable of affecting value. The established racing use and the prospect of continued permission meant that the effect was limited, but the prospective tenant would face cost, delay and uncertainty. A 5% allowance was made.

5. Under the reasonable-repair assumption in paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6, repair of the gallop was economic. Access to a gallop was essential to the hypothetical licensed racing-yard letting and no alternative was local. The proposed works were repairs, despite producing a shorter gallop. In contrast, repair of the arena was not economic; it retained only a modest unrepaired value.

6. The Tribunal adjusted comparative valuation evidence for the yard’s less favourable location, the compromised hybrid construction and lack of daylight in the main barn. It allowed 5% for the public footpath, 2.5% for adverse topography, and the 5% planning allowance. Agreed stud-farm relief reduced the resulting rateable value by £4,655.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the appeal and determined the rateable value at £15,600: [2025] UKUT 42 (LC).
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 2 January 2024 reduced the 2017-list assessment from £35,250 to £24,250.