Case No. UKUT-311-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2022-105

60.It is clear from the evidence adduced by the experts that racing yards are as diverse in the features that each offers as they are in terms of location. Some sites benefit from comprehensive facilities whilst others rely on provision nearby and the valuer is required to differentiate using rents that often include significant residential elements. The only constants are that each has stables and it would appear, horse walking apparatus.61.The rental evidence in this case is not particularly useful. Only one of the rents was set before the AVD and the rent on the property itself was agreed more than three years after. Most of the rents rely to some degree on subjective assessments of the value of components which are either exempt or do not form part of the hereditament.62.In the hypothetical world of non-domestic rating the valuer is required to utilise values based on the market in April 2015 but applied to the physical circumstances at the material day. The rent paid for the property, having been set more than 3 years after the valuation date, has little utility in my view. The same is true of The Beeches. Putting myself in the shoes of the prospective tenant at the AVD the only information available to inform my bid would be the rent at Major’s Farm. I have already noted that this rent requires significant adjustment to take account of the residential accommodation, a process the experts found difficult to reconcile. Taking this factor in to account and noting that the rent was set 2 years prior to the AVD I attach little weight to it. The property at Conkwell is much larger than the others and there is no agreement between the experts as to exactly what was included in the demise. For these reasons, in my view it carries no weight.63.The approach to the valuation of racing yards preferred by the respondent is to adopt a tone for the stables based wholly on location. This seems to have resulted in the use of a figure of £550 per stable across a swathe of the Midlands including Staffordshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The approach elsewhere appears more nuanced with a tonal range of £525 to £675 for locations other than Mr Marriott’s ‘top racing centres’. Nothing can be drawn from any other assessments in Wiltshire as none of them have been determined or agreed. It seems sensible therefore to look to the nearest counties and these are Somerset, where the tone is £525-£575 (the latter figure relates to sites near the border with Wiltshire), Hampshire which has a tone of £675 and Dorset where it is £550. I do not have any information to confirm how many assessments have been settled and I can therefore only adopt Mr Albert’s figures at face value. However, I note that Mr Marriott did not dispute them.64.The property lies only 6 miles from the border with Somerset at its nearest point. I can see no reason why values should conform to a pattern based on county boundaries and I therefore conclude that in tone terms, at least, the prevailing values in the surrounding area indicate that a figure in the range of £525 to £575 would be appropriate for the property. I note, and I put no more emphasis on it than that, a degree of correlation with the November 2015 rent at Wilsford which I analysed at £500 per stable.65.It seems to me that a sensible starting point for the property would be a value of £550 per stable. I note that it lacks its own gallops and grazing but these are available on an adjacent site. Neither party has identified the lack of these features within the demise as a disadvantage. I think it is appropriate to adjust the value by 5% to reflect the fact that the stables are in an American Barn, albeit a modern one of reasonable specification. The result is a stable value of £522.50.66.There are two features that set this property apart from the others that I inspected; firstly, a lack of residential accommodation on site in which to house a staff member overnight. Secondly, that the access is over land in the occupation of the neighbouring yard. Neither expert made a specific allowance for the first issue. It seems to me that it would be a significant factor in the mind of a prospective tenant and would mean that they are either reliant on the co-operation and assistance of the neighbour or would need to provide the accommodation themselves if he or she is to be granted a training licence. I note that the arrangement with the landlord is a sum of £5,000 per annum but that includes the Head Lad’s services rather than being a payment purely for the use of property. In my judgement it is appropriate to adopt an allowance of 10% for the first factor and 2.5% for the second.67.The valuation is therefore as follows:68.Mr Albert sought an assessment higher than the Rating List entry. There was no cross appeal by the respondent, and I heard no argument from either party concerning the ability or otherwise of the Tribunal to determine an increased assessment in those circumstances. In the event my determination is at a level lower than the prevailing assessment.69.The appeal was heard under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure under which costs are not normally awarded unless either party has behaved unreasonably, or the circumstances are in some other respect exceptional. I do not consider that either party acted unreasonably or that there are any such exceptional circumstances. I therefore make no order as to costs.