[2025] UKUT 00291 (LC)

It is apparent that the primary issue that underlies this appeal is the disparity between what is written about zoning in the Manual and the approach adopted by the VO in secondary locations including Landor Road. It is also clear that there have been difficulties in communication between Ms Xiaoli and the VO. It is regrettable that the misunderstandings that ensued could not be resolved without recourse to the Tribunal and the Manual is in obvious need of revision to prevent similar disputes. It is surprising that in a shop of regular proportions and less than 100m² in area that it took so many attempts to arrive at the correct floor area. Ms Xiaoli said that Mr Mak had not undertaken internal inspections of some of the other shops in the parade and at the hearing he confirmed that in half of all cases the VO relied upon scale plans.

The floor area calculations for both parties were submitted in evidence. It was apparent from the challenge documentation that some of the difference between the parties was due to Ms Xiaoli having not counted circulation space created by partition walls on the ground floor and she had also omitted the area of the staffroom. I can discern that the total area as measured by Ms Xiaoli is 99.65m² which is slightly more than the area of 98.3m² used by the VO. As Ms Xiaoli’s zoned areas do not include all of the floor space that should be included in each zone I find that the VO’s areas are to be preferred.

Notwithstanding the two approaches to zoning in the London Borough of Lambeth, if the zoning methodology is used consistently across all of the shops in a particular location and the analysis of rents and subsequent valuations also use the same method, the results should be fair and reliable. There is no evidence to suggest that in this case the VO has acted erroneously in applying the chosen zoning pattern. Mr Mak did not provide the Tribunal with his detailed analysis of the comparables but the ‘in terms of zone A’ areas are very similar except for No. 27 which is used as a small supermarket and all of the internal walls have been removed. I accept that all the shops in the parade have been assessed on the same (4.57m/7.62m/remainder) approach and having had sight of the floor plans of the comparables, I find that Mr Mak’s analysis appears to be reliable.

The rating list is compiled on a uniform basis to ensure fairness between ratepayers. To assess shops of the type found in Landor Road, the VO uses the NIA as defined in the Code. The Code provides guidance to users about how to deal with non-structural and partition walls when calculating floor areas and I agree with Mr Mak that in this case those enclosing the treatment and staff rooms can be ignored.

It is noticeable from the plan after paragraph 9 above that there is a structural wall between the staff room and the stores/WC at the rear of the shop. It was evident when I carried out my inspection. It marks the point where the zoned retail area stops and the ancillary accommodation starts. In practical terms that means that Mr Mak’s zoning approach is correct and that after zones A and B there is a very shallow remainder area extending to 2.2m². Mr Mak valued the two ground floor store rooms at £48.75 per m² or in other words, an eighth of the zone A value. This is, in my view, entirely appropriate. The staff room at No.29, which was mentioned by Ms Xiaoli, also lies behind a structural wall and is assessed at the same ancillary rate of A/8, albeit based on the original zone A rate of £450 per m². The basement rate does not appear to be contentious.