Page 323 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

Dixon and Searle, do not dispute the Martin Campbell valuation in their
viability response and state further:

‘3.1.19 On the basis of our independent research, we do not consider the
rental or yield assumption to be unreasonable. Applying these to an area of
£27,000 sq.ft results in an annual rent of £234,900 and when capitalised at
a yield of 7.5% results in an EUV of £3,132,000. It is unclear how the
assumed BLV of £2,900,000 has then been arrived at, but it would appear
that whilst it takes into account letting costs, it fails to take into account the

marketing void and rent-free period stated to be assumed within the
valuation. On this basis, the EUV is probably overstated; however, as a
premium has not been applied to arrive at the assumed BLV, in our view,
the BLV is probably assumed at an appropriate level.’

I do not agree entirely with this statement. It seems very clear how the
capital value has been arrived at; by rent x YP. Also, it appears that there is
a passing rent, so why then would a rent free period be needed?

It looks further that, as Dixon and Searle point out, that there is an unlet
area:

I have checked the rateable value which can provide a broad proxy for
rental value. This (in total) is £198,000:

This adds significant credibility to the Martin Campbell report that the
capital value is around £2.9 million.

W e a l d e n H o u s e , A s h u r s t W o o d V i a b i l i t y R e p o r t P a g e 22 | 36

Bates No 000322