Several weeks into the 2026 Rating List and we already find ourselves in a position that feels, at best, counterintuitive. In less than 12 months’ time, we will reach the valuation date for the 2029 Revaluation in England and Wales. For many across the property sector, that timeline feels almost implausible. Yet it is the reality we are operating within, and it raises a fundamental question: has the system become too compressed to function effectively?
The events leading into this current cycle only reinforce that concern. The Budget announcement back in November last year, coupled with confirmation of the Rating Lists, left both ratepayers and local authorities grappling with a lack of clarity at a critical moment. Businesses were unable to accurately forecast their liabilities until mere months - or in some cases weeks - before charges became payable on 1 April. That level of uncertainty has real economic consequences.
At a time when the UK economy is seeking stability and growth, unpredictability in a core business tax undermines confidence. Investment decisions are delayed or abandoned altogether when costs cannot be forecast with any degree of certainty. For a tax that is so deeply embedded in the operational fabric of businesses across the country, that is a serious flaw.
The move towards more frequent revaluations was, in principle, a positive step. From 2023, the Government committed to a three-yearly cycle. This was an attempt to ensure that rateable values better reflect prevailing market conditions. On paper, this is a sensible objective. A more responsive system should, theoretically, improve fairness by reducing the lag between market shifts and tax liabilities.
However, the reality is more complex. We are now two cycles into this increased frequency, and the system is still contending with a significant backlog of appeals dating back to 2023. This raises a critical issue, is the infrastructure in place to support the pace of change?
The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) plays a central role in maintaining confidence in the system. Yet when it is visibly struggling to process appeals within a reasonable timeframe, it creates a bottleneck that impacts everyone. There are only two possible explanations - either the volume of appeals is too high, or the available resource is insufficient. In practice, it is likely a combination of both. Either way, the outcome is the same with prolonged uncertainty for ratepayers and a system that feels increasingly difficult to navigate.
Against this backdrop, there is growing discussion around reducing the gap between the valuation date and the introduction of new Rating Lists to just one year. While this may appear to be a logical next step in making the system more responsive, it is a proposal that warrants scrutiny.
Compressing this timeline further risks compounding the very challenges we are already facing. A shorter gap leaves less time for valuations to be finalised accurately, less time for ratepayers to understand their liabilities, and less time for meaningful engagement or challenge. The danger is that we create an environment in which errors become more likely, appeals increase, and the system becomes even more strained.
It is also worth considering the practical implications for businesses. Forecasting costs is a fundamental part of financial planning. If the window between valuation and implementation becomes too narrow, the ability to plan effectively is eroded. That is not a marginal issue - it goes to the heart of business confidence.
So, if a one-year gap is not the answer, what is?
Rather than focusing solely on reducing the timeframe, there is a strong case for improving transparency and extending the period of visibility within the existing structure. Retaining a two-year gap, but introducing earlier access to information, could strike a more effective balance.
Publishing a draft Rating List a full year before it comes into force would represent a significant step forward. Under the current system, ratepayers had just over four months’ notice of their new valuations. Extending that to 12 months, together with earlier notice of rate multipliers would transform the ability to plan, budget and make informed decisions.
Alongside this, opening the appeals window a year in advance would allow for earlier engagement with the process. Issues could be identified and addressed before the Rating List goes live, reducing the volume of retrospective appeals and easing pressure on the VOA. It would not eliminate challenges entirely, but it would create a more proactive and manageable system.
Of course, this approach is not without its critics. There are valid concerns around complexity, administrative burden and the potential for increased upfront workload. But these must be weighed against the broader objective of creating a system that works for those it is designed to serve.
Ultimately, business rates are a tax. And like any tax, they should be underpinned by three core principles: fairness, affordability and predictability.
Fairness requires that valuations are accurate and reflective of market conditions. Affordability demands that liabilities are manageable and proportionate. Predictability ensures that businesses can plan with confidence and invest with confidence.
The question we must ask ourselves is a simple one: does the current system deliver on these principles? And if not, will further compression of timelines genuinely improve the situation or risk making it worse?
There is no shortage of ambition in the ongoing reform of business rates. But ambition must be matched with practicality. As we look ahead to the 2029 Revaluation, there is an opportunity to refine the system in a way that supports both economic growth and administrative efficiency.
The focus should not be on speed for its own sake. It should be on creating a framework that is robust, transparent and fit for purpose. Because in the end, a tax system that businesses cannot understand or predict is not just inefficient - it is counterproductive.
And that is something we can ill afford.
This article first appeared on CoStar.
