A fair price both sides can explain

Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against reality. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream math updates.

Scheme first: We start with what the site and the market support today, not a target return. Comparable sales, the cost plan, absorption, and development margin drive the band. A method output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can

Market anchored. We reference recent PBSA transactions, comparable Bristol schemes, transacted yields and rental evidence, then reconcile every method to a single range.

Shared fairness : Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override a method, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies to everyone.

Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Band up or down one notch, weight shifts, and small input swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the evidence required.

Data with judgment: We prefer data, but early companies have gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.

Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the method pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a simple spreadsheet.

This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step

The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.

What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent methods, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.

We value using a simple waterfall. We place the scheme against comparable sales, read today's market, set a fair range, then run methods to plot a point inside that range. That point drives the appraisal.

Evidence. Value on completion comes from the income the beds produce. Stabilised net operating income, the university nomination rent, direct-let rents on studios and ensuites, and the yields recent purpose-built schemes have traded at. Kestrel's covenant-backed income sets the reference against those comparables.

Market. We read the PBSA investment climate in Bristol and nationally: transacted yields, rental growth, the student-to-bed gap and institutional appetite for nomination-backed stock. A deep supply shortage and strong investor demand for income move the reference upward.

Range. This bracket is the value a willing purchaser and seller would agree today. Each method must land inside it. If one falls outside, we explain it and hold it to the range.

Methods

Comparable Sales reads price per square foot from recent sales.

Residual Land Valuation works back from sales value to the land price.

Profit on Cost Benchmark tests the margin against the required return.

VC Method works back from a sensible exit and required return.

Residual land valuation takes the stabilised value, subtracts every development cost and the profit a developer requires, and leaves the land value the site supports.

Scenario Analysis weights three cases of the appraisal

Result. Weighted result equals each method value times its weight, giving the concluded gross development value.

A value sits inside a range that a willing purchaser and seller would call reasonable today. Each method has to land in that range or be explained.

The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We anchor the band to the strongest cluster of signals.

The appraisal treats Kestrel Wharf as the top tier of Bristol purpose-built student accommodation.

Giving it a value of £76M - £80M GDV

Kestrel Wharf is a 420-bed purpose-built student scheme on Bristol's Floating Harbour, valued on completion at a gross development value of £78.0M, about £185,714 a bed. Stabilised net income of £4.3M capitalised at a 5.5% going-in yield sits inside the range set by recent Bristol PBSA transactions, which have traded between 4.5% and 5.4%. A 25-year University of Bristol nomination over about 273 beds underwrites the income. Independent methods triangulate the value to between £76M and £80M. After £58.0M of cost, the scheme returns £20.0M of profit, a 34.5% margin on cost and 25.6% on value, against a market requirement of 15% to 20%. The residual land value the scheme supports is £14.0M, in line with the site basis, and an institutional forward-sale at a 4.75% cap would value the asset at about £90M.

For the total value cap we use the upper bound of the band determined from our methodology above and divide by 5 to get the maximum value of each evaluation criteria.

The base valuation uses the midpoint of the value band. The value of a point is the delta between the low and high of the band divided by the total number of points (48). Per-risk scores aggregate to a single adjustment applied to the base.

Three comparable Bristol PBSA schemes, each close to Kestrel on location, mix and covenant, used to benchmark the value.

Harbourside Halls (Bristol)

Waterfront PBSA scheme on the Floating Harbour, forward-sold to an institution in 2024 at about a 4.6% net yield, roughly £198,000 a bed. It sets the premium ceiling for Bristol student housing.

Price per bed: £198k/bedSale date: 2024

Temple Quarter Lofts (Bristol)

Converted PBSA near Temple Meads, traded in 2022 at about a 5.4% yield, roughly £158,000 a bed. It marks the value end of recent Bristol pricing, discounted for an off-water location.

Price per bed: £158k/bedSale date: 2022

Kingsdown Court (Bristol)

Purpose-built cluster-and-studio scheme, sold in 2023 at about a 4.9% yield, roughly £182,000 a bed. It is the closest comparable to Kestrel on scale, mix and covenant.

Price per bed: £182k/bedSale date: 2023

Weighted factor scores and comparable-scheme inputs produce the benchmark and the margin above the required return.

Three comparable stage exits in Comparable are adjusted for the probability of Kestrel Wharf reaching that scale, weighted by representativeness, then converted to today’s gross using the required return multiple.

Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted at the cost of capital to derive enterprise value. Discounted years one through five plus the discounted terminal sum to today’s value.

Upside, base, and downside cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the profit.

This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.

This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.

The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.

Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.

Budgets and forecasts relate to future events and are based on assumptions that may not remain valid for the whole or part of the relevant period. Consequently this information cannot be relied upon to the same

extent as that derived from audited accounts for completed accounting periods. We express no opinion as to how closely the actual results will correspond to those forecasts used in this presentation.

Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions

on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure

assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.

The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual

Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.