Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · Cornwall Council · 2017 rating list

Car Parking Spaces 58-67, Waterside House, Falmouth Road, Falmouth Road, TR10 8BE

Offices and car park Decided 24 November 2020 CHG100065811

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV · 2017 list£4,000
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£4,000from 1 Apr 2017

Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 2 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (Car Parking Spaces 58-67, Waterside House, Falmouth Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 8BE). Every property is listed below.

The 2 properties in this decision

One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
NCI Technologies, Waterside House, Falmouth Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 8BE£17,500—£17,500Dismissed
Car Parking Spaces 58-67, Waterside House, Falmouth Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 8BEThis appeal£4,000—£4,000Dismissed

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant sought to merge two separate rating list entries for offices and car parking spaces at Waterside House on the grounds they were geographically proximate and functionally related. The tribunal applied the test from Woolway v Mazars [2015] UKSC 53, which requires geographical contiguity as the primary test. The tribunal found that the parking spaces (58-67) were separated from the offices by other parking spaces and an access road, thus failing the geographical test for a single hereditament. The Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018 provides statutory merger where properties are contiguous, but this was not satisfied. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence that the entries should be merged.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was NCI Technologies, unrepresented.

Grounds argued

  • Split or merge the assessment
Evidence
Photographs
Cases cited
Woolway (VO) v Mazars [2015] UKSC 53
Hearing
30 October 2020

Is your own rateable value in line?

A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.

Check a property

The tribunal’s decision in full

Download the PDF · Find it on valuationtribunal.gov.uk

Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.