Tribunals · Cheshire East Council · 2017 rating list

HEALTH SHIELD FRIENDLY SOCIETY, ELECTRA WAY, CW1 6HS

Offices and Premises Decided 7 September 2021 CHG100102350 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£201,000
Ratepayer sought£189,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£201,000£125/m²

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant, a company occupying a modern headquarters office building, challenged the rateable value of £201,000, proposing £189,000, arguing that car parking value should be reflected in the office tone rather than as a separate line entry. The tribunal found the Valuation Officer's office tone of £125 per m² was reasonable, being based on comparable headquarter office buildings where car parking values had been stripped out before rental analysis. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the office assessment was not unreasonable and appropriately reflected car parking as a separate valuation element.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Health Shield Friendly Society, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Woolway (VO) v Mazars [2015] UKSC 53; Ladies Hosiery & Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] CA 679; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
Hearing
27 July 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in Cheshire East Council · Offices nationally

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.