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 challenged the rateable value of a retail unit with office space, arguing that layout, fragmentation and masking effects required additional allowances beyond those already applied. The tribunal found that the valuation officer had already incorporated layout and fragmentation allowances within the zone A rate (2.5%), and that no evidence demonstrated the need for further allowances. The tribunal upheld the valuation officer's methodology as reasonable and not unreasonable, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Freshphase Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Valuation method · decisive
- Zoning or layout
- Evidence
- Photographs, Measurement survey
- Cases cited
- Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO)
- Hearing
- 9 August 2022
Similar decisions
- Savers, 6 Leigh Arcade, WN1 1AJ — Allowed in part, 21 Jun 2024
- 90-92 Manchester Road, WN7 2LD — Allowed in part, 8 Sept 2022
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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.