362-364 KINGS ROAD, SW3 5UZ
Shop and premises Decided 19 July 2022 CHG100380097 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester
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 argued that the subject property, a double-unit retail premises on Kings Road Chelsea, had been overvalued at £122,000 RV, proposing £75,500 based on analysed rent of £800/m2. The Valuation Officer contended the current assessment was reasonable based on comparable properties. The tribunal found that while the subject property's rent required substantial adjustments to align with statutory definitions due to fit-out costs incurred on a shell lettings, the rent comparables (370 and 374 Kings Road) demonstrated the subject property should attract an allowance. The tribunal allowed the appeal in part, applying a 10% double-unit allowance to reflect the historical difficulty in letting such space, reducing the assessment to £110,000 RV.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Sheridan UK Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Evidence
- Rents, Expert report, Photographs
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner and Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 22 June 2022
Similar decisions
- Waterstones, 39-41 Notting Hill Gate, W11 3JQ — Dismissed, 16 Jun 2025
- 118 A, HOLLAND PARK AVENUE, W11 4UA — Allowed in part, 25 Jun 2024
- 162A SLOANE STREET, SW1X 9BS — Dismissed, 29 Jan 2024
- Bst & Gnd Fl 233, Kensington High Street, W8 6SF — Allowed in part, 4 Jan 2024
All decisions in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea · Shops 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 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.