Tribunals · Cambridge City Council · 2017 rating list

Microsoft Building, 21 Station Road, CB1 2FB

Offices and premises Decided 20 November 2025 CHG101078032 Colliers International - Matthew Hawkins

OutcomeAllowedThe tribunal reduced the rateable value.
Original RV£2,420,000£325/m²
Ratepayer sought£2,080,000
VO conceded first£2,250,000−7% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£2,080,000£300/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 sought a reduction of the subject office building's rateable value from £2,250,000 to £2,080,000 (£300/m²) on the grounds that the Valuation Officer's base rate of £325/m² was inconsistent with comparable properties. The tribunal found that 22 Station Road, which had nearly identical build and specification to the subject hereditament, was valued at £300/m² in the 2017 list, and that the quality of office space was the same. The tribunal rejected the Valuation Officer's argument that single exclusive occupation warranted a premium, finding no market evidence supported this and determining both properties should have been valued at the same base rate.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Microsoft Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Settled assessments
Cases cited
FW Woolworth and Co Ltd v Peack; Trevail v C and Modes Ltd; Barnard & Barnard v Walker; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
13 October 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in Cambridge City 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.