20 HUMBERSTONE GATE, LE1 3PH
Shop and premises Decided 8 June 2026 CHG101094030 GL Hearn Limited
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 Matalan Retail Limited challenged the £400,000 RV (£160/m²), arguing for £110/m² based on the WH Smith comparable at Gallowtree Gate and a wider schedule of Leicester city centre shops showing lower values. The Respondent's Valuation Officer relied on Primark as the primary comparable at £130/m² with upward adjustments. The Tribunal found that while Primark provided a useful starting point due to proximity, the subject property was materially inferior in size (2,406m²), layout, and retail quality, with a narrow ground floor and storage-only second floor. The Tribunal also noted the passing rent of £195,000 from July 2019 did not support the higher figure. Adopting £130/m² as a fair balance reflecting the property's characteristics and location, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the RV to £310,000.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Matalan Retail Limited, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Floor area or measurement
- Zoning or layout
- Building works or disturbance nearby
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments, Earlier tribunal decisions
- Cases cited
- Lotus & Delta v Culverwell
- Hearing
- 11 May 2026
Similar decisions
- H.Samuel, 7-9 Gallowtree Gate, LE1 5AD — Dismissed, 27 Oct 2025
- UNIT 12 LOWER MALL (69 SHIRES WALK), HIGHCROSS, LE1 4FP — Dismissed, 6 Sept 2024
- 14 Humberstone Gate, LE1 3PH — Allowed in part, 13 Jul 2023
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.