Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · City of Westminster · 2017 rating list

2nd Flr South, 23, Saville Row, W1S 2ET

Offices and premises Decided 7 August 2025 CHG101120560 CBRE

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV · 2017 list£1,690,000
Ratepayer sought£1,460,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£1,690,000from 1 Apr 2017

Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 3 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (3RD FLR, 23 SAVILE ROW, LONDON, W1S 2ET). Every property is listed below.

The 3 properties in this decision

One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
2ND FLR SOUTH, 23 SAVILE ROW, LONDON, W1S 2ET£685,000£590,000£685,000Dismissed
2ND FLR SOUTH, 23 SAVILE ROW, LONDON, W1S 2ET£720,000£620,000£720,000Dismissed
3RD FLR, 23 SAVILE ROW, LONDON, W1S 2ETThis appeal£1,690,000£1,460,000£1,690,000Dismissed

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellants challenged the main space rate of £1,100/m² applied to two office properties at 23 Savile Row, seeking reduction to £950/m². They argued that comparable rental evidence from 24 Savile Row, 10 New Burlington Street, and 1 New Burlington Place, which had lower rates of £1,007.50/m² or £950-£1,000/m², supported their challenge. The tribunal found that while the comparable properties were prime office locations, 23 Savile Row benefited from superior architectural features, unique site location, and comprehensive facilities that justified the higher rate. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the existing assessments of £685,000 (2017-2020), £720,000 (2020-2023), and £1,690,000 were not unreasonable.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was an individual ratepayer, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Photographs
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
9 July 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in City of Westminster · 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.