THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, WA15 0TP
Warehouse, office and premises Decided 9 January 2026 CHG101138978 CBRE
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 5 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TP). Every property is listed below.
The 5 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.
| Property | Original RV | Sought | Tribunal decided | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TP | £1,080,000 | — | £1,080,000 | Dismissed |
| THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TPThis appeal | £1,830,834 | — | £1,920,000 | Allowed in part |
| THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TP | £2,992,244 | — | £2,920,000 | Allowed in part |
| THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TP | £3,000,000 | — | — | Dismissed |
| THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, MANCHESTER WA15 0TP | £4,467,645 | — | £4,370,000 | Allowed in part |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant sought split site allowances of 7.5% initially and 10% subsequently, arguing that the subject hereditament's split nature caused additional costs for occupiers including extra equipment, staffing, security and movement time. The tribunal found that whilst some disadvantages existed, there could also be advantages to the split layout (e.g. studio filming separate from warehouse), and that the split was not as severe as comparable cases. A 2.5% allowance was granted effective from 16 August 2021 when the assessment comprised more than two warehouses, as the tribunal concluded additional inconvenience and expense would arise from security costs and goods movement.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was The Hut.com Limited and The Hut Group, represented.
Grounds argued
- Split or merge the assessment · decisive
- Evidence
- Photographs, Expert report
- Cases cited
- FC Brown Steel Equipment Ltd v Karl Hopkins (VO) [2022] UKUT 51 (LC); Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC); Lassic Limited v J Moore (VO) CHG100894836; Molecular Products Limited v Valuation Officer CHG100818530; Domino's Pizza Group Ltd v Andrew Mouland (VO) CHG101094240; The Hut.com Limited v Hitchings CHG101075551
- Hearing
- 10 December 2025
Similar decisions
- THE HUT GROUP, ICON, SUNBANK LANE, WA15 0TP — Dismissed, 9 Jan 2026
- The Hut Group Icon, Manchester, Sunbank Lane, WA15 0TP — Allowed in part, 9 Jan 2026
- The Hut Group Icon, Manchester, Sunbank Lane, WA15 0TP — Allowed in part, 9 Jan 2026
- The Hut Group, Icon, Sunbank Lane, WA15 0TP — Dismissed, 9 Jan 2026
All decisions in Manchester City Council · Industrial and warehouses 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.