250B North End Road, SW6 1NJ
Shop and premises Decided 5 November 2024 CHG101172073 Whitestone Commercial
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 7 properties together and does not tie its figures clearly to this appeal, so the figures above are for the first property it lists. Every property is listed below.
The 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit 1, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJThis appeal | £10,250 | £4,800 | £4,850 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 2, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £13,500 | £6,450 | £6,400 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 3, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £17,250 | £4,100 | £7,400 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 4, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £12,250 | £2,900 | £5,200 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 5, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £19,000 | £4,500 | £8,100 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 6, 250B, North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £7,200 | £1,700 | £3,050 | Allowed in part |
| Unit 7, 250B North End Road, London SW6 1NJ | £42,000 | £9,900 | £17,750 | Allowed in part |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant argued that seven retail units should be valued as small shops and a café using a main-space rate of £485/m² for units 1–2 and a discounted zone B rate of £242.50/m² for units 3–7, rather than as kiosks at £1075/m². The tribunal found the units were indeed small retail spaces where customers entered to be served or browse, not kiosks, and that comparable properties supported a main-space rate of £485/m². The tribunal allowed units 1–2 at this rate but applied only a 10% discount (£436.50/m²) to units 3–7 rather than the 50% reduction proposed, finding the evidence insufficient to support that level of discount.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was KAS, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Zoning or layout
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell (VO) & Leicester City Council [1976] RA 141; Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee (1923) 2KB 679 CA; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
- Hearing
- 8 October 2024
Similar decisions
- 28, GOLDHAWK ROAD, W12 8DH — Allowed in part, 9 Jul 2026
- 20, GOLDHAWK ROAD, W12 8DH — Allowed in part, 9 Jul 2026
- 28 A & 28B, GOLDHAWK ROAD, W12 8DH — Allowed in part, 9 Jul 2026
- 32, GOLDHAWK ROAD, W12 8DH — Allowed in part, 9 Jul 2026
All decisions in London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham · 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.