| 000 | 01240cab a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS51316 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u21605 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aNorthampton BC v Heard (VO) | ||
| 260 | _c1994 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aRating & Valuation Reporter _v(1994) 34 RVR 105-108(4) |
||
| 520 | _aLVT 5 April 1994. The premises were described in the valuation list as an `entertainment centre and premises`. It was used as a theatre/concert hall. Dispute arose as to the method of valuation to arrive at the rateable value under Local Government Finance Act 1988 sch 6. The VO used the contractors` method, applying the statutory 6% decapitalisation rate to get a replacement cost of £9,066,604 and rv of £543,966. The ratepayer contended that the valuation should be 5% of the assumed turnover of £1,400,000 ie £70,000. The tribunal held in favour of the ratepayer. | ||
| 650 | _aCONCERT HALL | ||
| 650 | _aCONTRACTORS METHOD | ||
| 650 | _aDECAPITALISATION RATE | ||
| 650 | _aENTERTAINMENT CENTRE | ||
| 650 | _aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988 SCH 6 | ||
| 650 | _aRATING APPEALS | ||
| 690 | _aRATING AND VALUATION-CASE LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c14498 _d14498 |
||