| 000 | 01076cab a2200301 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS46988 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u60285 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aMarks & Spencer Leamington Spa v Sanderson (VO) | ||
| 260 | _c1992 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 32 EG 74-78(5) |
||
| 520 | _aLT 19 February 1992. This appeal against the assessment of retail property determined by the VCCT, which reduced the VO`s assessment, was defended by the VO. Although the double zoning method produced the same valuation from both parties, when end adjustments were made the LT found in the appellants` favour. | ||
| 650 | _aDOUBLE-ZONING METHOD | ||
| 650 | _aFRONTAGE | ||
| 650 | _aLEVELS | ||
| 650 | _aRATING ASSESSMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aRETAIL PROPERTY | ||
| 650 | _aSINGLE-ZONING METHOD | ||
| 650 | _aVALUATION AND COMMUNITY CHARGE TRIBUNAL | ||
| 650 |
_aValuation _96273 |
||
| 650 | _aVCCT | ||
| 650 | _aZONING | ||
| 690 | _aRATING AND VALUATION-CASE LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c37150 _d37150 |
||