“the MCO”
) had changed from (i) a power station in use as a power station to (ii) a mothballed power station or (to use the language of the PB Report) a power station subject to long term preservation. 48.In oral submissions Mr Wilcox advanced three broad arguments in support of the Appellant’s case, as follows:(1)The first, and principal argument of Mr Wilcox was that the MCO of the Power Station had changed on the Material Day, to a mothballed power station.(2)The second argument advanced by Mr Wilcox was that the Power Station was, on the Material Day, incapable of beneficial occupation as a power station and must be valued on that basis. Although this was presented as a separate argument Mr Wilcox accepted, in oral submissions, that this second argument was, in reality, an argument in support of the case that the MCO had changed on the Material Day to a mothballed power station.(3)The third argument was that the refusal of the Valuation Officer to reduce the rateable value of the Power Station, to reflect its mothballing, was inconsistent with the rateable value treatment of other power stations which were subject to decommissioning work. 49.For the Respondent, Mr Williams disputed the Appellant’s case. In summary, his case was that the mothballing of the Power Station did not give rise to any change in the MCO of the Power Station as a power station. The mothballing of the Power Station did not effect any change in the purpose for which the Power Station was used; namely for the purpose of generating electricity from time to time, depending upon economic conditions. The mothballing works were all intended to allow for the resumption of electricity generation, were fully reversible, and were reversed when market conditions improved. Within the category of properties having the MCO of a power station, so Mr Williams submitted, there is no sub-category of mothballed power stations.50.As can be seen, the essential issue raised by the appeal is this. What, on the Material Day, was the MCO of the Power Station?
- © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
- Introduction
- “the Power Station”
- “the Material Day”
- “the VTE”
- Representation, evidence and inspection
- “the Agreed Statement”
- The relevant background
- “CCGT”
- “TEC”
- “the PB Report”
- The issues in the appeal
- “the MCO”
- The legal framework – statutory provisions
- “Schedule 6”
- The legal framework – case law
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Right of appeal
