“the Power Station”
). The Appellant is the owner of the Power Station. The Respondent is the Valuation Officer with responsibility for the Power Station. 2.In March 2013 the Appellant announced that the Power Station was being placed into long term mothball; meaning that electricity generation would cease at the Power Station during the mothballing period. Between April and September 2013 works were carried out to mothball the Power Station; that is to say to preserve the Power Station for electricity generation, pending the resumption of this activity. In late 2014 the Appellant decided to commence the process of bringing the Power Station out of mothball. The Power Station became fully operational in November 2015, and returned to commercial activity from December 2015.3.The material day in the present case is agreed to be 11 June 2013 (
- © 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