ATMs
Source: gov.uk (2025-04-28)

This publication is intended for Valuation Officers. It may contain links to internal resources that are not available through this version.

1. Co-ordination

This is a Generalist class. Co-ordination responsibilities are set out in Rating Manual: section 6 part 1 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rating-manual-section-6-chhallenges-to-the-rating-list/part-1-co-ordination).

Special Category code 018 should be used. The relevant suffix letter (G) will be computer generated automatically. Sections 8-17 cover particular issues relating to sites of Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs).

This guidance has been updated to reflect the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cardtronics UK Ltd and others (Respondents) v Sykes and others (Valuation Officers) (Appellants) [2020] UKSC 21 (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0225-judgment.pdf) concerning whether ATMs situated within superstores and retail ‘host’ hereditaments are properly shown as separate hereditaments in the occupation of the ATM operator.

The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the Court of Appeal, and accepted the reasoning expressed by the Upper Tribunal:

We are therefore satisfied that each of the appeal sites, with the exception of the first floor site at Tesco’s Nottingham store (where the machine is free standing), is capable of being the subject of a separate entry in the rating list” (Para 151 of the UT (LC) decision).

In respect of the site of the ‘moveable’ ATM, the Supreme Court found that the ‘essential qualities’ of this ATM were ‘impermanence and mobility’ and agreed with the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal that, in the light of these characteristics, its site could not form a separate hereditament. The sites of the remaining ATMs were, in principle, capable of being identified as separate hereditaments regardless of whether they were accessed from within the host hereditament or from the pavement etc.

The Supreme Court endorsed the finding that the retailers retained occupation of the ATM sites, accepting the reasoning of the Upper Tribunal in the earlier stage appeal of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd & Others v Chris Sykes & Others (VOs) [2017] UKUT 0138 (LC) (http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j1324/RA-29%2039-2016.pdf) at paragraph 169:

The Store has not, in any of these cases, parted with possession of the site of the ATM, but it has agreed to confer rights on the Bank which substantially restrict the Store’s use of that small part of its premises which comprises the ATM site. The Store has agreed to that restriction because the presence of the ATM furthers its own general business purposes and because the operation of the ATM by the Bank provides the Store with an income.

The Supreme Court approved, at paragraph 49, the finding of the Upper Tribunal that “Both parties derive a direct benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose and share the economic fruits of the specific activity for which the space is used.” The Supreme Court considered this was sufficient to support the conclusion that the sites of the internal ATMs remained in the occupation of the retailers and that the ATM sites did not, therefore, comprise separately rateable hereditaments.

The Supreme Court found there was no distinction between internal-facing and external-facing ATMs in this respect and found that any difference between them was not sufficient to treat them differently. Accordingly, in the particular cases they considered the host store owners, and not the ATM operators, were in rateable occupation of all of the ATM sites.

The decision does not wholly apply to all sites of automatic machines, and even some ATM sites may still fall to be separately assessed where the ‘host’ hereditament has clearly parted with possession of the site and does not directly benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose.

2. Description

This Section covers the sites of Automatic Vending/Weighing/Teller/Parcel Exchange Machines. It is the site of the machine rather than the machine itself which may be rateable. Automatic machines of all types should be treated as non-rateable since they are not named in the Schedule to The Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 SI No. 540, as amended and The Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Wales) Regulations 2000 SI No. 1097 ( W.75 ), as amended.

Where considered to be separately rateable, the Primary Description code CX should be used, with the specific description ‘Site of Automatic Vending/Weighing/Teller/Photographic/Parcel (use appropriate wording) Machine’. The suffix ‘And Premises’ should be added where the hereditament includes other contiguous supporting accommodation.

3. Identification of the Hereditament - General

The case of Woolway (VO) v Mazars [2015] RA 373 (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0117-judgment.pdf) should be applied and the potential hereditament can be identified by the actual site of the machine or any housing surrounding it. Machines with the “essential qualities of impermanence and mobility” will not be capable of comprising a hereditament, for the reasons set out by the Supreme Court in Cardtronics. The test of what is “impermanent” and “mobile” is a question of fact, rather than one of law, and a common-sense approach should be taken.

4. Rateable Occupation - General

The case of John Laing & Son v Kingswood Assessment Committee (1949) 1 KB All ER 224 set out the four ingredients of rateable occupation, being:
- actual occupation
- exclusive occupation for the particular purpose of the possessor
- beneficial occupation
- not too transient
These tests must be applied to the sites of automatic machines. Generally, actual and beneficial occupation should be relatively easy to determine however exclusive occupation and transience may require more detailed information to be obtained from the occupier. It is important to bear in mind that these tests relate to the site, not to the machine itself, which is not rateable.

In the light of the Cardtronics Supreme Court judgment, the approach to applying these tests, in any case where there is more than one potential rateable occupier, will be first to establish whether the ‘host’ of the site has parted with possession of it. Agreements that do not grant exclusive possession of a defined area may suggest that the host has not ‘parted with possession’ of the site concerned. However, this is a question of fact and law, and is likely to involve considering both the details of any agreement relating to the operation of the site or the machine concerned, and the facts of occupation as they exist at the site. If the host has parted with possession of the site, then the possibility arises that the site forms a separate hereditament.

If the host has not parted with possession, it is necessary to consider whether the host remains in rateable occupation of the site. The Supreme Court found that where “Both parties derive a direct benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose and share the economic fruits of the specific activity for which the space is used” the host remained in rateable occupation of the site and there was no separate hereditament. Even where the site is used by the machine operator under an exclusive agreement it is still necessary to consider whether the host occupier remains the paramount occupier because the use of the site is part of the normal business activity of the host. Where the host remains the paramount occupier no separate hereditament will exist.

5. Ceasing to Exist

A hereditament will remain in the rating list until it ceases to be ‘property which is or may become liable to a rate’. Practically, this means a hereditament will continue to exist until it is evidenced at the material day that:
- it is subsumed into a different hereditament, for example, a merger
- it becomes a different hereditament, for example, a split
- it is destroyed, for example by demolition or external factors, fire, flood etc.
In the case of the site of a separately assessed automatic machine, the removal of the machine does not necessarily mean that the assessment should be deleted from the rating list.

The machine may have been removed but the site it occupied may remain together with physical adaptations/features, for example protective bollards or foundations.

The valuation of vacant machine sites should be subject to the same considerations, such as valuing at the antecedent valuation date and taking into account the impact of any Material Change of Circumstance in the locality, as would be applied in the case of any other class of property.

6. Survey Requirements - General
- location of site for example, Supermarket, Petrol Filling Station, Shopping Centre, Leisure Park, University, Railway/Bus Station, Factory Village, Hospital, Retail Park
- type of machine and what service it provides.
- is the machine moveable, without substantially demolishing it or its setting?
- name and address of operator and operator’s reference for each machine (where displayed)
- where part of another property, the name of the host and the nature of the host’s business
- a copy of any lease or licence agreement between the host and the machine operator.
- general description of the site and machine for example, Stand-alone site, Internal site.
- associated Rateable Plant and Machinery for example, CCTV.
- dimensions (GIA) of any associated accommodation.
- details of Site construction, foundations and settings: a record should be made of the means of attachment of the machine to such features.
- services provided to the site for example, phone line, electricity, alarm system, water, drainage etc.
- public / Customer access to the site; is this 24 hours or is it restricted? Details of any restrictions.
- responsibility for maintenance and stocking of the machine. If this is carried out by contractors, who instructs the contractors.
- survey details are to be saved in the EDRM property folder and named according to the standard naming conventions.
7. Method of Valuation - General

For all sites of automatic machines, other than ATMs, a copy of the licence/rental agreement should be requested. This must be placed in the EDRM property file and named according to the standard naming convention. The principal method of valuation is by reference to rents and licence payments, although where substantial expenditure has been made on the provision of foundations and settings, or other structures, regard should be had to that cost where not reflected in the site rent. Where costs are an issue, reference should be made to the Rating Cost Guide.

There may be cases where a large number of sites for machines are included in one rental agreement. The global sum payable may not provide a reliable indication of the individual value of any particular site within the rental agreement if a simple numerical apportionment is used.

8. Sites Of Automatic Teller Machines (ATM)

The advice set out under sections 9 to 17 is specific to sites of ATMs and the introduction under paragraph 1, above, concerning the Cardtronics judgment is of particular relevance.

9. Site Of ATM - Identification of the Hereditament

Typically there are three types of ATM sites:
- ‘Hole in the Wall’ - where the ATM screen protrudes through the wall of a building so that customers do not have to enter the host building to use the machine.
- Internal Built - where the ATM is built into, or attached to, the structure of the interior of the host building such as in shopping malls or hospitals for example.
- Free Standing Machines – where the ATM remains in position by its own weight. These can be external or internal. An example is the pod type of ATMs often found at petrol filling stations, and roadside restaurants
The first consideration, when a potential hereditament has been identified, is to identify the occupier. This might be the operator or the occupier of the host hereditament. The tests applied in the Cardtronics Supreme Court judgment should be applied as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, above.

Where an ATM site is located within a host hereditament, with both parties deriving a direct benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose, it is likely that no separately rateable site of an ATM hereditament will exist.

As with all automatic machines, it is only the site of the machine and any associated accommodation which is rateable and not the machine itself; see paragraph 2.

10. Site of ATM - Rateable Occupation

The tests from the Supreme Court judgment in Cardtronics should be applied (as set out in paragraph 4) to determine whether an ATM operator or the occupier of the host property is in rateable occupation of a particular site. Factors to be considered include:
- how the machine is fixed
- where it is located
- the agreement under which the site is occupied
- the corporate and contractual relationship between the operator and the occupier of the host site
- whether the ATM appears to form part of the normal business activity of the host occupier
11. Rateable Occupation of Sites of ‘Hole in the Wall’ ATMs (Other than those located at bank branches)

The following deals with the various aspects of rateable occupation for ‘Hole in the Wall’ ATMs:

11a Actual occupation

This should be self-evident (except in the case of vacant sites). In cases where the site falls within a host hereditament it is necessary to also consider whether the host shares occupation of the site on the basis of the tests applied by the Supreme Court in the Cardtronics case and set out in paragraph 4 above.

11b Beneficial Occupation

As the operator is able to service its customers and derive an income from the operation of the ATM it is likely there will be beneficial occupation of a site. The test of shared purpose or shared benefit, as applied by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Cardtronics case, should be applied, as described in paragraph 4, above, and 11c, below.

11c Exclusive Occupation

Determination of this will involve applying the test approved by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Cardtronics case – as set out in paragraph 4, above. In cases where the site of the machine falls within another hereditament, it will be necessary to determine whether the occupier of the host hereditament has ‘parted with possession’ of the site, and, if the host has not parted with possession, whether both the operator and the host “…derive a direct benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose”, in which case the host is likely to remain in rateable occupation of the ATM site.

11d Not too Transient Occupation

Owing to the fact that a hole is specifically created for the ATM, the occupation is unlikely to be considered too transient.

12. Rateable occupation of Internal Built-in ATM Sites

Paragraphs 11a – 11d apply equally to this type of site. In its judgment in the Cardtronics case, the Supreme Court found no distinction between the sites of internal-facing and external-facing ATMs and the tests set out in that judgment should be applied equally to this class. The fact that the host controls the access of the public to the ATM does not prevent the operator being in paramount control of the site.

13. Rateable Occupation of Sites of Free-Standing ATM Machines

Paragraph 11d in particular applies to this type of ATM. For the reasons described in Paragraph 3, above, regard must be had as to whether the machine concerned has the ‘essential qualities of impermanence and mobility’, in which case the site of the machine is unlikely to be capable of comprising a hereditament.

14. Identification Of The Occupier

It is particularly important to identify the occupiers of the ATM site and the host property correctly. In deciding whether an ATM site is occupied by the occupier of the host property, the ‘corporate veil’ must not be pierced. For example, it may be correct to assess the site of the ATM and the host separately because they are occupied by two separate legal entities even though they are in the same group of companies with similar names. For further advice on the corporate veil, see Rating Manual: Section 3 Part 7 - Part C Occupation by Contiguous Companies, and the effect of the ‘Corporate Veil’. However, this does not override the guidance set out in Cardtronics to consider whether the ATM operator is a lodger rather than a separate rateable occupier.

15. ATMs Within Bank Branches

These can be ‘hole in the wall’, built into the structure inside the premises or free standing within the premises. As the occupier of the ATMs will be the same as the bank branch, there is continuity of occupation and no separate assessment of the ATM site will be appropriate.
- Survey Requirements
Caseworkers and referencers should note the following details during inspection:
- location of site for example Supermarket, Petrol Filling Station, Shopping Centre, Leisure Park, University, Railway/Bus Station, Factory Village, Hospitals, Retail Park
- is the machine easily moveable?
- number of machines on the site
- pay to use or free to use? If pay to use, the charge to be paid should be noted
- any other services available such as mobile phone top up
- name and address of operator and operator’s reference (where displayed)
- where part of another property, the name of the host and the nature of the host’s business.
- general Description of the site and machine for example: “Hole in wall”, Stand-alone site, Internal site
- associated Rateable Plant and Machinery, for example, CCTV
- dimensions (GIA) of any associated accommodation
- details of site construction, foundations and settings; a record should be made of the means of attachment of the machine to such features
- services provided to the site, for example phone line, electricity, alarm system, water, drainage etc.
- public / Customer access to the site; is this 24 hours or is it restricted? Details of any restrictions
- responsibility for maintenance and stocking of the machine and, if this is carried out by contractors, who instructs the contractors
- a photograph should be taken of the machine
- survey details are to be saved in the EDRM property folder and named according to standard naming conventions
17. Method of Valuation - ATMs

See Practice notes for Valuation Schemes for the appropriate Rating Lists.

A scheme of valuation was agreed with representatives of the Inter-Bank Rating Forum [IBRF], the LINK ATM Scheme and the Association for Cash Machine Operators. The agreed scheme is set out in Practice Note 1.

18. Sites of Electronic Delivery Lockers

18a. Background

Electronic Delivery Lockers are typically situated within covered shopping malls, supermarket car parks, bus/train stations and on petrol filling station forecourts. The market is dominated by several main operators. These sites house lockers used by the general public to collect parcels ordered online and are accessed by inputting a security code which is provided to the customer by text or email, and should not be confused with supermarket ‘in house’ click and collect facilities.

Historically the motor trade utilised similar lockers for the distribution of parts. These sites are now becoming more commercially viable with many operators expanding into the retail sector.

18b. Growth Since AVD

This class has rapidly expanded due to the gaining popularity of internet shopping offering more convenient delivery options. Indicative values as contained within Practice Note 3, do not reflect the market growth since the Antecedent Valuation Date.

18c. Identifying the hereditament

It is important to be aware it is the actual site which is being assessed, not the structure which houses the lockers. The actual banks of lockers are normally non-rateable chattels as they are not listed within the current plant and machinery regulations (see paragraph 3 above for full details). More substantial structures in the nature of buildings will form part of the hereditament.

18d. Rateability

The usual rules governing rateability apply, in that if a site is considered of sufficient permanence, and definable, then it will be rateable. Guidance on the identification of the hereditament and rateable occupation are contained within paragraphs 3 and 4 above.

Sites located physically inside other premises might not fulfil the requirement of having separate paramount control, so may not be separately rateable. Guidance in this respect should be drawn from the Cardtronics Supreme Court judgment (see above re sites of ATMs).

19. Cycle Docking Stations

19a. Co-ordination

This advice is in respect of Cycle Docking Stations. The class has a primary description code MX and a Special Category Code 999, with a suffix G.

19b. State of the Industry

Cycle sharing schemes are a facility in which bicycles are made available for hire to individuals normally on a short-term basis. The main purpose is transportation: bike sharing allows people to depart from point “A” and arrive at point “B” free from the worries and costs associated with ownership.

19c. Identification

Cycle Docking Stations can vary in their nature from a simple rack placed along the public highway as with the scheme in London, to fold-up bikes located within lockers at railway stations.

Often subject to an initial membership fee followed by a rental fee per use, users can rent a bike for a period of time, for example hourly or daily, and both retrieve and return the bike to any scheme docking station.

19d. Rateability

The VOA previously agreed with Transport for London (TFL) the rateability of the BCH Docking Stations across London. Actual and exclusive and not too transient occupation was determined along with beneficial occupation. The benefit to Transport for London being a service to improve the health of Londoners, as opposed to profit-making.

Docking stations are considered to be a hereditament falling under the concept of ‘lands’ in accordance with LGFA 1988 s64(4)(a).

As chattels the bicycles cannot be ‘lands’ and therefore do not form part of the hereditament. It is noted that chattels may be ‘rated’ with land where they are enjoyed together with land and enhance the value of the land by enjoying a degree of permanence. A bicycle is very clearly a chattel which moves about from one docking point to another. Therefore it is the site of the docking station itself that is rateable together with any improvements to the land such as the metal post in the ground and foundation.

It is considered that a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay a rent to operate a cycle hire scheme on such a site whether it be to generate profit or, as with the TFL scheme, to provide a service benefitting local people. A number of towns and cities throughout the UK have introduced similar schemes. However many of these are operated in partnership between cycle share scheme operators and partners including hospitals, universities and railway companies, often on the site of the partner. Careful consideration is therefore required when determining who is in paramount control and also the actual boundaries of the site.

19e. Types of Cycle Docking Stations

Cycle Docking Stations generally fall into 3 categories:
- Docking station located on a public highway/pavement exclusively run by a particular occupier. This may be a private individual/company or a local authority. Rateable occupation is satisfied and entry into the rating list is appropriate.
- Docking station located inside or outside a train station, university or hospital etc, exclusively run by a particular occupier. This may be a private individual/company, local authority or rail company etc. Rateability will depend on identification of the rateable occupier and where the docking station is located. For instance the rateable occupier may be a train company who has the scheme managed by a partner. If the docking station is located outside of the train station buildings but on operational land belonging to the railway, it is highly likely the docking station should be treated as within the cumulo railway hereditament and not separately rateable.
- Docking station located within a train station or operated by a rail company on operational land. Bikes may be paid for through the station ticket office and bikes can only be returned to docking stations at specified train stations within the rail company’s region.
Once facts have been determined it is expected that no assessment would be required as rateable occupation would fall with the rail company and as stated above, any assessment would fall to be reflected in the cumulo assessment.

19f. Extent of the Hereditament

It is envisaged that in most circumstances the hereditament will consist of a rack of bike stations similar to those shown at the end of this note. It is considered that in terms of contiguity, the set of racks located on the land forms the hereditament. Where different sets of racks are separately located away from each other, then each set will form its own hereditament.

19g. Action Required:

Sites not in rating and existing sites

Where a docking station has not been entered into the rating list, a VOR should be raised and an inspection made to record the details shown in 7 below. Where a docking station is already in the rating list, a check should be made to ensure that the valuation approach is consistent with the instructions in this section.

Referencing

It is recommended that inspections of any such sites are made, with photographs taken and the number of posts or lockers counted. Any obvious areas also part of the demise should also be noted including any reference to the operator of the docking station. This may be located on a separate stand-alone post.

Valuation Approach

Following the approach to valuation adopted for current assessments in London and elsewhere in the UK, it is recommended that a price per post/locker is applied to each cycle docking station in situ.

Practice note 1: 2023 - photographic booths

1 Market Appraisal

According to published industry statistics, the total number of ATM sites in the United Kingdom has reduced from 63,200 in 2018 to 53,457 in 2021. The amount of cash being withdrawn across the ATM network is declining. Over the same period there has been a significant increase in the number of card transactions. However, the reduction in the use of cash is not uniform across the ATM network, with the reduction in usage generally being greater in more affluent areas.

2 Changes from last PN

None other than ATM site valuation scheme

3 Ratepayer discussions

None

4 Valuation Scheme

4.1 There is no agreed valuation scheme. The scheme is based upon the estimated licence fee an operator would be prepared to pay, based upon an estimated sustainable level of commission capable of being generated by the site.

4.2 Commission levels are an economic factor as at the Antecedent Valuation Date and those from years ending March 2020 and March 2021, should form the basis of the assessment throughout the 2023 rating List, unless there is evidence of a valid MCC.

4.3 An MCC may physically affect the site of the existing ATM or be physically manifest in the locality - however a change of operator at a site is not considered an MCC.

4.4 If the site of an ATM becomes operative after AVD, then commissions provided for the later period, may require some adjustment to represent the economic circumstances as they existed at the Antecedent Valuation Date (1 April 2021), but reflecting the physical circumstances at the material day.

4.5 The valuation bands are intended to be drawn sufficiently wide to accommodate the majority of Material Changes of Circumstances (MCCs) and consequential fluctuations in usage. There is therefore an expectation that most MCCs which occur through the life of the 2023 list, will not result in a change of rateable value.

2023 ATM Site Valuation Scheme

Practice note 2: 2023 - sites of electronic delivery lockers

1 Market Appraisal

1.1 Whilst ‘online shopping’ volumes continues to increase, values for individual sites of electronic delivery lockers remains relatively constant. The reasons for this are primarily two-fold. Firstly, where demand is high it is not unusual to find multiple sites housing electronic lockers, which effectively dilutes the number of visits to any one specific site. Secondly, in busy locations, intensity of use is limited by the operating model which requires customers to be given a reasonable timeframe for parcel collection. A threshold of usage is therefore in place which cannot be increased unless additional lockers are added.

1.2 Many supermarkets and other retailers now offer ‘on site’ grocery collection, often provided by locker facilities outside the main store, but within the operator’s site. It should be noted, where these are provided for the purpose of collecting the stores own goods or produce, separate assessment is inappropriate.

2 Changes from last PN

2.1 There have been no changes to the approach as adopted for 2017

3 Ratepayer discussions

3.1 None have been held with the industry

4 Valuation Scheme

4.1 For 2023, there is no agreed valuation scheme. The following rateable values should be used -

Practice note 1: 2017: sites of Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs): Revaluation 2017

1. Market appraisal

1.1 The number of ATM machines has increased over the last 7 years but the move away from Pay to Use to Free to Use has continued.

Number of machines in UK

2008: 63,900

2015: ( June) 69,900

Number of Cash Withdrawals (Millions) in UK

2008: Free to Use 2,765 Pay to Use 101

2014: Free to Use 2,769 Pay to Use 62

This includes all cash withdrawals by customers at their own banks or building societies. Over 97% of cash withdrawals at UK ATMs by UK cardholders are free of charge. (Source LINK website)

1.2 The above statistics are against a back ground of Contactless payments becoming more popular – there were 319 million such transactions in 2014 compared with 100 million in 2013. In 2014 there were 58 million contactless cards in circulation and the average transaction as at December 2014 was valued at £8.26. (Source the UKCARDS Association)

1.3 The estates run by the Independent ATM Deployers (IADs) have increased in size with some banks reducing their estate of remote ATMs. An example of this is the Co-op Bank Plc has removed its ATMs from Co-operative retail premises during 2014 to 2015 and sites are now occupied by Cardtronics (trading as Cashzone).

2. Changes from last practice note

2.1 Transaction numbers from Pay to Use Sites should be multiplied by 3 to calculate the fair maintainable transaction numbers for the site.

3. Ratepayer discussions

No formal discussions have been held with individual occupiers and there is no agreed scheme. However, consultation has taken place with LINK.

4. Valuation scheme

4.1 There is no agreed valuation scheme. The scheme which is being adopted is based upon the level of sustainable cash withdrawal transactions. The scheme reflects the fact that the majority of remote ATM sites are held on licences or leases the terms of which are not uniform and vary significantly between operators.

4.2 The level of sustainable transactions is evidenced by actual cash withdrawal transaction numbers for years ending 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015. Transaction numbers are an economic factor as at the Antecedent Valuation Date and those from years ending March 2014 and March 2015 should form the basis of the assessment throughout the 2017 rating List, unless there is evidence of a valid MCC.

4.3 An MCC may physically affect the site of the existing ATM or be physically manifest in the locality - however a change of operator at a site is not considered an MCC. It should be noted that only when a site ceases to exist should it be removed from the Rating List - see RM section 1120 para 6. It is possible for a site to be vacant whilst there is a change of operators – this does not constitute grounds for deletion.

4.4 Where a fee is charged by the machine operator for a cash transaction (Pay to Use) the actual transaction numbers should be multiplied by 3 to arrive at the number of sustainable transactions.

4.5 If the site of an ATM becomes operative after AVD then volumes of transactions evidenced for the later period may require some adjustment to represent the economic circumstances as they existed at the Antecedent Valuation Date, being 1 April 2015 but reflecting the physical circumstances at the material day.

4.6 The valuation bands are replicated from the 2010 agreed scheme. They are drawn sufficiently wide to accommodate the majority of Material Changes of Circumstances (MCCs) and consequential fluctuations in transactions. There is therefore an expectation that most MCCs which occur through the life of the 2017 list will not result in a change of rateable value.

4.7 2017 Valuation Scheme