Tribunals · City of Westminster · 2017 rating list

OUTDOOR PLUS DIGITALADVERTISING RIGHT ENTRANCE TO HYDE PARK UNDERPASS, Knightsbridge, SW7 1SE

Advertising right and premises Decided 15 January 2024 CHG100851407 Montagu Evans - Richard Wackett

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£1,750,000
Ratepayer sought£1,400,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£1,750,000

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant argued that a material change in circumstances arose from the proliferation of new digital advertising hoardings in the locality since the antecedent valuation date, seeking a 20% allowance to reduce the RV to £1,400,000. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that whilst digital advertising has become more prevalent, the analysis was based on trends across Greater London rather than the specific locality around the subject property in Knightsbridge. The tribunal noted the subject site was unique, prime, and well-located, and found insufficient evidence that the increase in advertising rights specifically impacted its rental value.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Primesight Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Change of circumstances
Change of circumstances
proliferation of digital advertising hoardings
Evidence
Rents, Expert report
Cases cited
K Shoe Shops Ltd v Hardy; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
8 December 2023

Similar decisions

All decisions in City of Westminster ·

Is your own rateable value in line?

A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.

Check a property

The tribunal’s decision in full

Download the PDF · Find it on valuationtribunal.gov.uk

Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.