DIGITAL AD RIGHT AT TESCO, TAVISTOCK ROAD, PL15 9HG
Advertising right and premises Decided 22 February 2024 CHG100948610 Montagu Evans
Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 6 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (Digital Ad Right at Tesco, Tavistock Road, Launceston PL15 9HG). Every property is listed below.
The 6 properties in this decision
One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.
| Property | Original RV | Sought | Tribunal decided | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JC Decaux Advertising Board at Tesco Stores Ltd, High Street, Baldock SG7 6AZ | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| Digital Advertising Right at Tesco (Site No. 230651.00021), Greenwell Road, Newton Aycliffe DL5 4DJ | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| JC Decaux digital ad right at Tesco, Featherstall Road North, Oldham OL9 6BW | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| Digital Ad Right at Tesco, Tavistock Road, Launceston PL15 9HGThis appeal | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| Advertising Right at Tesco, Kilncroft Lane, Wilmslow SK9 3PB | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| Ad Right 2445 Outside Tesco Stores, Croydon Road, Beckenham BR3 4AA | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant sought deletion of six advertising rights at Tesco stores, arguing they should not be separately rated as there was no exclusive reservation and control by Tesco was such that no separate right existed. The tribunal found that the contractual agreements between Tesco and the appellant clearly evidenced that the advertising rights were let out to the appellant. While Tesco exercised reasonable control over competitor restrictions and had a 16% allocation for its subsidiary, this did not negate the right to reservation. The tribunal concluded that the advertising rights were hereditaments subject to separate rating under section 64(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was JC Decaux UK Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Validity of the proposal · decisive
- Evidence
- Expert report
- Cases cited
- Holywell Union Assessors v Halkyn; John Laing & Sons v Kingswood Assessment Committee; Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company; Cardtronics Europe Ltd v Sykes; Esso Petroleum Company v Walker; Woolway v Mazars LLP; Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts
- Hearing
- 23 January 2024
Similar decisions
- Newquay Garden Centre, Garden Way, Quintrell Downs, Quintrell Downs, TR8 4LG — Allowed in part, 23 May 2025
- Tuckers Garage, B3257 Between Lime Tree Way And Tremollett Road, PL15 7LY — Dismissed, 24 May 2023
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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.