ADVERTISING RIGHT AT TESCO, KILNCROFT LANE, HANDFORTH, HANDFORTH, SK9 3PB
Advertising right and premises Decided 22 February 2024 CHG100949040 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 (Advertising Right at Tesco, Kilncroft Lane, Wilmslow SK9 3PB). 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 9HG | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
| Advertising Right at Tesco, Kilncroft Lane, Wilmslow SK9 3PBThis appeal | £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 contended that advertising rights at Tesco car parks should be deleted as they were not separately rateable, citing the landlord/lodger principle from Cardtronics and arguing that Tesco's control negated any right let out. The tribunal found that sections 64(2) and 65(8) of the 1988 Act apply to advertising rights as hereditaments regardless of normal occupation principles, and that while Tesco retained reasonable controls as the landowner, these did not negate the right let to the appellant. The agreements clearly evidenced a letting of advertising rights, and an allowance had already been applied to reflect partial allocation to Dunhumby, so the appeals were dismissed.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was JC Decaux UK Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Split or merge the assessment · decisive
- Evidence
- None from the ratepayer
- 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
- Barn at Cheshire Nursery, Salters Lane, Siddington, Siddington, SK11 9LH — Allowed in part, 2 Mar 2026
- Processing Plant at Dairy House Farm, Chester Road, Over Tabley, Over Tabley, WA16 0PP — Dismissed, 16 Sept 2024
- Processing Palnt at Dairy House Farm, Chester Road, Over Tabley, Over Tabley, WA16 0PP — Dismissed, 16 Sept 2024
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.