Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · London Borough of Bromley · 2017 rating list

AD RIGHT 2445 OUTSIDE TESCO STORES, CROYDON ROAD,, BR3 4AA

Advertising right and premises Decided 22 February 2024 CHG100949094 Montagu Evans

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV · 2017 list£7,500
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided—from 1 Jun 2019

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 (Ad Right 2445 Outside Tesco Stores, Croydon Road, Beckenham BR3 4AA). 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.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
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 3PB£7,500——Dismissed
Ad Right 2445 Outside Tesco Stores, Croydon Road, Beckenham BR3 4AAThis appeal£7,500——Dismissed

What was argued and what the tribunal found

JC Decaux sought deletion of six advertising rights from the rating list, contending they were not separately rateable. The tribunal found that the advertising rights were let out or reserved to JC Decaux under section 64(2) of the 1988 Act, and that while Tesco exercised some reasonable control, this did not negate the existence of the right. The appeals were dismissed as the advertising sites constituted separate hereditaments that should remain on the rating list.

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

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.