DIGITAL ADVERTISING RIGHT AT TESCO (SITE NO. 230651.00021), GREENWELL ROAD, DL5 4DJ
Advertising right and premises Decided 22 February 2024 CHG100949165 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 Advertising Right at Tesco (Site No. 230651.00021), Greenwell Road, Newton Aycliffe DL5 4DJ). 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 4DJThis appeal | £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 4AA | £7,500 | — | — | Dismissed |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant, JC Decaux, sought deletion of advertising rights located at six Tesco stores, arguing they formed part of the Tesco hereditament rather than separate rateable units. The tribunal found that the advertising rights were properly let out or reserved to the appellant under section 64(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, despite Tesco's control over competitor advertising and 16% time allocation to Dunhumby. The tribunal distinguished the case from Victoria Station decisions, finding Tesco's control was reasonable and did not negate the right, and that the agreement evidenced a proper letting to the appellant, making the sites separate hereditaments.
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
- 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 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.