Christopher Royle (Valuation Officer)

In valuing a hereditament consisting of advertising rights, the statutory rules governing advertising hereditaments apply directly. Plant and machinery provisions do not require a digital sign to be treated as a static sign, or the digital equipment to be treated as removed. The sign may be valued as a digital display where the right includes use of the structure in place.

For the 2017 rating list and the antecedent valuation date of 1 April 2015, the available evidence supported a ratio of six between digital and static bus-shelter displays. The Tribunal therefore restored assessments calculated by applying a multiplier of six to the relevant static-display values.

The Valuation Tribunal for England consolidated appeals concerning the rateable value of 21 advertising rights exercised through digital displays on bus shelters in Rotherham, Sheffield and Barnsley. The Valuation Officer had applied a multiplier of six to the VOA’s basic static-display values. The VTE reduced the multiplier to three.

The appeal was unopposed and concerned whether the plant and machinery provisions affected the valuation of the advertising rights, and whether the evidence supported a multiplier of six at the 1 April 2015 antecedent valuation date. The Upper Tribunal also considered its earlier decision in Re The Appeals of Hitchings and Moore (VO’s), [2025] UKUT 6 (LC).

1. Appeal allowed. The rateable values of the 21 hereditaments were to be based on a multiplier of six applied to the relevant basic static-display values. The entries in the 2017 rating list were to be amended accordingly.

2. The hereditaments were rights to use land for exhibiting advertisements. Section 64 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, together with regulation 4 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989, required the valuation to recognise the right to use the structure or sign available for advertising.

3. The Tribunal accepted the submission that the plant and machinery provisions were not relevant to the valuation of digital advertising rights on bus shelters. The statutory rules for advertising hereditaments were self-contained, as confirmed in List (VO) v NRIL, [2024] UKUT 351 (LC).

4. Alternatively, the assumption that plant or machinery had no effect on rent did not require the equipment to be treated as magically removed. The sign could remain capable of functioning as a digital sign, and the right could be valued on that basis. That approach was consistent with Edmondson (VO) v Teesside Textiles and its affirmation in Cardtronics UK Ltd v Sykes (VO).

5. The evidence considered in Re The Appeals of Hitchings and Moore (VO’s), [2025] UKUT 6 (LC), including evidence unavailable to the VTE, warranted a 6:1 ratio between digital and static displays at the relevant valuation date. No new evidence had been provided to unsettle that finding, which the Tribunal endorsed.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: In an amended decision dated 27 November 2024, reduced the multiplier applied to the digital advertising rights from six to three.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the Valuation Officer’s appeal and restored the multiplier of six.