Amanda Hitchings & Anor v Valuation Tribunal for England

For rating valuations of advertising rights on bus shelters, a digital six-sheet display may properly be valued at a higher multiple than a scrolling display where sufficiently reliable industry evidence supports that conclusion. In the absence of like-for-like rental evidence, contemporaneous industry material can support a 1:6 ratio between static and digital displays.

Portfolio commercial agreements have limited evidential utility where they do not provide arm’s-length rents for individual sites, particularly if made after the antecedent valuation date. They may nevertheless assist in showing that digital displays have greater value than scrolling displays.

These were two unopposed appeals by valuation officers against decisions of the Valuation Tribunal for England concerning the rateable value of advertising rights on bus shelters in Manchester and Sheffield.

The Manchester decision had reduced the certified rateable value of a double-sided digital display from £7,200 to £3,600. The Sheffield decision had valued a shelter with one digital and one static face at £850. The valuation officers contended that digital displays warranted a substantial uplift over static displays.

The central issue was the proper ratio between the value of static and digital six-sheet advertising displays as at the relevant valuation dates.

1. Both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal held that the available evidence justified valuing a digital six-sheet advertising display at six times the value of a comparable static display.

2. Static-display tone rates were uncontroversial: £600 per face for the Manchester city-centre site and £425 per face for the Sheffield main-road site. A scrolling display was accepted to have a 3:1 relationship with a static display.

3. The Tribunal accepted that a digital display has greater value than a scrolling display because it can display more advertisements in a more sophisticated manner. The contemporaneous note of discussions with Clear Channel UK Ltd and the later VORC return provided sufficient industry evidence of a 1:6 static-to-digital ratio, notwithstanding the absence of like-for-like rents.

4. Commercial agreements covering extensive portfolios were less reliable as rental comparables. They did not reliably establish arm’s-length rents for individual sites and some post-dated the antecedent valuation date. They nevertheless supported the conclusion that digital signs were more valuable than scrollers.

5. The Manchester hereditament was valued at £600 per face multiplied by six, producing £7,200 rateable value from 1 April 2017. The Sheffield hereditament was valued at £425 for its static face plus £2,550 for its digital face, producing a rounded rateable value of £2,950 from 1 October 2020. No order for costs was made.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the valuation officers’ appeals and substituted rateable values of £7,200 for the Manchester hereditament and £2,950 for the Sheffield hereditament.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: The Manchester decision of 13 February 2024 reduced the certified value to £3,600. The Sheffield decision of 17 June 2024 allowed the ratepayer’s appeal and reduced the value to £850.