Christopher Royle (Valuation Officer)

Introduction

1. This is an unopposed appeal by the Valuation Officer (“VO”) against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (“the VTE”) concerning the rateable value of advertising rights on 21 bus shelters in Rotherham, Sheffield and Barnsley, listed in the Appendix to this decision. The VTE heard the appeals for all sites as a consolidated appeal and issued its (amended) decision on 27 November 2024.

2. The appeal relates to entries in the 2017 rating list, which has an antecedent valuation date (“AVD”) of 1 April 2015. It concerns specifically the multiplier which should be applied to the Valuation Office Agency’s (“VOA”) scheme of values for static displays in determining the assessments for digital displays. The rateable values of the 21 hereditaments had been assessed by the VO using a multiplier of six and the VTE reduced the valuations by applying a multiplier of three. In this appeal the VO seeks the restoration of values based on the original multiplier of six.

3. The respondent was represented at the VTE, but did not participate in this appeal, which has been dealt with under the written representations procedure.

4. The appeal covers essentially the same ground as two earlier appeals which were decided by this Tribunal (Peter McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb) following hearings in Re the Appeals of Hitchings and Moore (Valuation Officers) [2025] UKUT 6 (LC) . That decision was published on 14 January 2025 so was not available to the VTE when it decided this case.

5. The Appeal of Moore (VO) concerned a single bus shelter in Sheffield, which is typical of those in this appeal. The appellant now seeks a clear statement of the principle that a multiplier of six is appropriate for assessing the rateable value of digital displays on bus shelters as at the AVD of 1 April 2015.

6. As in Hitchings and Moore, submissions on behalf of the appellant have been received from Mr Cain Ormondroyd, and expert evidence has been provided by Mr Chris Royle MRICS DipRating. Statutory background

7. Section 64 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides: “Hereditaments (1) A hereditament is anything which, by virtue of the definition of hereditament in section 115(1) of the 1967 Act, would have been a hereditament for the purposes of that Act had this Act not been passed. (2) In addition, a right is a hereditament if it is a right to use any land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements and— (a) the right is let out or reserved to any person other than the occupier of the land, or (b) where the land is not occupied for any other purpose, the right is let out or reserved to any person other than the owner of the land. … (11) In subsection (2) above “land” includes a wall or other part of a building and a sign, hoarding, frame, post or other structure erected or to be erected on land.”

8. The Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 make further provision as to the valuation of advertising hereditaments, insofar as material as follows: “Reg 4 – Advertising rights, etc. (1) In relation to an advertising hereditament, in applying the provisions of subparagraphs (1) to (7) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Act it shall be assumed that the grant or reservation of the right of which the hereditament consists included the grant or reservation of a right to use any structure or sign for the time being available for use for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements by the occupier of that hereditament, notwithstanding the structure or sign was provided by that occupier or was provided after the making of the grant or reservation concerned. … (4) In this regulation – “advertising hereditament” means a hereditament consisting of a right to which section 64(2) of the Act applies; and “advertising right” means a right which is such a hereditament, and “structure” includes a hoarding, frame, post or wall.” Background

9. A description of the subject hereditaments, together with background to the VOA’s schemes of value, is provided in paragraphs 20 – 24 of Mr Royle’s report as follows: “20. The 21 subject hereditaments are advertising rights each exercised by employing two ‘back-to-back’, ‘small format’ advertising signs or displays. The display signs are of a standard size and type adopted extensively in the UK, commonly referred to as ‘6-sheets’. These are displayed in roadside locations, from bus shelters and in all 21 instances the double-sided panels are situated at one end of the shelter, back-to-back, and orientated at 90 degrees to the traffic flow. The dimensions of a 6-sheet are 1.8m x 1.2m, and all 21 hereditaments displayed in a ‘portrait’ orientation.

21. The description of these small format signs as ‘6-sheets’ harks back to the historic manner advertising displays were pasted together to form one larger picture. The expression remains in common usage, despite ‘static’ advertising displays today being formed using a single sheet of paper (or fabric), with some ‘6-sheet’ ‘small format’ types having multiple display paraphernalia, notably scrolling, electronic and digital display formats.

22. Most ‘paper and paste’ or ‘static’ 6-sheet display signs are ‘backlit’, which means there is a light source (normally fluorescent bulbs) behind the sheet or scroller in a ‘light-box’. ‘Digital’ or ‘electronic’ displays have an integral light source, the technology being like a TV or computer screen.

23. To assist valuation officers and ratepayers over the years, 'schemes of value' have been produced for small format display signs. These are normally focussed around two years prior to upcoming revaluations and typically preceded by invitations to the main advertising companies for ‘central discussions’. The resultant schemes are made available as ‘Revaluation Practice Notes’ in the VOA’s Rating Manual.

24. Following the outcomes of central discussions in 2017 rating lists, guidance was provided to Valuation Officers for small format advertising displays, including those found at bus shelters.”

10. The VOA’s 2017 scheme of value was used to value the hereditaments in this appeal, applying a multiplier of six to the basic and unchallenged value for a static display at the AVD of 1 April 2015. The ratepayer argued on appeal to the VTE that the signs should be valued as if they were static displays, with no multiplier for digital use because the digital mechanisms were not rateable, as had been accepted in two previous VTE decisions.

11. The VTE determined that a digital advertising right would have clear and distinct advantages and be more valuable than that of a static one. It also determined that it was suitable to use the VOA’s static bus shelter roadside displays scheme as a base rate for the hereditaments. But it found that the VO’s logic in applying a multiplier of six to the base rates was flawed and determined a multiplier of three to be fair and reasonable. Submissions on the law

12. Mr Ormondroyd submitted that the hereditament in this case is a right, with an express statutory provision that it includes the right to use the actual sign in place. It had been argued for the ratepayer at the VTE that in some previous decisions the VTE had placed reliance on the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 (“the P&M Regulations”) so as to assume, when valuing an advertising right, that the sign available for the display of advertising was different from the one actually present.

13. Insofar as plant and machinery forms part of a sign, Mr Ormondroyd submitted that the P&M Regulations do not overrule the statutory provisions for the valuation of advertising rights. As the Tribunal (Martin Rodger KC and Peter McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb) confirmed in List (VO) v NRIL [2024] UKUT 351 (LC) at [60] “…advertising hereditaments are governed by their own rules which do not depend on or require consideration of any wider rating principles.”

14. If, in the alternative, the P&M Regulations are held to be relevant to the valuation of advertising rights, Mr Ormondroyd submitted that their effect must be carefully considered. It is well established that the assumption that “the value of any plant or machinery has no effect on the rent to be so estimated” does not require an assumption that the equipment in question has been “magically removed”: Edmondson VO v Teesside Textiles (1984) 83 LGR 317, affirmed in Cardtronics UK Ltd v Sykes (VO) [2020] UKSC 21 at [32] and it may still be relevant in defining the extent of the hereditament to be valued.

15. In this case, he submitted, even if the “value” of the plant and machinery is assumed to have “no effect on the rent” that does not require an assumption that the actual sign is unable to function as a digital sign and must be rated as if it were a static sign. Rather, it can be assumed that the plant and machinery would be available to the tenant to allow him to make use of the sign and the hereditament should be valued on the same basis, as relating to a digital sign, whether or not the P&M Regulations are held to be relevant.

16. In the absence of any respondents in this appeal, I accept Mr Ormondroyd’s submissions that the P&M Regulations are not relevant to the valuation of digital advertising rights on bus shelters. Valuation evidence

17. Mr Chris Royle MRICS DipRating has worked for the Valuation Office Agency since 1985 and since 2001 has been responsible for providing guidance to valuation officers on compiling and maintaining list entries for advertising hereditaments. His role includes discussion of the VOA’s schemes of value with the advertising industry and its representatives.

18. In his expert report Mr Royle states that his evidence for this appeal is the same as that provided for Hitchings and Moore, where it was examined at an oral hearing. He had found no further or different evidence or analysis since that would cause him to change his approach to the valuation of the digital advertising hereditaments in this appeal.

19. It is therefore not necessary for me to reiterate Mr Royle’s evidence in detail, but rather to review the Tribunal’s analysis and conclusion in Hitchings and Moore , at [45 to 48]: “45. I have separated Mr Royle’s evidence into two limbs. The first is a batch of evidence which seems to suggest that at the valuation date, the industry was applying a ratio of 1:6 to digital signs compared with static – see the note of the meeting with CCUK, and the VORC return.

46. We then have a number of commercial agreements, which in my judgment are less reliable - partly because they are national agreements covering many hundreds of locations, partly because they do not provide a reliable basis to provide evidence of arm’s length rents, but mainly because those upon which Mr Royle places weight were entered into many years after the Antecedent Valuation Date of 1 April 2015. But the supermarket agreements are helpful in suggesting that digital signs are of more value than scrollers.

47. It is uncontroversial that a scroller display is of higher value than a static display, with a 3:1 ratio. I have no doubt that a digital display must have a higher value than a scroller, because it can show more advertisements in a more sophisticated way.

48. I can understand why the VTE might be reluctant to increase the ratios applied to digital signs. But much of the material before me now was not available to the VTE. While I have no evidence of like-for-like rents, on balance there is sufficient evidence to warrant a ratio of 6:1 for the right to use digital signs. Whether that ratio increases in future valuation lists is an argument for another day.”

20. The Tribunal in Hitchings and Moore found sufficient evidence to warrant a ratio of 6:1 for the right to use digital signs at the AVD of 1 April 2015. I have received no new evidence to unsettle that finding, which I now endorse in this appeal. Determination

21. The appeal in this case is allowed and the rateable values of the hereditaments at the AVD of 1 April 2015 shall be based on a multiplier of six to the relevant basic static display value, and the entries in the 2017 rating list shall be as set out in the Appendix to this decision. Mrs D Martin MRICS FAAV 17 October 2025 (corrected 5 November 2025) Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission. Appendix – 21 Advertising Right Subject Hereditaments No VTE AppealNo Subject hereditament RV to be placed in 2017 Rating List Effective Date 1 CHG101096042 ADVERTISING SITE 0404 0376 BUS SHELTER O/S SPRING HOUSE, GLOSSOP ROAD, SHEFFIELD, S10 2PR £5,100 1 October 2021 2 CHG101096045 AD BOARD BUS SHELTER O/S KWICK FIT 726, CITY ROAD, SHEFFIELD, S2 1GJ £5,100 1 April 2021 3 CHG101096054 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0105 OPP 63, STATION ROAD, KIVETON PARK, SHEFFIELD, S26 6QP £2,800 10 October 2020 4 CHG101096178 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0325 BUS SHELTER OPP 27, HIGH STREET, MALTBY, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S66 8LG £2,200 2 September 2020 5 CHG101096063 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0327 ON BUS SHELTER NEAR 77, SHEFFIELD ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S60 1DA £2,200 2 September 2020 6 CHG101096068 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0048 JUNCTION OF NORTH DRIVE &, GREASBROUGH ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S60 1QF £2,200 2 September 2020 7 CHG101096073 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0339 SOUTH OF STADIUM WAY, ROTHERHAM ROAD, PARKGATE, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S60 1TG £2,200 26 November 2020 8 CHG101096084 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0175 ON BUS SHELTER OPP 148, BROOM ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S60 2SR £2,200 27 August 2020 9 CHG101096091 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0104 O/S JUBILEE COTTAGES, BAWTRY ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S60 5NX £2,200 10 September 2020 10 CHG101096109 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0204 MEADOWBANK ROAD OPP, PEMBROKE STREET, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 2NF £2,200 20 August 2020 11 CHG101096096 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0152 OPP BRADGATE LANE, WORTLEY ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 1LH £2,100 15 October 2020 12 CHG101096104 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0151 AT UPPER WORTLEY ROAD &, OAKS LANE, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 2AA £2,100 27 January 2021 13 CHG101096113 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0345 OPP SOUTH STREET, MEADOW BANK ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 2NF £3,600 20 August 2020 14 CHG101096121 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0114 OPP KEPPEL ROAD, UPPER WORTLEY ROAD, THORPE HESLEY, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 2SZ £1,275 15 October 2020 15 CHG101096123 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0025, FENTON ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S61 3RG £3,600 2 August 2020 16 CHG101096136 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0337 AT, FAIRFIELD PARK, MANVERS WAY, WATH UPON DEARNE, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S62 5AA £2,100 3 September 2020 17 CHG101096141 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0344 E/O DALTON LANE OPP, MILHOUSE COURT, DONCASTER ROAD, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S65 3ET £3,600 20 August 2020 18 CHG101096154 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0148 AT 92, HIGH STREET, MALTBY, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S66 7BN £2,200 2 September 2020 19 CHG101096168 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0195 O/S 350, BAWTRY ROAD, HELLABY, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S66 8EY £2,100 9 October 2020 20 CHG101096185 ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0102 OPP 65, ROTHERHAM ROAD, MALTBY, ROTHERHAM, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S66 8LZ £2,200 8 September 2020 21 CHG101096191 ADVERTISING SITE ON BUS SHELTER OPP 53, GAWBER ROAD, BARNSLEY, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, S75 2PS £3,600 5 October 2020