Decision Nº RA 60 2014. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 15-10-2015 , [2015] UKUT 0548 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKUT 0548 (LC) |
| Date | 15 October 2015 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | RA 60 2014 |
|
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) |
|
|
|
|
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2015] UKUT 0548 (LC) |
|
UTLC Case Number: RA/60/2014 |
|
|
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RATING – exemption – agricultural building – redundant retail warehouse used for the storage of agricultural machinery, fertiliser and silage produced on adjoining land – whether a “contrivance” – whether used together with agricultural land and solely in connection with agricultural operations – Local Government Finance Act 1988, sch.5, para 3 – appeal allowed
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION
OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND
(TRADING AS E F WOOTTON & SON)
Appellant
and
MS SARAH GILL
(VALUATION OFFICER)
Respondent
Re: The Home Store,
Perkins Road,
Bedford
Before: Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
Sitting at: The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC1A 2LL
on
30 September, 1 October 2015
Mr Cain Ormondroyd instructed by Geoffrey Leaver LLP Solicitors for the Appellant
Mr Matthew Donmall instructed by HMRC Solicitors for the Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Farmer (VO) v Buxted Poultry Ltd [1993] AC 369
Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin)
Makro Properties Ltd v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council [2012] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
Post Office v Oxford City Council [1980] 2 All ER 439
W. & J. B. Eastwood Ltd. v. Herrod [1971] A.C. 160
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1
Introduction
-
In the law of non-domestic rating a hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists of agricultural buildings. By paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 one way in which a building will be an agricultural building is if it is not a dwelling and is occupied together with agricultural land and used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other agricultural land.
-
The issue in this appeal is whether a modern retail warehouse on the outskirts of Bedford, designed and formerly used for the sale of furniture and household goods, was an agricultural building and thus exempt from rating between 8 June 2010 and 26 January 2012. The building has subsequently been converted for use as a Waitrose supermarket but in the period in question it was used by the appellant, Mr Wootton, for the storage of agricultural machinery, foodstuff and silage. Mr Wootton is a farmer.
-
By a decision given on 12 June 2014 the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed an appeal by Mr Wootton against a refusal by the valuation officer to delete the building from the rating list. In his appeal against that decision Mr Wootton was represented by Mr Cain Ormondroyd and relied on the evidence of Mr David Parker, a chartered surveyor and a Director of Savills, in addition to his own evidence. Mr Mathew Donmall appeared on behalf of Ms Gill, the valuation officer, who also gave evidence.
The statutory provisions
-
Section 51 of the 1988 Act provides that Schedule 5 of the Act has effect to determine the extent (if any) to which a hereditament is exempt from local non-domestic rating. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 provides that a hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists of either agricultural land or agricultural buildings. Paragraph 2 defines agricultural land. For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to be aware only that it includes land used as arable, meadow or pasture ground.
-
Paragraphs 3 to 7 provide a series of definitions of the expression “agricultural building”. Of these it is agreed that for the purpose of this appeal only the definition in paragraph 3(a) is material. It provides that:
“3. A building is an agricultural building if it is not a dwelling and –
(a) it is occupied together with agricultural land and is used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other land”
-
Paragraph 8(3) deals with buildings used for a variety of purposes; it provides that:
“(3) In determining for the purposes of paragraphs 3 to 7 above whether a building used in any way is solely so used, no account shall be taken of any time during which it is used in any other way, if that time does not amount to a substantial part of the time during which the building is used.”
It is also relevant to note that paragraph 8(4) provides that a “building” includes a separate part of a building.
The issues
-
It is apparent from these statutory provisions that a building (or a separate part of a building) will be exempt from rating if three conditions are satisfied, namely:
-
it is not a dwelling;
-
it is occupied together with agricultural land; and
-
it is used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other agricultural land.
-
It is common ground in this appeal that Mr Wootton’s building is not a dwelling, it is a retail warehouse used temporarily for the storage of agricultural machinery and animal feed. The issues for determination are therefore whether, during the period in question, it was occupied together with agricultural land, and whether it was used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other land.
The Valuation Tribunal’s decision
-
In its decision of 12 June 2014 the Valuation Tribunal concluded that Mr Wootton’s building was not exempt, because it was not occupied together with agricultural land and was not used solely in connection with agricultural operations. It reached its conclusion after referring to the decision of the House of Lords in W. & J. B. Eastwood Ltd. v. Herrod [1971] A.C. 160 and directing itself that “agricultural buildings connote buildings subsidiary or ancillary to or needed as a necessary aid to agricultural operations taking place on the land”. The VTE went on, at paragraph 13:
“… farm buildings are seen as supporting the work on the land, rather than being a dominating feature. In the subject case the Panel held that a property which is a large retail unit on a retail park with a rental value in excess of £340,000 cannot be said to be subsidiary to the agricultural land.”
-
On the question of sole use, the VTE found that “some items stored within the building relate to the previous retail use of the hereditament and are not connected with agricultural operations on the land”. It was also satisfied that the building was only being used for the storage of silage and farm machinery on a temporary basis while planning permission for an alternative use was obtained and a sale to Waitrose was negotiated.
The Facts
-
Having heard the evidence I base my decision on the following facts.
-
In 2010 the appeal hereditament was a single-storey retail warehouse with a ground floor area of approximately 2,837m2 and a mezzanine floor with an area of 1,227m2. The building was constructed in the mid-1990’s and comprised a steel portal frame with brick cladding and a ribbed steel roof. To the front was a car park with spaces for 70 vehicles. At the rear of the building was a service yard shared with an adjoining retail warehouse.
-
The site is on the eastern fringe of Bedford, bounded to the north by the A4280, Goldington Road, a busy dual carriageway leading to the town centre, and to the south and east by open farm land. To the west is another retail warehouse and its associated car park. In 2010 access to both of these warehouses was along Perkins Road, which was then a cul de sac leading from Riverfield Drive and ending at the appeal hereditament. To the north of the site, on the other side of the A4280 is an estate of light industrial buildings and retail warehouses.
-
The appeal hereditament is entered in the 2010 Rating List as a retail warehouse and premises with a rateable value of £342,500. The valuation officer’s evidence to the VTE included a breakdown which showed that only £20,340 of that value was attributed to the mezzanine floor. No separate value was attributed to the 70 car parking spaces.
-
The land on which the hereditament now stands was formerly agricultural land and the site of the farm buildings of Bury Farm which had been acquired by Mr Wootton in about 1960 and was farmed by him together with other land to the north of Bedford. In 1988 he sold the buildings of Bury Farm together with some adjoining land for development as part of an out-of-town shopping area. Mr Wootton’s remaining agricultural land to the south and east of the hereditament comprises 53 acres of pasture known as Castle Mill Meadow lying between the A4280 and the river Great Ouse. Access to the land was originally through the Bury Farm farmstead but when...
To continue reading
Request your trial