Deeside Poultry Ltd v Assessor for Aberdeenshire
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 1967 |
| Date | 21 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 32. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Lord Hunter. Lord Fraser. Lord Avonside.
Valuation—Subjects—Agricultural lands and heritages—Intensive live-stock units for egg production—Whether "agricultural buildings"—Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 60), sec. 7 (2).
The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, enacts by sec. 7:—"(2) In this section “agricultural lands and heritages” means any lands and heritages used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only … but does not include any buildings thereon other than agricultural buildings …; “agricultural buildings” means buildings … occupied together with agricultural lands and heritages … and … used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon … (3) No agricultural lands and heritages shall be entered in the valuation roll …"
In two groups of appeals to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court the appellants craved that the subjects of appeal, which were described as "intensive livestock units", should not appear in the valuation roll, on the ground that they were agricultural buildings within the meaning of sec. 7 (2). In the first group the subjects consisted of battery henhouses used for intensive egg production, no land being used in the process except that on which the houses stood. The appellants contended that in interpreting the phrase "agricultural buildings" the structure of a building and the site on which it stood should be regarded as separate entities, that accordingly the subjects of appeal were "occupied together with agricultural lands and heritages" and that they otherwise satisfied the statutory definition. In the second group the subjects consisted of battery henhouses similarly used for intensive egg production but occupied together with land which was connected with the process of production, in respect, inter alia, that litter from the houses was applied to the land as manure, that the birds in the houses were fed, in part, on grain produced on the land, and that, at one stage of the process, cockerels were allowed for some weeks to range free on the land before being permanently confined in the houses, this free ranging being an essential element in their rearing.
Held that in neither group of appeals were the subjects "agricultural buildings" and accordingly that all had been rightly entered in the roll.
The Court were of opinion, with regard to the first group, that the interpretation of sec. 7 (2) of the 1956 Act adopted inPeddie v. Assessor for Roxburghshire, 1964 S. C. 353,was sound, that that case was rightly decided and that the suggested treatment of a building as separate from its site would be an anomalous and unnatural one; and, with regard to the second group, that none of the three matters relied on by the appellants justified the view that the subjects of appeal were used solely in connection with agricultural operations on the agricultural lands and heritages together with which they were occupied.
At meetings of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the county of Aberdeen to hear appeals against entries in the valuation roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1967 the Committee heard and determined a number of appeals concerning subjects described as "intensive livestock units", the nature and purpose of which are described in detail in the findings narrated below. The cases material to this report fell into two groups, hereinafter described as "Type 1 cases" and "Type 2 cases". In the former no land was used except that forming the actual sites of the subjects of appeal. In the latter the subjects were occupied together with land which was in the same occupation and which was connected with the process of egg production carried on in the subjects of appeal, the nature of the connection being summarised in the rubric and described in detail in the findings narrated below. This narrative quotes, so far as material, the findings, contentions and decisions in the appeals of (1) Deeside Poultry Limited, which is typical of the Type 1 cases, and (2) Charles Doig Scott, which is typical of the Type 2 cases.
Deeside Poultry Ltd. v. Assessor for Aberdeenshire.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the county of Aberdeen, Deeside Poultry Limited appealed against an entry in the valuation roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1967 in respect of subjects described as "Intensive Livestock Unit, Sunninghill, Crathes", of which they were shown as the proprietors and occupiers, with a gross annual value of £49 and a rateable value of £39. They craved, inter alia, that these should not be entered in the roll, on the ground that they were agricultural buildings within the meaning of section 7 (2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.1 The Committee
dismissed the appeal and at the request of the appellants stated a case for the opinion of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or held to be proved or within the knowledge of the Committee:—"(1) The above subject comprises one building used to house battery hens, which produce eggs for human consumption. The proprietors and occupiers of the building are Deeside Poultry Ltd. The shareholders in Deeside Poultry Ltd. are James Gill & Son Ltd., feed merchants, Aberdeen, and Messrs. Sunninghill Egg-Packing Station, Crathes. The latter own and operate an egg-packing station on land adjoining the site of the above building. The two shareholders have an equal shareholding in Deeside Poultry Ltd. (2) In 1963 Deeside Poultry Ltd. feued an area of one acre from Crathes Estate at a feu-duty of £15 per annum. The battery henhouse was then built on part of the land. The remainder of the land is being held for further battery henhouses and is not used in any way … (4) The building cost £2400 in 1963, including battery cages. The cost excluding the cages was £1200. It is agreed that the cages are not rateable. If the building was built today, the cost would be about £1,500, excluding the cages. (5) The hens are brought into the building when they are about 18 weeks old and they are placed in the battery cages, seven light hybrid birds being kept in each cage. The birds are bought direct from a pullet rearer. (6) When the birds are about 24 weeks old, they begin to lay eggs. They stay in the cages until they are about 80 weeks old. They lay eggs, therefore, for about 392 days and during this period each hen lays about 200 eggs. (7) At the end of the hens' productive life they are removed from the cages and are sold to a poultry slaughterer for human consumption. (8) During their period in the cages the hens are fed on compounded feed, which is delivered to the building in bags from Aberdeen by James Gill & Son Ltd. (9) Compounded feed is a mixture of various grains such as maize, wheat and miller's offals (grain husks from flour milling). The maize is used to provide the major source of energy for the hens and there is a larger proportion of maize than wheat in the feed. Maize is not grown in Great Britain and is wholly imported. The grain mixture amounts to about 75 per cent of the compounded feed. The remaining 25 per cent of the feed is a mixture of vitamins, proteins, minerals and trace elements. This part of the feed is either added to the grain mixture by the feed compounder according to his own very precise formula or a special “premix” prepared by one of the large national feed manufacturers is added to the grain mixture by the feed compounder. Without the maize to provide the energy it would not be possible to obtain maximum egg production from the hens. The 25 per cent admixture or “premix” is an essential for all poultry kept in battery henhouses. All the compounded feed has to be prepared to a very exact formula. (10) The building contains approximately 2000 birds. They eat just over 4 oz. of feed per day. The feed used amounts to approximately 17 cwt. of feed per thousand birds per week. The birds are never let out of the battery henhouse. (11) The building contains two double rows of cages, each row being three cages high. The cages are made of thick galvanized wire with a downward-sloping wire floor, which extends out at the front of the cages in an upward curve to catch the eggs laid by the birds. (12) In front of the cages there is a trough which contains the special feed for the birds and there is an additional trough for water. (13) Underneath the wire floor of each tier of cages there is a continuous tray which catches the droppings from the birds. The droppings are cleared from the tray twice a day by a scraper pulled along the tray. The droppings then fall into a cross channel sunk in the concrete floor of the building and are conveyed by a conveyor chain to the outside of the building and up an elevated conveyor, which terminates over an open cart. (14) The cart is removed and unloaded once a week. The droppings are spread on the grazings of the croft occupied by the man who looks after the birds. He is a self-employed agricultural contractor and he is retained on an annual contract to look after the birds. His work in the battery henhouse is supervised by the manager of the packing station. (15) He uses the droppings as a top dressing for his grazing land. The droppings are given away free for the taking, as Deeside Poultry Ltd. have found that nobody is prepared to pay anything for it … (20) After the birds are removed from the building for slaughter, the cages and interior of the building are carefully cleaned and sterilized. They are then left unused for about two to three weeks in order to break the life cycle of any bacteria which may be present. (21) The appellants do not rear hens themselves but buy them all from a rearer at the age of 18 weeks. (22) Once the hens are brought into the battery henhouse, they are kept there until they are sold for slaughter at the age of 80 weeks. (23) All their food is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastwood (W. & J. B.) Ltd v Herrod
...building". I am fortified in this view by the recent decision of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland (Deeside Poultry Ltd v. Aberdeenshire Assessor and Others, (1968 S.L.T, 110) in the Type 2 cases, some of which were in my view indistinguishable in their facts from the instant app......
-
Eastwood (W. & J. B.) Ltd v Herrod
...the results reached in Peddie v. Assessor for Roxburghshire 1964 S.C. 353 and in Deeside Poultry Limited v. Assessor for Aberdeenshire 1967 S.C. 328. 48I would dismiss the Lord Guest My Lords, 49The appeal subjects in the present case consist of 1150 acres of agricultural land and buildings......
-
Assessor for Angus v Dundee Society for the Blind
...344; Almond v. Birmingham CorporationELRELR, [1966] 2 Q. B. 395, [1968] A. C. 37; Deeside Poultry Ltd. v. Assessor for AberdeenshireSC, 1967 S. C. 328; J. Beveridge & Co. v. Assessor for Perth and KinrossSC, 1968 S. C. 6 4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 60. 7 1963 S. C. 73. 8 4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 6......
-
TWYGEN Ltd v ASSESSOR for TAYSIDE REGION
...The submission is that they are a market garden. As was recognised in the case of Deeside Poultry Ltd. v. Assessor for AberdeenshireSC 1967 S.C. 328 market gardens are in a special case in that a market garden may consist wholly of a building or buildings without any land other than their o......