The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered as a preliminary issue whether stables can be considered an appurtenance to an adjacent dwelling in separate ownership for rating purposes in The Propane Company Limited v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) [2022] UKUT 237 (LC).
The appellant, a family company, contended that buildings at Court Lodge Farm, Bodiam in East Sussex, comprising 20 stables in two blocks, a grooms’ mess room and hay store were used exclusively in connection with private equestrian pursuits carried on by the family and therefore, an appurtenance to the adjacent dwelling, the Oast House and to be treated as domestic property. The respondent contended that since the house was in separate ownership the stables were non-domestic property.
The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides that a hereditament is non-domestic if either it consists entirely of non-domestic property or it is a composite hereditament whereby only part is domestic property. Property is domestic if it is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation or it is a yard, garden, or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with such property.
The company owned Court Lodge Farm and the adjacent Old Place Farm but in the 1980s had transferred the Oast House and outbuildings to a family member. Within the grounds of the Oast House were a number of buildings, including the two stable blocks, the mess room and hay store. Stables 1, housing 10 loose boxes, tack room and grooms’ rest room was constructed in 1983. Stables 2, comprising 10 loose boxes, was built later in front of stables 1, but with no direct access to it, to cater for additional horses owned by the family member who lived at Old Place Farm. The courtyard area between stables 1, the mess room, a barn and a cloister in the Oast House garden could be closed off from the access track from Old Place Farm but there were no other barriers in the area.
When considering an “appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with” the question is whether the land is properly to be described as an appurtenance in all the circumstances taking into account the nature and function of the buildings and other facilities, their proximity and the general layout of the site (Corkish (VO) v Bigwood [2019] UKUT 191 (LC)).
The Upper Tribunal concluded that there was a clear and ungated connection between Stables 1 and the Oast House through the courtyard. On 1 April 2010, the mess room was used as a grooms’ rest room, tack room and hay store associated with both stable blocks. However, Stables 2 and the mess room beyond it were both outside the gated area and had no direct connection or functional link with Stables 1, the courtyard or the Oast House.
Stables 1 and the mess room were appurtenant to the Oast House; Stables 2 and the hay store were not. The separate ownership of the Oast House and Stables 1 had not diluted the functional link between the buildings. The appellant managed the affairs of one family, a member of which owned the Oast House: the separate ownerships were hand in glove.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator