Turkey farms — One hereditament used for manufacture of pelleted feed — All feed consumed on respondents’ farms — Local valuation court deciding hereditament exempt from rating — Whether buildings “occupied together with” other buildings — Whether exempt from rating
The respondent company occupies a hereditament known as Bawsey Mill in Norfolk and used for the production of pelleted feed. The feed is fed to turnkeys kept on some 29 farms owned, occupied or used by the company. The farm nearest to the mill is nine miles; the furthest is 74 miles. The mill consists of a main building, other smaller buildings and four grain silos all on a site of 1.3 hectares. The 29 farms include breeder growing farms, where potential breeder turkeys are reared; breeder farms, where egg hatching takes place; a hatchery; and fattening farms.
The company has two plants for the slaughter and processing of turkeys. Some of the breeder farms belong to individual farmers who keep birds under contract. All the farms and most of the processing plants enjoy agricultural exemption. The appeal hereditament supplies 70% of the company’s feed requirements and over 90% goes to the fattening farms.
The company proposed that the mill should be regarded as an agricultural building, and be exempt from rating, by virtue of section 2(1)(b) of the Rating Act 1971. By section 26(4) of the Rating Act 1967 “agricultural buildings” are buildings “… occupied together with agricultural land … and … used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon”. The meaning of agricultural buildings was extended by section 2(1) of the Rating Act 1971 to include “(a) any building used for the keeping or breeding of livestock; and (b) any building … which is occupied together with one or more buildings falling within paragraph (a) above and is used in connection with the operations carried on in that building or buildings.”
The local valuation court decided the mill should be exempt; on appeal the issue was whether the appeal hereditament was “occupied together with” the livestock buildings on all 29 farms.
Held On the facts, the appeal hereditament was occupied together with the livestock buildings on all 29 farms; it was therefore an agricultural building within section 2(1) of the Rating Act 1971 and entitled to be exempt from rates. The test was not one of geography; the words “together with” meant “occupied at the same time”: see Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (5th ed).
Hillesbog Sugar Beet Breeding Co v Wilkes (VO)
(1971) 17 RRC 275 considered.
David Mole (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared for the appellant valuation officer; and Guy Roots (instructed by Daynes, Hill & Perks, of Norwich) appeared for the respondent company.
