Bus depot — Non-domestic rate for unoccupied property — Hereditament constructed or adapted for use in course of trade or business — Routine work carried out in relatively small part of hereditament — Primary purpose was to park buses when not in use — Whether “qualifying industrial hereditament” — Whether overnight parking of buses qualifying as “storage” for exemption purposes — Magistrate finding that hereditament qualifying for exemption — Appeal allowed
The appellants, Barnet London Borough Council, preferred a complaint before the magistrate against the respondent, London Transport Property, that it was liable to pay non-domestic rates for a hereditament, viz Muswell Hill Bus Garage, Sydney Road, London N10, of £33,366 for the period April 1992 to March 1993. The magistrate found that: while some repairs and routine maintenance work were carried out in a relatively small part of the hereditament, the primary purpose of the parking area was for the accommodation of buses when not in use.
The respondent claimed exemption under the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989, which provided, inter alia, for exemption for a “qualifying industrial hereditament” where all buildings comprised in it were: constructed or adapted for use in the course of a trade or business, with the ancillary purposes of (a) the manufacture or repair of goods; and/or (b) “storage”. The magistrate held that the overnight accommodation of buses was “storage” and therefore the hereditament qualified for the exemption. He stated a case to the High Court. The appellants argued, inter alia, that “storage” did not include parking vehicles between periods of active use as part of normal daily operations, an approach supported in Stevens v Secretary of State for the Environment [1989] JPL 446.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. In approaching the question the starting point had to be consideration of the context in which the word “storage” was used in the regulations. The court accepted that it was necessary to consider the nature of the activity involved and to bear in mind the possibility that the context could require acceptance of the word storage as being applicable, although one would not normally describe the activity in that way. In the context of the regulations, however, there was nothing which required the court to view the nature of the activity involved in the present case as anything other than using the word “storage” in its ordinary and natural meaning.
2. The authorities cited to the court did not apply to the specific circumstances of the present case.
3. The nature of the activity involved was the overnight accommodation or parking of buses at the depot. The magistrate found that that was one of the primary purposes for which the hereditament had been constructed or adapted and the question was whether it was a use for the purpose of storage.
4. If the buses were being kept at the premises prior to being commissioned in to use, or if they were being kept at premises having been decommissioned and awaiting disposal, there would be force in the argument that they were being “stored”.
5. However, storage did not include the parking of buses when that was an integral part of their normal daily operation. They were in active use and it was a necessary incident of that use that the buses had to be parked overnight. They were not therefore being stored within the context of the regulations.
Christopher Lewsley (instructed by the solicitor to Barnet London Borough Council) appeared for the appellant; Guy Roots QC and Richard Glover (instructed by the solicitor to London Transport Property) appeared for the respondent.
