Rating – Riverside garden with summerhouse – Property entered in rating list – Whether improperly so entered – Whether amounting to “domestic property” within section 66(1) of Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Appeal dismissed
The respondent valuation officer entered an area of open riverside land, which the appellant co-owned with three others, into the rating list as “mooring and premises” with a rateable value of £1,250. The land lay beside the River Thames at Goring, near Reading, and had a 50ft river frontage, with a slipway for the use of skiffs and canoes. There was also a small summerhouse, in which were stored a table and chairs, kettle, crockery and cutlery, fridge and microwave, and a small storage shed. The property had an electricity supply but no water supply or sewerage and it could not be lived in full-time. The appellant and the other co-owners lived some distance from the property and used it for recreation.
The appellant appealed, contending that the land was properly characterised as a domestic property, within section 66(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and was therefore not rateable. He argued that it fell within section 66(1)(b) as a garden or other appurtenance enjoyed with living accommodation, namely the homes of the four co-owners. The valuation tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused to delete the entry, but amended the description to “river garden and premises”. The tribunal took the view that the land was not “enjoyed with” the co-owners’ living accommodation since it was entirely separate from it.
On a further appeal, the appellant raised a new argument that the summerhouse, although not a dwelling, was none the less “living accommodation” within section 66(1)(a), that the garden was enjoyed with it so as to fall within section 66(1)(b), and that the storage shed was “private storage premises used wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use” within section 66(1)(d).
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The summerhouse could not properly be described as living accommodation. Its principal use was as storage. Although it could be used for shelter, it was not used in any significant way for activities that would constitute the principal activities in living accommodation. Moreover, the summerhouse was part of a larger unit of occupation and was ancillary to the open area of the riverside garden. The use of the summerhouse was simply part of the recreational use of the river garden: Lewis v Christchurch Borough Council [1996] RA 229 distinguished. Consequently, the summerhouse did not fall within section 66(1)(a) and the garden did not fall within section 66(1)(b).
Further, neither the summerhouse nor the shed came within section 66(1)(d). Premises used for storing articles of a domestic nature did not fall within para (d) where they were part of a hereditament that was otherwise non-domestic, and where the storage use was ancillary to the non-domestic use: Turner v Coleman (VO) [1992] RA 228 distinguished. The reality was that the property consisted of a riverside garden that was used for recreational purposes, with the use of the summerhouse being ancillary to that recreational use.
The appellant appeared in person; Galina Ward (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue & Customs) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
