Appeal hereditament used for supply of feed to farms – Farms occupied by a body corporate and member companies – Feed also supplied to non-member companies – Whether appeal hereditament liable to be rated – Whether joint occupation of farms by member companies and body corporate required – Whether appeal hereditament used solely for supply of feed to farms – Rating Act 1971 section 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(3) – Court of Appeal deleting entry on ratings list
The appeal hereditament comprised a provender mill, offices and store situated on a former airfield at Eldmire, Dalton, near Thirsk in North Yorkshire. The mill was used for the production of poultry feed for poultry farms occupied by a body corporate, Buxted Chicken Ltd (Buxted) and its member companies. It also supplied feed to non-member companies. Buxted claimed that the mill was an agricultural building and accordingly exempt from rating under section 26(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, whereby no agricultural land or building was liable to be rated or included in any valuation list or in any rate. By section 4(2) of the Rating Act 1971 “…a building … is also an agricultural building … if (a) it is used in connection with the operations carried on in one or more building which, being used for the keeping and breeding of livestock, … and (b) it is occupied … (i) by a body corporate any of whose members are, or are together with the body, the occupiers of that building or those buildings … (3) A building [so] used … is not an agricultural building . . . unless that use … is its sole use”.
On 28 July 1995 the North Yorkshire Valuation Tribunal merged the entries in the ratings list for the mill, offices and store and deleted the resultant entry on the ground that it constituted agricultural buildings. The valuation officer appealed. Two main issues arose. In relation to the first issue, the Lands Tribunal found that each of the poultry farms occupied by single member companies failed to satisfy section 4(2)(b)(i) of the 1971 Act, which, in the opinion of the tribunal, required joint occupation by member companies of the agricultural buildings relating to the use of the mill. On the second issue, the Lands Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to ascertain whether the time spent producing feed for non-member companies amounted to a substantial time, and, accordingly, it was to be concluded that the mill was not used solely in connection with the operation carried on in the poultry farms as required by section 4(3). Buxted appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed and the valuation of the North Yorkshire Valuation Tribunal restored.
1. For the purposes of section 4(2)(b)(i) it was not necessary for a livestock building that was not occupied by the body corporate to be occupied jointly by its members. It was sufficient that each livestock building was occupied by a single member company: Prior (VO) v Sovereign Chicken Ltd [1984] 1 EGLR 152 considered. It was also unnecessary for the purposes of section 4(2)(b)(i) that a livestock building occupied by a body corporate should also be occupied by a member company. Accordingly, the Lands Tribunal had erred in holding that the occupations of the mill and poultry farms were all single occupations and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of section 4(2)(b)(i).
2. The Lands Tribunal was entitled to draw inferences from the history of use in order to decide whether the use of an ancillary building by a non-member company meant that its “sole use” did not accord with section 4(3). A common-sense inference could be made that the use of the mill for producing food for non-member companies did not constitute a substantial part of the time during which the mill was used. Therefore, it could be concluded that the mill’s sole use was in connection with the operation carried on in the poultry farms by the body corporate and its members: Hambleton District Council v Buxted Poultry Ltd [1992] 1 EGLR 179 considered.
Simon Berry QC (instructed by Stephens & Scown, of Exeter) appeared for the appellant; David Holgate QC (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the respondent valuation officer.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
