Agricultural land — Agricultural buildings — Part of building used as farm shop — Sale of produce from farm — Whether shop agricultural building — Whether exempt from rating assessment
The appellant is the occupier of 185 acres of agricultural land at Lutton, Lincs, used for the production of fruit, wheat, vegetables and salads. On one of the parcels of land stands a building used as a cold store and pack house, and within this building is a room of 368 sq ft used for the retail sale of some of the produce and referred to in the appeal as a shop. The shop is open from August to about March and the only produce sold is that grown on the appellant’s land. The local valuation court decided that the shop was occupied for the purpose of an independent commercial enterprise and as such was not exempt from rating. The appellant appealed, contending that the “shop” was an agricultural building as defined by section 26(4)(a) of the General Rate Act 1967 as it was ” … occupied together with agricultural land … and … used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon …”. Following Eastwood (W & JB) Ltd v Herrod (VO) [1971] AC 160 and Corser (VO) v Gloucestershire Marketing Society Ltd (1980) 257 EG 825, it was only necessary to establish that all the produce sold in the shop came from the appellant’s farm and was sold in a building on that farm to show that the shop was an agricultural building exempt from rating.
Held The appeal was dismissed; the shop was not an agricultural building. The building in which the room used as the “shop” was located was an agricultural building occupied with agricultural land. However, the “shop” was a room that was not used solely in connection with agricultural operations on the land with which it was occupied. The selling was not casual and the room was devoted to this purpose. The purpose of the shop was the retail sale of produce and this was not the same purpose as the other activities which were normal agricultural operations. It mattered not that the only produce sold was that produced on the appellant’s farm. On the facts the sales could not be regarded as de minimis. The room was a “shop” and fell within the extended definition of “building” in section 1(2) of the Rating Act 1971. The assessment was £52 gross value, £29 rateable value.
Perth and Kinross Assessor v Scottish Milk Marketing Board
1963 SC 95 and
Moray and Nairn Assessor v Charles Meldrum & Sons
[1968] RA 562 applied.
Guy Roots (instructed by Epton & Co, of Lincoln) appeared for the appellant; and Depak Jaggi (of the department of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue), appeared for the respondent.
