Non-domestic rating – Rating list – Alteration of list – Residential property with extensive gardens open to public for part of year – Appellant valuation officer entering property in non-domestic rating list – Entry deleted in response to proposal of respondent owners – Sections 64(8) and 66(1)(b) of Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Whether rateable as composite hereditament – Whether “yard, garden or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with” property in wholly domestic use notwithstanding element of commercial use – Appeal dismissed
The respondents owned an old vicarage in four acres of grounds, which they used primarily as a private dwelling. However, from April to October they opened the garden to the public on four afternoons a week. On those occasions, they operated a tearoom in one of the outbuildings and also sold plants; a grassed area was used as a car park and toilets were available for public use, although these had not been constructed for that purpose and had previously been used by the respondents’ employees. The respondents had obtained planning permission for the “continued use of land as a residential garden open to visiting members of the public”. In 2003, the appellant valuation officer entered the respondents’ premises in the non-domestic rating list as a “tea room garden and premises” with a rateable value of £950, which was effective from April 2000. The respondents made a proposal to the local valuation tribunal to delete that entry, which the tribunal upheld. The appellant appealed.
The appellant argued that the house, gardens and outbuildings formed a single composite hereditament within section 64(8) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, such that it fell to be included as a non-domestic hereditament in the non-domestic rating list. She contended that she had been entitled to mention in her rating list entry only those parts of the property that were said to have a non-domestic use and to omit reference to the domestic element; she maintained that this was standard practice for composite hereditaments. She submitted that the “tea room garden and premises” that were referred to in his entry did not fall within the definition of domestic property in section 66(1)(b) of the 1988 Act as a “yard, garden or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with” property in wholly domestic use since there was to be implied into that definition a qualification that the items there mentioned were wholly used for domestic purposes.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
If anything turned on the principal use of the garden and outbuildings, that principal use was as a private garden used for domestic purposes ancillary to the occupation of the old vicarage as a private home. The commercial use, although not de minimis, was a secondary and subsidiary use limited in both extent and time. Further, the entire garden and its outbuildings fell within the expression “a yard, garden or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with” the old vicarage, so as to be covered by the literal wording of section 66(1)(b). The old vicarage was used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation within the meaning of section 66(1)(a). No requirement could be implied into section 66(1)(b) that anything falling within it had, subject to the de minimis principle, to be solely ancillary to, or part and parcel of, the living accommodation. A court should always be wary of reading words into a taxing statute where the wording would be adverse to the taxpayer: Lewis v Christchurch Borough Council [1996] RA 229 applied. The words of section 66(1)(b) made perfectly good sense without reading in any words, and the words suggested by the appellant would create, rather than remove, problems. Accordingly, the garden, tearoom and other items with which the appeal was concerned all fell within section 66(1)(b) and were not prevented from doing so by reason of having some element of commercial use.
Per curiam: In the event of a composite hereditament, the entry that the appellant had made was still incorrect. The list had to show the composite hereditament and not merely some part of it.
David Forsdick (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue & Customs) appeared for the appellant; the first respondent appeared in person on behalf of the respondents.
Sally Dobson, barrister