Rating — Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Agricultural buildings – DIY livery stables forming part of farm – Valuation tribunal determining stables exempt from rating as agricultural buildings within Schedule 5 to 1988 Act – Whether used in connection with agricultural operations on land within para 3(a) of Schedule 5 – Whether used for keeping of livestock within para 5(1)(a) – Appeal allowed
The appellant valuation officer appealed from the determination of a valuation tribunal, in response to a proposal from the ratepayer, by which it altered the entry for a hereditament in the rating list from “stables”, at a rateable value of £3,500, to “manège” at a rateable value of £800. The hereditament comprised 55 acres of agricultural land, a farmhouse, stables and manège, all of which the ratepayer occupied under an agricultural tenancy. Of the 19 stables, 17 were used as DIY livery stables: in return for a payment, the ratepayer provided stabling and the use of the manège, while the owner remained responsible for the care of the horse. The horses generally grazed on 12 acres of the agricultural land during the summer months. Haylage produced from the agricultural land, if of sufficient quality, was used by the livery business and the horse manure and straw bedding accumulated from the stables was used to fertilise the land. Other than the manège, the ratepayer did not offer any designated riding areas on the farm although there were numerous bridleways in the vicinity. Around 80% of the total income from the farm came from the DIY livery business and without it the farm would not have been economically viable. It was accepted that the farmhouse, as a domestic property, was exempt from rating, as was the agricultural land by reason of para 2 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The tribunal determined that the stables were agricultural buildings and were likewise exempt under Schedule 5. It based its decision on para 5(1)(a) of the Schedule, holding that the stables were used to keep livestock within the meaning of that paragraph.
The appellant contended that the stables were not agricultural buildings within either para 5(1)(a) of Schedule 5, since the horses were not livestock, or para 3(a), since the stables were not used solely in connection with agricultural operations on the land.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
(1) The stables were not agricultural buildings within para 3(a) of Schedule 5. To fall within that paragraph, the use of the buildings had to be ancillary to the agricultural use of the land. That was not so in the instant case. The stables were used to provide a DIY livery service for horse owners, who kept them for recreational use. The use of the stables was not ancillary to the use of the agricultural land but was an end and purpose in itself. The use of the agricultural land at the farm served the purpose for which the buildings were used, not vice versa. Accordingly, the buildings were not used in connection with agricultural operations on the land within the meaning of paragraph 3(a): Whitsbury Farm & Stud Ltd v Hemens (Valuation Officer) [1988] 1 EGLR 159; [1988] 13 EG 43 and Gilmore (VO) v Baker-Carr [1962] 1 WLR 1165 applied.
(2) The stables were not used to keep livestock so as to constitute agricultural buildings within para 5(1)(a). “Livestock”, as defined in paragraph 8(5), included any mammal or bird kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of farming the land. The horses kept in the stables for recreational purposes were not livestock within the first part of that definition, nor, within the second part, were they kept for the purposes of the land. They were not kept for the purposes of grazing the pasture land consuming the haylage or providing manure for the land; all those functions were ancillary to the purpose for which the horses were kept, namely the recreational enjoyment of their owners: Whitsbury Farm and Belmont Farm Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1962) 13 P&CR 417 applied. The case was remitted to the tribunal to determine the rateable value of the hereditament as “stables”.
Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue & Customs) appeared for the appellant; the ratepayer did not respond to the appeal.
Sally Dobson, barrister
