[2004] EWLands RA_14_2003 (13 July 2004)
	RA/14/2003

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

RATING – stable yard and premises forming part of a single hereditament including agricultural land – whether entire hereditament exempt from rates – rental evidence requiring considerable adjustments to accord with rateable value definition – whether that rendered assessment invalid – Local Government Finance Act 1988, Schedule 5, para 2(1)(a)

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISON OF THE
SEVERNSIDE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN
DAVID JOHN WITHERS
Appellant
and
PAUL ANDREW DALLING
Respondent
(Valuation Officer)

Re:
Stables and premises,
South View Farm,
82 Clevedon Road,
Tickenham, Cleveland,
North Somerset, BS21 6RD

Before: N J Rose FRICS

Sitting at Bristol County Court
On 4 May 2004

The following cases were referred to in argument:

Whitsbury Farm and Stud Ltd v Hemens (VO) [1987] RA 277
Martin v Hewett(VO) [2003] RA 275
Turner v Coleman (VO) [1992]RA 228
R v Nothamptonshire LVC ex parte Anglian Water Authority [1990] RA 93
Cakebread (VO) v Severn Trent Water Authority [1987] RA 290, CA

Appellant in person
Timothy Mould for the Respondent.

	DECISION ON PRELIMARY ISSUE
1.	This is an appeal by the ratepayer, Mr David John Withers, against the decision of the Severnside Valuation Tribunal (“the VT”) relating to the assessment in the 2000 rating list of stables and premises at South View Farm, 82 Clevedon Road, Tickenham, Cleveland, North Somerset BS21 6RD.
2.	By orders dated 15 March and 25 March 2004 the President ordered that the following questions should be determined as preliminary issues:
(i)	whether the hereditament is exempt;
(ii)	whether the entry in the 2000 rating list was validly made.
3.	At the hearing to dispose of these preliminary issues, Mr Withers appeared in person and Mr Timothy Mould of counsel appeared for the respondent valuation officer, Mr Paul Andrew Dalling FRICS, IRRV.
4.	The parties prepared an agreed statement of facts, from which I find the following facts.  Mr Withers purchased the appeal property in 1988.  Between then and June 2000 he used the stables, grazing and other land at the farm to run a “do-it-yourself” livery business for horses and ponies.  
5.	The land comprising South View Farm contains a house with garden, hardstanding and outbuildings; a barn; nine enclosed paddocks of various sizes, the southernmost two of which are separated from the rest by a small brook.  To the north of the brook the paddocks are crossed by an underground sewer; a private lane; a surfaced parking area to the rear of the barn accessed from the lane.  At the material day, 1 April 2000, the parking area had sited within it two grounded railway van bodies and a caravan; a stable yard next to the parking area; a bark-surfaced and floodlit manege (that is, a horse schooling and exercising area) situated immediately to the north of the stable yard and immediately to the east of the house and garden.  Access is via a gate from the parking area; a further horse exercising enclosure, with some floodlighting and a sand track around the edge, situated immediately to the south of the stable yard and parking area.
6.	On the material day the family house had been divided into three flats, with shared access and facilities.  Mr Withers occupied one of these flats, with members of his family in the others.  
7.	Also on the material day four of the loose boxes in the stables were used for stabling horses and ponies owned by Mr Withers’s family and friends.  There were in all 27 loose boxes and 27 separate storage areas, allowing each livery to be offered its own area for the storage of tack, feed, grooming equipment, rugs etc.  
8.	There was no entry relating to South View Farm in the 1990 rating list, or in the compiled 1995 rating list.  An entry relating to the farm was made in the 1995 rating list with effect from 30 October 1997.  This entry showed the hereditament as “stables and premises” and showed a rateable value of £10,300 as being attributable to the hereditament so described with effect from 30 October 1997.  This entry did not indicate either that the hereditament was a composite hereditament or that it was a partially exempt hereditament.
9.	Mr Withers made a proposal to alter the rating list in respect of this entry, and his appeal was heard by the VT on 16 June 1999.  Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Mr Dalling had amended the entry in the rating list to show a reduced rateable value of £5,970, and at the VT hearing he sought only to support a rateable value of £4,950.
10.	The VT gave its written decision on 12 July 1999, allowing the appeal to the extent of reducing the rateable value to the figure of £4,950 which Mr Dalling had sought at the hearing.  When the 1995 rating list was altered to carry the VT’s decision into effect, the description was also altered from “stables and premises” to merely “stables”.  This alteration had not been ordered by the VT.
11.	An entry relating to South View Farm was made in the compiled 2000 rating list.  It described the hereditament as:
“Stables, South View Farm, 82 Clevedon Road, Tickenham, Clevedon, Avon BS21 6 RD” 
and showed a rateable value of £4,950 as being attributable to the hereditament so described with effect from 1 April 2000.  The entry did not indicate either that the hereditament was a composite hereditament or that it was a partially exempt hereditament.  It is, however, agreed that the hereditament was in fact a composite hereditament.  
12.	On 7 May 2000 Mr Withers made a proposal to alter the 2000 rating list.  He proposed that the rateable value be reduced to nil with effect from 1 April 2000.  His appeal was heard by the VT on 3 February 2003.  The VT gave its written decision on 26 February 2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding the assessment.  The present appeal is against that decision.
13.	There is no issue as to the liability to non-domestic rating of the house, garden, hard standing and outbuildings associated with the house, the lane, barn or paddocks: Mr Dalling does not seek to rate any of these.  The legal issues in this appeal concern only the liability to non-domestic rating of the stable yard, the parking area next to the stable yard, the manege and the horse exercising enclosure.  Mr Dalling seeks to rate all of these.
14.	Mr Withers’s principal case is that the appeal property is exempt by virtue of para 1 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”).  So far as is relevant, this provides:
“1.	A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists any of the following – 
(a)	agricultural land;
(b)	agricultural buildings;
2.	(1)	Agricultural land is –
	(a)	land used as arable, meadow or pasture ground only … 
(e)	land occupied with, and used solely in connection with the use of, a building which (or buildings each of which) is an agricultural building by virtue of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 or 7 below.
(2)	But agricultural land does not include -
(a)	land occupied together with a house as a park, 
(b)	gardens (other than market gardens),
(c)	pleasure grounds,
(d)	land used mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation, or
(e)	land used as a racecourse.”
15.	Mr Withers laid emphasis on the agreed fact that the entire landholding at South View Farm comprised a single hereditament.  It was agreed that the nine paddocks which, Mr Withers said, accounted for some 90% of the entire area, consisted of agricultural land within paragraph 2(1)(a).  That land was used for grazing horses and, as such, was a necessary part of the do-it-yourself livery business that was carried on at the farm.  Mr Withers contended that, so long as part of the hereditament consisted of agricultural land or agricultural buildings for the purposes of Schedule 5, the entirety was exempt.
16.	I am unable to accept that contention.  Paragraph 1 does not provide that the whole hereditament is exempt if part of it consists of agricultural land or buildings.  To the contrary, it clearly states that such exemption only applies to the extent that the hereditament consists of such elements.  It is agreed that the disputed parts of the hereditament do not so consist, since they are used mainly or exclusively for recreational purposes.  It follows, in my judgment, that the stable yard, the adjoining parking area, the manege and the horse exercising enclosure are rateable. 
17.	At one stage Mr Withers also argued for exemption on the grounds that the disputed areas constituted an agricultural building (Schedule 5, paras 3 and 4); that the hereditament consisted of a sewer or an accessory belonging to a sewer (Schedule 5, para 13(1)) and that the disputed areas were domestic property within the meaning of s.66(1) of the 1988 Act.  All three submissions were, however, withdrawn during the course of the proceedings and I therefore need not deal with them in this decision.  
18.	In his statement of case Mr Withers disputed the validity of the entry in the 2000 list on the grounds that the description in the list did not accurately describe the extent of the hereditament. He made it clear in his opening statement, however, that he was not pursuing that ground of appeal.  His case on validity was based on a letter from the Valuation Officer, Western dated 2 October 2002 which stated:
“In seeking to establish this rental value/rating assessment we would initially look for rental evidence.  The only evidence of which I am aware within this office’s area is shown as items 1-7 on the enclosed draft schedule VO/2.  Also shown is one rent-item 8 from our Group’s area.  Items 1-7 are “lettings” of individual stables to horse owners by the proprietors of livery stables.  Item 8 is the letting of a whole livery yard by a landlord to a stables proprietor.  So far as the items 1-7 are concerned these would require considerable adjustment to bring them into accord with the statutory definition of rateable value.  To do this satisfactorily is difficult and somewhat subjective.  However it seems to me that even if one were to deduct the orthodox 12.5% for repairs and building insurance; £70 (i.e. say £150 RV at 40p in pound) for general rates; £50 for water and electricity then one would still be left with considerably more than the £150 per stable upon which we have based your assessment.  Turning to item 8 this is a proper “rent” and points to about £400/stable and £25/m2 on the store – again considerably more than the basis of £150/stable and £6/m2 on the store adopted for your assessment.
The other aspect to rating valuation, as we discussed, is the “tone of the list”.  This is something which is developed for each rating list and is, generally speaking, that level of values which has been determined by tribunals and/or agreed by ratepayers and professional agents and/or accepted (i.e. not appealed) by ratepayers and/or professional agents.  In this connection please see enclosed a schedule (VO/3) showing all stables in the North Somerset District Council area.  You will see that apart from your own and one other they are all accepted (i.e. not appealed assessments).  The tone of list values demonstrated by this supports the basis of your assessment at £150/stable.
I have also attached a schedule showing all stables assessments in my office area which have been the subject of a settled appeal (VO/4 enclosed).  The tone of list demonstrated by these two schedules supports the basis of £150/stable adopted for your assessment.  They would also more than support the £6/m2 adopted on the “storage” building.”
19.	Mr Withers submitted that the fact that “considerable adjustments” needed to be made to the rental evidence showed that the valuation officer had not followed the relevant statutory requirements when he prepared his valuation of the appeal property.  Again, that submission is in my view unfounded.  It is clear that, when preparing his valuation, the valuation officer looked both at rental evidence and at other assessments, in so far as they demonstrated a “tone of the list”.  There is, in my judgment, absolutely nothing wrong with this approach to rating valuation.  If Mr Withers thinks that the valuation is inaccurate, the appropriate remedy is to propose an alteration in the assessment, not its deletion from the rating list.  
20.	I therefore hold that the appeal property is not exempt from rates and that the entry in the 2000 list was validly made. 
21.	It is now necessary for directions to be made for the determination of the substantive appeal.  It is to be hoped that the appropriate directions can be the subject of discussion and agreement between the parties, but in default of such agreement I will make the necessary order. 
22.	At the hearing I invited submissions on costs from the parties.  Mr Mould submitted that costs should follow the event but added that, in view of the limited size of the assessment, Mr Dalling would not seek costs of more than £1,000.  Mr Withers indicated that he considered this suggestion to be fair.  Accordingly, Mr Withers will pay the costs incurred by Mr Dalling in relation to the preliminary issues.  In default of agreement such costs are to be the subject of detailed assessment by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal on the standard basis, but are not to exceed £1,000.
		Dated 13 July 2004

		N J Rose FRICS