Case No. UKUT-0237-(LC)-UTLC-No:-LC-2021-261

28.The appellant relies on the Tribunal’s decision in Bigwood, in which authorities relevant to the meaning of “appurtenance” in s.66(1)(b) were reviewed, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the VTE, on the facts of that case, that the private equestrian facilities of substantial scale at Bourne Hill House were domestic rather than non-domestic property.29.By contrast, the VTE decision for the hereditament found that the stables did not fall within s.66(1)(b) as an “appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with…” domestic property because the stables were in separate ownership from the Oast House. Mr Ormondroyd submitted that the VTE’s reliance on Land Registry entries was flawed since the actual conveyancing history cannot be determinative. s.66(1)(b) refers to an appurtenance “belonging to or enjoyed with” property falling with s.66(1)(a), so he submitted that the appurtenance does not have to belong to the property with which it is enjoyed. Nor does statute impose a requirement that the appurtenance be occupied with the property which it serves. If that were the case, the requirement that it be enjoyed with the domestic dwelling would be redundant. Insofar as it is necessary to consider occupation, at the material day the stables were jointly occupied by Jessica and Francesca Sternberg and their immediate family. Alternatively, the stables were occupied by the appellant as agent for them.30.Bigwood has provided recent guidance on appurtenance. As stated at [36]: “The question was whether the facilities came within sub-section 1(b) as being an “appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with” the house.” The VO had submitted that an appurtenance must fall within the curtilage of the living accommodation. Having reviewed authorities on the meaning of “curtilage” in listed building cases the Tribunal said at [54]:“…we do not consider it safe to substitute a different word used in a different context when considering whether the equestrian facilities in this case are appurtenances… for the purpose of rating. The better approach, as urged by the Court of Appeal in Clymo v Shell-Mex & B.P. Ltd [1963] RA 191 at 202 is that “the question to be answered is whether the land is properly to be described as an appurtenance in all the circumstances of the case.” In considering that question we take into account the nature and function of the buildings and other facilities themselves, their proximity to each other and the general layout of the site.”31.Mr Ormondroyd drew attention to the Tribunal’s statement at [55] regarding size: “…there is no rule that a large building, such as a barn or stable, cannot be appurtenant to a smaller building, such as a house”. At [59], having reviewed higher authority, it continued: “In general, therefore, stables are a category of building which falls readily within the scope of appurtenant property.” And at [64] it stated: “More important than the size of the facilities is their function of accommodating horses belonging to the owners of a private family home, which they keep for their own and their family’s pleasure including for competition. We do not regard that function as different in kind from stables attached to a house belonging to any other equestrian enthusiast and used by their family.”32.It was Mr Ormondroyd’s case that the same criteria should be applied in this case to find that the stables are domestic property. He accepted that ownership is a relevant consideration but submitted that it is not determinative or even particularly important. As the Tribunal noted in Bigwood at [50] in Attorney General ex rel Sutcliffe v Calderdale Borough Council (1982) 46 P & CR 399, a case concerning the curtilage of a listed building, Stephenson LJ identified three relevant factors in determining whether a structure was within the curtilage of an existing building, namely: