![[2024] UKUT 304 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Mode or category of occupation
Mode or category of occupation
It is necessary to deal with the second limb of Mr Marriott’s argument that the uses of the two yards are distinct to the extent that they constitute different modes or categories of occupation. The Tribunal considered a similar argument in Hughes (VO) v Exeter City Council [2020] UKUT 7 (LC) regarding different types of museums and concluded at paragraph 205 that:
‘The mode or category of occupation as defined by the VTE and the Respondent is itself of a specialised nature and it is necessary to be prudent about introducing further subdivisions. There is a risk of ending up with highly specialised, relatively small groupings of property and the grounds upon which the subdivision is advanced may not be sufficiently clear or coherent. The factors put forward by Mr Hughes at [202] (i), (iii) and (iv) above may be found in properties belonging to each of the two sub-categories for which he contends. In our judgment it is more realistic and preferable for the purpose of applying the rating hypothesis in this appeal to recognise that there is a broader, single mode or category containing a range of properties rather than claiming that there are narrower categories which are self-contained.’
I take the view that the yards are used for the same purpose, the training and stabling of horses. The adoption by the Valuation Officer of different approaches to valuation for licenced and point-to-point boxes is immaterial; they are in the same mode or category of occupation. It was not proposed that the equestrian yards should be separated from the remainder of the composite hereditament on the grounds that they are in a distinct category from agriculture. If her primary argument was accepted, and the whole of the property was found to be in single occupation, the VO did not herself suggest that separate entries for agricultural and equestrian areas were required.
Mr Marriott also supplied examples of other establishments which he said were occupied on the same or similar basis to the Farm in this case. The information provided lacked the detail required for a proper comparison to be made but in any case, the correct approach for the Tribunal in this instance is to apply the law to the facts of this case as it finds them. The practice of the VO in other selected cases is not relevant to that exercise.