[2024] UKUT 304 (LC)

The VO’s primary case is that the whole Farm is a single hereditament and a single unit of assessment. The part of the Farm operated by the partners for the purposes of the agricultural elements of their business is exempt from non-domestic rates so the only part that falls to be assessed is the area used for the various equestrian purposes.

The VO’s alternative case is that the two equestrian yards form a single hereditament which is distinct from the remainder of the Farm and is in the rateable occupation of the partners. She says that if her primary case is rejected the two yards nevertheless form a single geographical unit used for a separate purpose from the rest of the Farm and that there is no basis for treating them as more than one hereditament.

The respondent’s case is that she was in rateable occupation of a separate hereditament comprising the licenced yard alone and that it should appear in the rating list with its own assessment. She argues that as a licenced racehorse trainer she alone had actual and exclusive use of the licenced yard. That use was beneficial for her purposes of training racehorses and that in demonstrating security of tenure for a minimum of 12 months, the occupation was not transient. In addition, she could have neither actual nor beneficial occupation of the point-to-point yard as she was prohibited by BHA rules from doing so.

Mr Marriott also submitted that in any event the two yards were in different modes or categories of occupation and that the activities in each were so distinct that separate assessments were warranted. He said that the adoption by the Valuation Office of a different valuation scheme for licenced and point-to-point yards demonstrated that the VO distinguished between the two types of yard and it was therefore appropriate to consider the yards in this case to be in different modes or categories of occupation and therefore separate hereditaments.

Mr Marriott also provided details of other establishments where licenced and point to point yards or other equestrian activities were run on the same premises, but separate assessments had been agreed. These included the following: