[2025] UKUT 256 (LC)

We are in no doubt that the Property is occupied with agricultural land. The question to be resolved is whether it is used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other agricultural land. Mr Schroeder urged us to conclude that the Property is only open to the public for 4-5 weeks a year and therefore cannot be equated with a permanent form of activity. This argument amounts to an assertion of de minimis use for rating purposes. In other words, the selling of Christmas Trees, lights, decorations, the running of a grotto, and operation of a cafe for five weeks each year together with the storage of Christmas goods for other parts of the year was so slight a use that it could be considered de minimis.

This argument has been fully considered in the authorities, for example, Buxted, in which the Court of Appeal had to consider a case in which the ratepayer company occupied hereditaments consisting of a provender mill and a poultry processing factory, as well as 67 poultry rearing, breeding and feeding farms situated at various distances up to 120 miles away from that mill and factory. The rating authority, as one of the appellants, successfully argued before the Lands Tribunal that both the mill and factory were agricultural buildings within the meaning of the then rating legislation (s.2 of the Rating Act 1971). The Court of Appeal disagreed, pointing out that the mill, which operated 6 – 8% of total time to provide feedstuff and other material used in poultry farms, could not be regarded as a “de minimis” use for the purposes of applying the agricultural exemption in the legislation.

By analogy with the facts in this case, Mr Schroeder was unable to convince us that any part of the Property was used solely in connection with agricultural operations on the adjoining agricultural land. The sale of Christmas trees and related activities is not an agricultural use. The Christmas trees and other Christmas accessories are brought to the Property not for the purposes of agricultural operations but for the purposes of their disposal to the public – a commercial enterprise. The Property is not solely used in connection with agricultural operations, the position being analogous to a farm shop which acquires its produce from a nearby farm but the use of which is wholly retail. This was considered by Lord Reid in the case of Eastwood v Herrod relied on by Miss McArdle, which we consider to be an authority pertinent to the facts of this case.

Even if the Property were solely used for the sale of Christmas trees during the Christmas period and that use were the extent of the non-agricultural use, this would not amount to de minimis use as it would take no account of the activities necessary to set up a successful retail operation in the Christmas period let alone the substantial storage or “mothballing” of those facilities outside the Christmas season. Nor did the Property in our judgment in fact fall wholly back to an agricultural use at any part of the year, although there may be some transitory storage of agricultural equipment in part of the Property. In any event, Mr Schroeder himself contended that the non-agricultural use was “less than 10%” which is in excess of that which was held by the Court of Appeal in Buxted, which was later approved by the House of Lords. That case concerned a 6 – 8% non-agricultural use. In fact, the Christmas season use of the Property is likely to be close to the 9.6% non-agricultural use identified by Miss McArdle which could not be regarded as de minimis.

Finally, there is no evidence that the property is in such a poor state that it would be uneconomic to repair.

Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider that the Property falls within the agricultural exemption.