The Propane Company Limited v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer)

For rating purposes, whether buildings are an appurtenance enjoyed with living accommodation under section 66(1)(b) depends on their nature and function, proximity, and the general layout of the site. Ownership is relevant but not determinative. Separate ownership does not prevent property from being an appurtenance where the ownership arrangements have not diluted its established functional connection with the dwelling.

Each building must be assessed individually. Historic and continuing private use, physical connection and layout may establish an appurtenant relationship, while a separate building without a direct or obvious functional link to the dwelling will remain non-domestic property.

The appellant challenged a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England concerning the rating assessment of stables and associated premises at Court Lodge Farm. The tribunal had reduced the rateable value but held that the stables could not be domestic appurtenances of the adjacent Oast House because they were separately owned.

The Upper Tribunal determined a preliminary issue: whether any part of the non-domestic hereditament was domestic property under section 66(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The stables accommodated horses used by members of one family for private equestrian pursuits. The Oast House and the relevant buildings had separate legal ownership, although the ownership arrangements remained closely connected within the family.

The central issue was whether the individual stable buildings and associated rooms were appurtenances enjoyed with the Oast House.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. Stables 1 and the Mess room were appurtenances to the Oast House and were domestic property. Stables 2 and the Hay store were not appurtenances and remained non-domestic property with the arena.
2. The statutory question under section 66(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was whether the property was an appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with living accommodation. It was not necessary to determine whether the buildings lay within the dwelling’s curtilage. Applying Corkish (VO) v Bigwood [2019] UKUT 191 (LC), the relevant considerations were the buildings’ nature and function, their proximity, and the site’s general layout.
3. Stables 1 had historically and continuously served the occupier of the Oast House. Its open physical connection through the courtyard to the house reinforced that functional relationship. The Mess room, located in the same courtyard, was used in connection with the stables and was likewise appurtenant.
4. Stables 2 stood outside the gated courtyard and had no direct connection with Stables 1, the courtyard or the Oast House. The Hay store lay beyond Stables 2 and had no obvious functional link with the house. Neither building satisfied the appurtenance inquiry.
5. Separate ownership did not displace the conclusion concerning Stables 1 and the Mess room. The statutory alternatives of property “belonging to” or “enjoyed with” living accommodation allowed separate ownership. On the facts, the separate ownerships were closely connected and had not diluted the established functional link between Stables 1 and the Oast House.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the appeal in part and held that Stables 1 and the Mess room were domestic property, while Stables 2 and the Hay store were non-domestic property.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: allowed the rating appeal in part by reducing the rateable value, but held that the stables could not be domestic appurtenances of the separately owned Oast House.