Robert Schroeder v Lucy Dyer (Valuation Officer)

Buildings occupied with agricultural land qualify for rating exemption only where they are used solely in connection with agricultural operations. Retail sales of Christmas trees, decorations and related goods are commercial uses, even where the goods originate from the occupier’s agricultural enterprise.

Seasonal use is not assessed merely by reference to the days on which premises are open to the public. Preparatory activity, storage and the continued availability of retail facilities may form part of the non-agricultural use. A use occupying 6–8% of the relevant period was not de minimis, and use approaching 9.6% could not qualify as de minimis.

The appellant operated a Christmas tree farm comprising agricultural land, growing areas, buildings, retail and display areas, a café, grotto and associated storage. The Valuation Officer entered part of the property in the 2017 Rating List as “Warehouse and Premises”.

The appellant challenged the entry on the basis that the property was exempt agricultural property under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Valuation Tribunal for England upheld the Valuation Officer’s decision. The appeal concerned whether the property should be deleted from the rating list. It did not extend to a challenge to rateable value.

The central issue was whether the buildings were used solely in connection with agricultural operations, notwithstanding their seasonal use for Christmas sales and related commercial activities.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Valuation Tribunal for England had reached the correct conclusion on agricultural exemption, and it was unnecessary for it to determine the rateable value.
2. Scope of the appeal. The appellant’s proposal was correctly construed as an application to delete the property from the rating list. Under the approach stated in Nelson Plant Hire Ltd v Bunyan (VO), the scope of an appeal depends on the ground or grounds set out in the proposal. The valuation itself was therefore outside the scope of this appeal.
3. Agricultural exemption. The property was occupied with agricultural land, but that was insufficient. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 required use solely in connection with agricultural operations. The sale of Christmas trees, lights, decorations and other goods, together with the grotto and café, was commercial rather than agricultural use. The position was analogous to a farm shop whose use was wholly retail. The reasoning in W & JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO) was pertinent: agricultural buildings must be subsidiary or ancillary to agricultural operations, rather than merely a small part of the enterprise.
4. De minimis use. The relevant use included the activities required to establish the Christmas retail operation and the substantial storage or mothballing of Christmas stock and facilities outside the selling period. The property did not wholly revert to agricultural use during the year. In any event, the appellant’s own estimate of less than 10% exceeded the 6–8% non-agricultural use held insufficiently small in Hambleton District Council v Buxted Poultry. The use could not therefore be treated as de minimis.
5. There was no evidence that the property was in such poor condition that it would be uneconomic to repair.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal on 13 August 2025.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 10 June 2024, upheld the Valuation Officer’s decision that part of the property was not exempt from rating.