Nicola Johnson v The Salvation Army Trustee Company

Under paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, ancillary office use is not limited to uses typical of other offices. The question is whether the particular use is subordinate, supplemental or incidental to office use. Private prayer or worship does not itself prevent exemption where it is ancillary to office use. Where a room is primarily used for ancillary office purposes, additional use for private worship does not necessarily alter its primary character or defeat exemption.

The Valuation Officer appealed a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 12 November 2025 concerning parts of the Salvation Army’s former headquarters. The Salvation Army is an organisation responsible for public religious worship and used most of the building as offices.

The dispute before the Upper Tribunal concerned a large hall used mainly for staff meetings and events, but also for prayer meetings and carol services, and a small room available for staff prayer and personal reflection. The question was whether those rooms were used for purposes ancillary to office use under paragraph 11(2)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The kitchen’s exemption was agreed on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Hall and Prayer Room were exempt under paragraph 11(2)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. On the parties’ agreed valuations, the rateable value was £1.
2. Meaning of ancillary use. “Ancillary” means subordinate, supplemental or incidental to office use. The exemption is not confined to generic or typical ancillary uses found in other offices. The statutory question is whether the use of the particular space is ancillary to office use of the hereditament. Paragraph 11(3), which gives examples of office purposes but none of ancillary uses, supports the conclusion that ancillary use is not a closed or generic category.
3. Private prayer and worship. A space used for private prayer or worship may qualify where that use is ancillary to office use. Its religious character does not itself disqualify it. Whether the Prayer Room was neutral or suitable for people of different faiths was immaterial; the evidence showed it was provided for staff well-being and used by staff.
4. Hall’s mixed use. The Hall was used much more for meetings, training and other staff activities than for prayer or worship. Its additional use for weekly prayer meetings and carol services did not change the nature of its primary use. Its size did not alter the conclusion on these facts, given the size of the building and the staff activities it accommodated.
5. Construction arguments. The Tribunal rejected the submission that paragraph 11(2)(b) should receive a special “reasonably liberal” construction. W & JB Eastwood Limited v Herrod (VO) concerned different statutory words and context; its approach did not govern this provision. The Tribunal also explained that Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc v Ricketts (VO) addressed office use, not the meaning of ancillary use. The Tribunal said this construction point was not essential to the respondent’s case.

The decision was final on all matters except costs. The Tribunal would give directions for costs submissions if liability could not be agreed.

1. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The Valuation Officer’s appeal was dismissed. The Hall and Prayer Room were exempt; the kitchen’s exemption was agreed on appeal.
2. Valuation Tribunal for England: By a decision dated 12 November 2025, the VTE held that the Hall and Prayer Room were used for purposes ancillary to office use. It did not find the kitchen exempt, based on the respondent’s concession. The citation for the VTE decision is not stated in the judgment.