England and Wales Lands Tribunal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Valuation Officer v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2005] EWLands RA_62_2004 (03 November 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2005/RA_62_2004.html
Cite as: [2006] RA 1, [2005] EWLands RA_62_2004

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Valuation Officer v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2005] EWLands RA_62_2004 (03 November 2005)

RA/62/2004

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

RATING – exemption – places of public religious worship etc – Mormon Temple and other buildings in extensive grounds – held building containing chapel and chapel hall exempt but Temple and buildings used for missionary training, accommodation for visiting Church members and for other purposes not exempt – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Schedule 5 paragraph 11

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE

LANCASHIRE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN JAMES GALLAGHER Appellant

(Valuation Officer)

and

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF Respondent

LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Re: Temple, Training Centre and Premises.

Temple Way,

Hartwood Green,

Chorley,

Lancs. PR6 7EQ

Before: The President

Sitting at Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW

on 12, 13 and 14 September 2005

Daniel Kolinsky instructed by Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the appellant

Clive Newberry QC instructed by Devonshires for the respondent

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005

The following cases are referred to in this decision:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (VO) [1962] 1 WLR 1091; [1964] AC 420

Ludkin (VO) v Trustees of Anjuman-e-Islhahul Muslimeen of UK [1988] RA 209

Glenwright (VO) and Durham City Council v St Nicholas Church Parochial Council [1988] RA 1

Trustees of West London Mission of the Methodist Church v Holborn Borough Council (1958) 3 RRC 86

Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO) [1975] RA 1

Church House Trustees v Dimmick (VO) (1959) 52 R & IT 606

Swansea City Council v Edwards (VO) and Trustees of Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church [1977] RA 209

Gillett (VO) v North West London Communal Mikvah [1982] RA 346

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Introduction

This appeal from the Lancashire Valuation Tribunal concerns the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its associated buildings that stand on a site of approximately 15 acres at Temple Way, Chorley, Lancashire. The development of the site was carried out between 1994 and 1998, and, following its completion, the valuation officer altered the 1995 rating list for the Borough of Chorley to show the hereditament under the description "Temple, Training Centre and Premises" at a rateable value of £1,200,000 with an effective date of 1 June 1998. In addition to the Temple itself the buildings consist of the Stake Centre (a large chapel and hall), the Missionary Training Centre, the Patrons Services Building, the Grounds Building, the Patrons Accommodation and the Temple Missionaries Accommodation. The VO excluded from the assessment the Stake Centre (on the basis that it was exempt from rating as a place of public religious worship under paragraph 11(1)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1988), the Temple Missionaries Accommodation, which was subject to council tax, and two flats, one in the Missionary Training Centre and one in the Patrons Accommodation, each of which was also subject to council tax.

On 5 March 2001 the Church made a proposal to alter the rating list. Its contention as advanced before the valuation tribunal in the appeal that followed was that all the buildings, other than those that were assessed to council tax, were exempt from rating under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the 1988 Act and that the rateable value ascribed to the hereditament was in any event excessive.

Paragraph 11 provides as follows:

"Places of religious worship etc

11 (1) A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists of any of the following –

(a) a place of public religious worship which belongs to the Church of England or the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act 1914) or is for the time being certified as required by law as a place of religious worship;

(b) a church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with a place falling within paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in that place.

(2) A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it is occupied by an organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in a place falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, and –

(a) is used for carrying out administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in such a place; or

(b) is used as an office or for office purposes, or for purposes ancillary to its use as an office or for office purposes.

(3) In this paragraph 'office purposes' include administration, clerical work and handling money; and 'clerical work' includes writing, bookkeeping, sorting papers or information, filing, typing, duplicating, calculating (by whatever means), drawing and the editorial preparation of matter for publication.

The Chorley Temple is the second Mormon temple to be built in this country. The first, at East Grinstead (known as the London Temple), was completed in 1959. The two temples are the same in character and function. In Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (VO) [1964] AC 420 the House of Lords rejected the Church's contention that the London Temple was exempt from rating as a place of public religious worship under the predecessor provision of paragraph 11, section 7 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955. Section 7(2) provided as follows:

"7 (2) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say, –

(a) places of public religious worship which belong to the Church of England or to the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act, 1914), or which are for the time being certified as required by law as places of religious worship, and

(b) any church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with any such place of public religious worship, and so used for the purposes of the organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in that place…"

The Court of Appeal, allowing the VO's appeal from the decision of the Lands Tribunal, had rejected the Church's contention that the Temple fell under paragraph (a), or alternatively paragraph (b), of the subsection. The contention in relation to paragraph (b) was not pursued in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords Lord Evershed while not dissenting from the conclusion of the majority, thought that there was a strong case for construing "public religious worship" to mean congregational worship and thus including worship in the Temple, even though the Temple was not open to the general public. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said (at 435):

"… In my view the conception of public religious worship involves the coming together for corporate worship of a congregation or meeting or assembly of people, but I think that it further involves that the worship is in a place which is open to all properly disposed persons who wish to be present."

Lord Pearce, giving the leading judgment, with which Lord Reid, Lord Morris and Lord Devlin concurred, said of the Temple (at 436):

"It is not open to the public or even to every Mormon, but only to a 'Mormon of good standing.' Such a person is defined in the agreed statement of facts as 'one whose spiritual and secular qualities entitled him, in the view of a local Bishop, to a 'Recommend' to a President, who, if in turn satisfied that the holder is entitled by his personal qualities to the appellation of 'Mormon of good standing,' indorses the 'Recommend.' Until that indorsement is appended, the recipient has no right to enter the Temple."

At 440-1 Lord Pearce expressed his conclusions as follows:

"I find it impossible, therefore, to hold that the words 'places of public religious worship' includes places which, though from the worshippers' point of view they were public as opposed to domestic, yet in the more ordinary sense were not public since the public was excluded…

Furthermore, it is less likely on general grounds that Parliament intended to give exemption to religious services that exclude the public, since exemptions from rating, though not necessarily consistent, show a general pattern of intention to benefit those activities which are for the good of the general public. All religious services that open their doors to the public may, in an age of religious tolerance, claim to perform some spiritual service to the general public. Jones v Mersey Docks 'exploded' the supposition on which many earlier cases proceeded that lands held for public purposes were not rateable (see per Lord Herschell L.C. in London County Council v Erith Parish (Churchwardens etc.) and Dartford Union Assessment Committee. Nevertheless, in considering ambiguous words in a statute granting exemption from rating one cannot wholly disregard what must have weighed with the legislators, namely, considerations of fairness and public benefit.

I do not find anything unreasonable in denying to the Mormon Church the public benefit of an exemption of its Temple, to which it will not allow the public to have access for worship, while according such exemption to its many chapels which, like those of other denominations, do admit the public.

I agree, therefore, with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and I would dismiss the appeal."

Notwithstanding the Court of Appeal's decision in Henning that the East Grinstead Temple was not exempt under section 7(2)(b), the valuation tribunal in its decision of 21 October 2004 held that the Temple in the present case was exempt under paragraph 11(1)(b) as a building similar to a church hall or chapel hall. It said that the Lands Tribunal's decision in a case called Ludkin (VO) v Trustees of Anjuman-e-Islhahul Muslimeen of UK [1988] RA 209 demonstrated that the interpretation of the phrase "similar building" had changed since the decision in Henning and that the definition had evolved since 1963. The VT went on to hold that the Missionary Training Centre and the Patrons Accommodation were also exempt under paragraph 11(1)(b) and that the Patrons Service Building and the Grounds Building were exempt under paragraph 11(2)(a).

The VO appealed against that decision to this Tribunal. I ordered that there should be determined as a preliminary issue in the appeal the question: To what extent is the hereditament exempt under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1988? This is the decision on that issue. The issue of valuation will only fall to be considered if it remains an issue at a later stage. At the hearing the parties relied on an agreed statement of facts and evidence on fact that was adduced on both sides, together with a substantial amount of documentation relating to the doctrines and practices of the Church. I inspected the buildings and their surroundings on 26 September 2005. I viewed all the buildings from the outside and I carried out an inspection of the inside of the Stake Centre, the Temple, the Missionary Training Centre, the Patrons Services Building and the Patrons Accommodation.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

The Church has a worldwide membership of over 12 million people, and of these about 180,000 are in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Local Church congregations are called wards (or, if the numbers attending are very small, branches). Each ward is presided over by a local bishop and his two counsellors, who together constitute a bishopric. Each ward or branch meets in a local chapel. Wards typically consist of between 100 and 500 members. Five to 15 wards constitute an ecclesiastical jurisdiction called a stake, and each stake is presided over by a Stake President and his counsellors, who together constitute the Stake Presidency. In each stake one building will be designated as the Stake Centre. It is usually the largest of the chapels, so that it can accommodate meetings involving members from all the congregations in the stake.

A member of the Church, also called a saint, is someone who has been baptised into the Church. Both members and non-members can attend public worship services in chapels and stake centres. Chapels and stake centres are certified as places of religious worship and are exempt from rates. The Church has a three-fold mission: to perfect the saints, to proclaim the gospel and to redeem the dead. The Church's teachings during public worship services are designed to help members and non-members become better people. They are also told about the Temple and its ordinances and encouraged to seek to attend the Temple. They are taught that every member of the Church is a missionary who must seek to share the gospel with others. One of the doctrines of the Church is that the dead who have not been members can be redeemed through baptism carried out on their behalf by proxy. People are taught, therefore, to research their ancestors so that their names can be submitted to the Temple for ordinances to be performed for them.

For members of the Church the Temple is the house of the Lord, the most sacred place on earth. Access to the Temple is in general restricted to members of the Church who have reached a certain standing. A person wishing to enter the Temple requires a "recommend" from his local bishop or branch president and stake president. A recommend is only given after a searching interview designed to establish that the person accepts the religious beliefs of the Church. It serves as a pass to enter any temple and is valid for a specified period of time. It can be renewed following another interview. The recommend must be shown before each visit to a temple.

Participants in Temple ceremonies are called Patrons, and the ceremonies, which are regarded by members of the Church as of profound theological importance, are referred to as ordinances. The Temple endowment ordinance consists of instruction in the various facets of the Church's doctrines and the making of promises or covenants to live righteously and in compliance with the gospel. A second type of ordinance is sealing, or Temple marriage. Couples married in a civil ceremony can attend a further ceremony in the Temple, enabling the marriage to be sealed for eternity. Where couples have had children prior to the sealing of the marriage in the Temple, a sealing ceremony binding the family together takes place in the Temple. Baptisms of patrons as proxies for their deceased forebears take place in the Temple, and a patron may be baptised on behalf of more than one deceased family member during a single visit to the Temple. Once a person has received his own endowment he may act as a proxy for the endowment and/or sealing ceremony of a deceased person. Inside the Temple patrons change into identical white clothes, which symbolise purity and equality before God. The baptismal font, for total immersion, stands on the backs of statues of oxen, symbolising the tribes of Israel. Particular rooms are reserved for the different Temple ordinances, and there is a series of rooms leading to the celestial chamber, the most sacred place in the Temple, which is in the form of a luxurious sitting room. The Temple is throughout kept spotlessly clean.

The hereditament

The site, about 15 acres in area, was acquired by the Church in an undeveloped state in October 1992. It is located just off junction 8 of the M61 motorway, approximately 1 mile from Chorley town centre and approximately 3 miles from Preston City Centre. It lies about 200m to the west of the motorway, being elevated above it and separated from it by undeveloped land. The location, close to Preston, holds particular significance for members of the Church. It was the place where the first Mormon missionaries became established in England in 1837, and it is known as the cradle of the Church in the British Isles. Planning permission for development of the site was granted in 1994 and the development was completed in 1998. It consists of seven substantial buildings, ample car parking areas for those visiting the complex and extensive landscaped areas laid out and maintained to a very high standard. The cost of those parts of the hereditament that the VO regards as rateable was about £24m. The buildings are as follows.

The Temple. This is a metal framed building clad in 8cm thick Olympia White Granite. Built to appear externally as a large church or cathedral, internally it is in fact divided into five floors. There is a spire topped by a gold-plated figure of Moroni. The overall height is 48m. The gross internal area of the building is 6300.6m² and it is divided into about 180 rooms or use areas. The building is fully air-conditioned and all fittings and finishes are of exceptional quality and are maintained to the highest standards.

The Stake Centre. This is a single storey building of brick and tile construction. The gross internal area of the building is 1227m². It contains a chapel and a multi-purpose hall. The two are divided by a moveable partition and when this is removed 1300 people can be seated. In addition there are a number of small meeting rooms and offices and a baptistry. Public religious worship takes place in the chapel. The multi-purpose hall is used for sports, Sunday school and numerous local church meetings and social gatherings. The small rooms are used for local church administration and for pastoral purposes, meetings, classes and various functions. Baptisms take place in the baptistry, and the Stake Centre is also used for weddings.

The Preston stake has 13 wards or branches. Two of these wards are served by the Stake Centre and meet at the building each Sunday. One ward has about 249 regular members and the other 212. On a Sunday there are three blocks of meetings – a sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and a meeting that splits for separate classes for men and women. During the last two of these meetings there are classes for young children called Primary. All of these meetings are open to the public. During the rest of the week the Stake Centre is used for numerous Church related meetings, youth activities and scripture study classes. With the exception of administrative meetings, all these are open to the public. At regular intervals there are special gatherings for all the wards and branches in the stake, and on these occasions the partition between the chapel and the hall is removed.

The Missionary Training Centre. This is a three storey building of brick and tile construction of 1730m² gross internal area. The lower ground floor comprises a restaurant, laundry and classrooms. On the ground floor there are further classrooms and also offices and two bedrooms. The first floor contains 18 dormitory rooms, a laundry and toilet blocks. The ground floor also contains the President's flat, which is subject to council tax.

From a young age members of the Church are taught the importance of serving a mission for the Church. This is 18 to 24 months of voluntary service spent proselytising full-time for the Church in whatever area the person is assigned to serve by the President of the Church. Those attending the MTC may come from the north of England or anywhere else in the world. Many come from overseas, and part of the training that is given consists of orientation into the culture of the United Kingdom, where most will undertake their mission. The MTC can train and accommodate 108 missionaries at any one time and it trains missionaries all the year round in a continuous 19-day cycle. Missionary activities include going out into the community, introducing people into their local ward or branch chapel, in many instance baptising them in the chapel, and taking part in public worship services.

The Patrons Services Building. Previously known as the Reception Building, this is a single storey brick and tile building of 523m² gross internal floor area. One part of the building is a general lounge and reception area for visitors to the complex. Another part, the distribution centre, sells Church and other religious books and leaflets, CDs and tapes relating to doctrinal beliefs, and Temple clothing. A third part of the building contains the family history centre. Since one of the doctrines of the Church is that the dead can be redeemed, genealogy is undertaken to trace members' ancestors so that ordinances can be performed in the Temple on their behalf. The family history centre contains computers, microfilm readers and other equipment to enable Church members and members of the public at no charge to undertake their own genealogical research. There are 76 such centres located throughout England, and the great majority of these are housed inside chapels. None of the centres in chapels are at present assessed to rates.

The Grounds Building. This is a single storey building of block wall construction of 287.8m² gross internal area. It is adjacent to the Temple and houses machinery and equipment used for the maintenance of the grounds and all the buildings on the site. It also contains a workshop area, garage and plant room, including the air-conditioning plant for the Temple.

The Patrons' Accommodation. This is a two storey brick and tile building. It contains 35 en-suite rooms together with shared kitchen facilities, a dining room, a nursery and a laundry. There is also a caretaker's flat, which is subject to council tax. The gross internal area of the building, excluding the caretaker's flat, is 1717.5m². The rooms are let as short stay units for a minimal fee to members of the Church who are visiting the Temple. Units may be let for one or more nights, up to a maximum of two weeks.

The Temple Missionaries' Accommodation. This is a two storey brick and tile building 1647.1m² gross internal floor area. It contains 20 self-contained flats that at the material date were mostly occupied by Temple Missionaries, staying for up to 18 months. It is subject to council tax, with separate assessments on each flat.

Evidence

Evidence was given by the appellant valuation officer, James Gallagher. He is a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He said that he had been employed by the Valuation Office for 22 years, during which time he had mainly dealt with rating matters. Since 1996 he had been part of the Specialist Rating Unit, dealing with civic and leisure properties. In his written statement he described the hereditament, his understanding of Mormon beliefs and practices, and the uses to which the buildings were put. He expressed his views on which buildings qualified for exemption under paragraph 11. He considered that the Stake Centre and the Missionary Training Centre were exempt but that the other buildings were not exempt.

Although he had maintained before the VT that the Missionary Training Centre was rateable, he had since changed his mind on this. As recorded in the VT's decision he had said this:

"The training centre is not a place of public religious worship. The primary purpose of the centre is to provide orientation to Mormon priests (many of whom originate from overseas) before they start their mission. During their 19 days at the centre missionaries are instructed on how best to present the message of the Church to the members of the general public who they will be calling upon.

The training centre does not have the characteristics of a church hall. The activities undertaken in the centre are not connected to and do not support the conduct of public religious worship carried out in the Stake Centre (Chapel). The MTC is not there for the use of those attending public religious worship, but solely for the purpose of providing orientation and background for the missionaries."

Mr Gallagher said that he was now treating the Missionary Training Centre as exempt. In so doing he was making some comparison with seminaries and rabbinical colleges, which were treated as exempt, although the students' length of stay in such institutions was several years rather than the few weeks in the Missionary Training Centre. He was persuaded that there was a direct link between the training given and the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in Mormon chapels.

David Wilmot Atkins, called by Mr Clive Newberry QC for the respondent, said that he had been employed as Preston Temple Recorder since 1998. Before that he had been Assistant Recorder at the London Temple from 1997 to 1998. As Temple Recorder his responsibilities included supervising the recording of temple ordinances and historical reports. He also directed all the support functions of the temple, such as maintenance and financial expenditure. His witness statement was intended to assist the Tribunal in understanding the site and how the use, purpose and function of the buildings on the site connect or relate to each other. He described the function of the temple, the organisation of the Church and its threefold mission. He dealt in turn with each of the buildings on the site in order to show how it was linked practically, doctrinally or administratively with the Stake Centre, which he described as the hub of the day-to-day activity of the Church locally.

Mr Atkins said that the Temple was clearly used in connection with the chapel in the Stake Centre and other chapels and vice-versa. He gave the following examples of this connection:

(i) The purpose of both the Stake Centre and the Temple is to bring people to Christ.

(ii) Temples are invariably found either on the site of a chapel or close to one.

(iii) Those that have attended the Temple play an important role in explaining, in the context of public worship, the virtues and merits of Temple worship.

(iv) Members who have attended the Temple can share with others some of their experiences of the Temple during public worship services.

(v) Anyone who is attending the Temple will also be attending their local chapel regularly.

(vi) Members of the Church from other areas who are visiting the Temple will attend public worship services at the Stake Centre on a Sunday and during the week.

(vii) Members of the Church attending the Temple for the first time will have previously attended a series of special classes at their respective chapels to prepare them for their visit.

(viii) In the UK, weddings take place in chapels before the couple visit the Temple to be married for eternity.

(ix) Lessons, talks and testimonies about Temples, Temple worship and the importance of attending the Temple regularly are taught in public worship services and other meetings held in chapels.

(x) A person attending a public worship service in the Stake Centre may be inspired by what he hears there and wish for Temple work to be done for some of his deceased relatives. He could ask a member with a Temple recommend to carry out this work as proxy for him.

(xi) The instruction given in Temples is a continuation of the general principles taught already in the Chapel each week.

(xii) The Church leaders who assist in the running of public worship services should attend the Temple regularly and, by virtue of attending the Temple, the way they conduct services will be affected by their experiences there.

(xiii) Each member is assigned a role to perform in their congregation (such as the Bishop or a Sunday School teacher). Members who attend the Temple will feel an increased spiritual motivation to attend public worship services and fulfil the roles assigned to them more fully.

(xiv) Once a person is baptised into the Church, certain lessons during worship services will often be tailored to help them learn about the Temple and prepare them to attend.

As far as the Missionary Training Centre was concerned, Mr Atkins said in his witness statement that in view of the VO's acceptance that it was exempt he would not go into examples of its connections with the Stake Centre, although there were many of them. As for the Patrons Accommodation, it was the case that most of those staying there would have come in order to visit the Temple, but members of the Church who were staying there on a Sunday, or any other day of the week on which meetings in the chapel were held, would attend public worship services at the Stake Centre.

The Patrons Services Building, Mr Atkins said, was split into three separate areas. The Distribution Centre or shop sold items, such as scriptures, religious posters, lessons manuals and other teaching aids that were intended to be used in connection with public religious worship in the Stake Centre and other chapels. The Family History Centre was used for genealogical research. Similar centres were located elsewhere inside chapels and were, he understood, held to be exempt. The mission of the Church to redeem the dead was taught in public worship services, and the genealogical research undertaken for this purpose was, in his view, a form of religious worship. The work could be done by anyone, and therefore public worship took place in the centre. There was an undeniable connection between the family history centres and chapels. The third area was the foyer and day lounge. The foyer contained the public toilets for the site. The day lounge was for visitors to the site to relax in, and it contained changing and showering facilities for those who were visiting the Temple.

The grounds, Mr Atkins said, were used by those attending the Stake Centre and the Missionary Training Centre. On each Sunday there were about 200 vehicles parked on site, and at times there were events in the Stake Centre for which the on-site parking was inadequate. The grounds also served as a peaceful setting for the buildings, and they were open to the public. The Grounds Building was used in connection with all the buildings on the site and with the upkeep of the grounds.

Two statements by Mark Radford, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Rating Revenues and Valuation, Director of Rating at DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, had been filed. They sought to describe the practice of valuation officers in their application of the exemption provisions of paragraph 11 and expressed the view that each of the buildings in the present case fell within the provisions. Mr Radford was called to give evidence. He drew attention to the fact that exemption had been given to a library housing religious texts and a local history collection adjacent to a cathedral and to an education centre for children visiting the same cathedral. He said that it had been the practice since before the 1988 Act to accord relief to seminaries and rabbinical colleges, and that relief was now given to them under paragraph 2(a). He said that relief was given to mosques under paragraph 11 even if they were reserved for male worshippers only.

The contentions

For the VO, Mr Daniel Kolinsky submitted that, since the Temple was not materially different from the London Temple, the subject of the decision of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Henning, it could not be exempt as a place of public religious worship under paragraph 11(1)(a) or as a building similar to a church hall or chapel hall under paragraph 11(1)(b). The contention that it was exempt under (b) had been rejected by the Court of Appeal and had not been pursued in the House of Lords. Nor, said Mr Kolinsky, could the Temple be exempt under sub-paragraph (2)(a). That limb of the exemption was concerned with the organisation of public religious worship. What took place in the Temple was not public religious worship but sacred endowments, sealing ceremonies and baptisms of the dead that were carried out in a setting where there was no public access. Those activities were acts of worship carried out in private, and as such they did not relate to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship; nor, in any event, were they within what was meant by "other activities", which must in part take its meaning from the preceding word, "administration".

As far as the Missionary Training Centre was concerned, Mr Kolinsky said that the VO now accepted that it should be treated as exempt under sub-paragraph (2)(a), although the approach in this respect was considered to be generous. It was a matter for decision in the present case whether the judgement of the VO in this respect was correct, and the VO would welcome guidance as to how this limb of the exemption should be approached. The VO's acceptance was based on his view that there was a close link between the training of the missionaries and the organisation of public religious worship and that there was a parallel between the training of the missionaries and, for example, the training facilities in seminaries and rabbinical colleges. Both the latter were treated as exempt. The Patron Services Building was not exempt. The shop within it should be treated as rateable, consistently with the Lands Tribunal's decision in Glenwright (VO) and Durham City Council v St Nicholas Church Parochial Council [1988] RA 1 and the practice of valuation officers. The work carried out in the family history centre by members of the Church related to ordinances performed in the Temple rather than to public religious worship, and insofar as the facility was used by members of the public it did not fall within any exemption. The Grounds Building served the whole site but predominantly the non-exempt areas of the site such as the Temple. The Patrons Accommodation was simply short-stay accommodation and did not fall within any part of paragraph 11.

For the respondent Mr Clive Newberry QC submitted that the Temple, the Missionary Training Centre, the Patrons Accommodation, the Patrons Services Building and the Grounds Building all fell both within paragraph 11(1)(b) as buildings similar to church halls or chapel halls and within paragraph 11(2)(a) in that each was used for carrying out activities other than administration and those activities related to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in a place of public religious worship. As far as sub-paragraph (1)(b) was concerned he said that the Court of Appeal's rejection in Henning of the London Temple as a building similar to a church or chapel hall contained no full analysis. The decision was made under a different Act. Moreover, in contrast to the present case there was no Stake Centre forming part of the hereditament, so that the court was only concerned with the Temple itself.

Mr Newberry said that it was clear from the decision in Trustees of West London Mission of the Methodist Church v Holborn Borough Council (1958) 3 RRC 86 that the test of similarity was not architectural. There, in a Divisional Court, Lord Goddard CJ, with whom Hilbery and Donovan JJ agreed, said at 706 about the building under consideration, which had been held to be exempt under section 7(2)(b) of the 1955 Act:

"Architecturally I dare say it is not what one thinks of as a church hall, but I am certain that the application of this section is not to be tested by some architectural test."

Mr Newberry relied strongly on the Lands Tribunal' decision in Ludkin (VO) v Trustees of Anjuman-e-Islhahul Muslimeen of UK [1988] RA 209, in which a building was regarded as being similar to a church hall even though it had been constructed and was operated as a school. He also placed strong reliance on the Lands Tribunal decision in Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO) [1975] RA 1 at 25 where the Member (V G Wellings QC) said that it appeared to him that the purpose of section 39 of the 1967 Act and its predecessor section 7 of the 1955 Act was to overcome the difficulties experienced in applying the provisions of the 1833 Act and that "the modern provision should be regarded as enabling legislation to be construed generously rather than restrictively".

In relation to sub-paragraph (2)(a) Mr Newberry said that it was a new provision and it to should be interpreted generously. The "other activities" to which it referred should not be treated as conditioned by the preceding words "administrative or". The requirement was that the uses to which the building was put must "relate to" the organisation. This did not mean the activity of organising itself. If that had been meant, "relate to" would have been omitted, and the provision would have said simply "for the organisation of …". The VO regarded the Missionary Training Centre as exempt under this provision, just as seminaries and rabbinical colleges were treated as exempt because students were being trained for the future and such training related to the organisation of public religious worship in places of public religious worship. That was a benevolent and commendable approach.

The Temple, Mr Newberry said, was similar to a church or chapel hall because it contained a number of large rooms that could themselves be described as halls; it was used by the Church for its purposes; it was a building used by the Church for activities and meetings; and it had a community element in that it was used by the Mormon community and was commonly used for community type gatherings. The uses of the Temple, as identified by Mr Atkins, involved the following aspects or component parts: worship, instruction/teaching, training (memorising and testing to ensure a correct understanding to facilitate accurate onwards transmission), meetings, and gatherings of lay clergy for instructions.

The Missionary Training Centre had been exempted by the VO, and, Mr Newberry said, the respondent did not disagree that instruction in the Church's purposes and doctrines The Patrons Accommodation, Mr Newberry argued, contained a number of elements that might be found in a church or chapel hall. It contained a crèche, a kitchen area and an area that was used for social gatherings, songs, testimonies etc. Just as in Ludkin sleeping accommodation was accepted as a necessary component of a gathering, so it should be regarded here in relation to the Patrons Accommodation and the Temple. As for the Patrons Services Building, it was used for meetings and other purposes of the Church and contained a number of rooms that could be described as a hall. It was not uncommon for goods to be sold in church halls. It contained areas used very much for community purposes. It was also used as a social gathering area.

Discussion

The respondent places reliance on two particular provisions in paragraph 11, and I should start by considering these. It is, I believe, helpful to look at the present provisions in relation to the earlier statutory provisions, both in order to set cases decided under the earlier provisions in a proper context and to understand what the present provisions mean. Before the 1955 Act exemption was given under section 1 of the Poor Rate Exemption Act 1833 to "churches, chapels, meeting houses, or premises, or such part thereof as shall be exclusively appropriated to public religious worship" which were either churches and chapels of the established church or were statutorily certified for the performance of public religious worship. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of section 7(2) of the 1955 Act gave exemption to places of public and religious worship and church halls, chapel halls and similar buildings (see paragraph 4 above) and sub-subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 11(1) are in effectively the same terms (see paragraph 3 above.) Section 7, it should be noted, became section 39 of the consolidating General Rate Act 1967, and the 1967 Act was replaced by the new rating provisions of the 1988 Act. Under paragraph 11(1) of the 1988 Act exemption is given "to the extent that" the hereditament consists of (a) or (b), and the earlier provisions contained no such qualification. Finally, as originally enacted, paragraph 11 contained the exemption that is now subparagraph (2)(a) (relating to use for administrative and other activities) but not that in subparagraph (2)(b) (use as an office or for office purposes), which was added by the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

A number of diverse cases were decided under the provisions of the 1955 and 1967 Acts in addition to Henning, and these are referred to in Ryde on Rating at D[628-640]. In Trustees of West London Mission of the Methodist Church v Holborn Borough Council (1958) 3 RRC 86 a Divisional Court upheld the decision of quarter sessions that a hereditament comprising the Kingsway Hall and an adjoining building called Wesley House was exempt from rating. The Kingsway Hall was for all practical purposes a Methodist church or chapel. Wesley House, which was held to be similar to a church hall and so exempt, was on seven floors and included rooms used as a youth centre for the physical and spiritual activities of a youth club; a large lecture hall used for lectures, small religious meetings, bazaars and similar activities to raise funds for social welfare work; a dining-room, recreation room, library and kitchens used for church socials and a luncheon club; offices, committee rooms, meeting rooms for Sunday school, church meetings, etc; living accommodation mainly for resident staff; and a nursery provided as a service to persons living or working in the area, with a roof playground.

In Church House Trustees v Dimmick (VO) (1959) 52 R & IT 606 the Lands Tribunal (Sir William FitzGerald, President) held that a hereditament called the Old Palace in Worcester was not a building similar to a church hall. The premises contained a club for members of the Church of England; a chapel; the offices of the diocesan board of finance, which dealt with every parish in the diocese; various diocesan offices (of the diocesan education committee, the dilapidations board, the mother's union and council for women's work, the Sunday school organiser, the bishop's appeal office, and the office of the bishop); the ordination room; three committee rooms; and the caretakers flat and the diocesan secretary's flat. In Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO) [1975] RA 1 on the other hand a building adjacent to a Roman Catholic church and constructed under a planning permission for a residential students' hostel and for club purposes in connection with the church was held to be exempt under section 29(2)(b) of the 1967 Act as a building similar to a church hall or chapel hall. In the basement there was a games room and television room; on the ground floor a kitchen, main hall with stage and dining area, tea room and bar, lounge and a garage/workshop; on the first and second floors there was hostel accommodation for students, au pair girls and other young persons, with 36 bedrooms and a utility room with cooking facilities; and on the third floor there were staff bedrooms and a staff lounge. The Member (V G Wellings QC) said (at 23) that the building had been described as a community centre, and a community centre was a reasonably good definition of a church hall. Moreover the various uses of the building, though broadly divisible into hostel user and normal church hall user, were "shown to be not truly disparate because both classes of user are to a most significant extent directed to the fulfilment of the underlying purpose which, in its primary form, is spiritual."

Among other cases were Swansea City Council v Edwards (VO) and Trustees of Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church [1977] RA 209 (in which a former church building, still registered as a place of public religious worship but used primarily as a social club, was held exempt because of its occasional use by church groups); Glenwright (VO) and Durham City Council v St Nicholas Parochial Church Council [1988] RA 1 (in which a former vestry in a church used for retail sales was held to be rateable); Gillett (VO) v North West London Communal Mikvah [1982] RA 346 (in which a Jewish ritual bath house was held not to be similar to a church or chapel hall); and Ludkin (VO) v Trustees of Anjuman-e-Islhahul Muslimeen of UK [1988] RA 209. In Ludkin a school building situated in the grounds of a mosque was held to be exempt as a building which was similar to a church hall. The school building had been built in 1982 in pursuance of a planning permission for a "school for special religious education and dining hall" for the private and exclusive use of the Marzaki Mosque. It was on three floors. Much of the ground floor comprised the main hall, which was large, and it also contained a kitchen, boiler room, store, office and ancillary accommodation. On the first floor there was a library, a laboratory, an arts and crafts room, a large hall or classroom, toilets and ancillary accommodation. On the second floor there were 13 bedrooms, an assembly room, toilets and shower rooms and ancillary accommodation. The school was registered as an independent school under the Education Act 1944. At the material date there were 125 boarding pupils and 50 day pupils, all boys between the ages of 12 and 16. The usual secular subjects were taught, but the main emphasis was on religion and, beyond the time spent by them on secular subjects, the pupils' day was occupied with religious learning.

The school building was one of a group of three buildings comprising the hereditament. The others were the mosque and an ablutions block. The school would have been in the mosque itself but for the fact that this was not permitted by the education authority. Because it was used for prayer, people entering it removed their shoes as on entering a mosque. It was not, however, certified as a place of meeting for religious worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. In the complex of buildings there were gatherings that took place at regular intervals on Thursday evenings and overnight. On occasions there might be as many as 300 people staying overnight, and on these occasions accommodation would be provided in the school. In his decision the Member said (at 220) that the teaching of secular subjects in the school was subordinate to the purposes of prayer and religious instruction, and the school itself was subordinated to other secular activities, ie the accommodation and feeding of the many visitors who descended on the complex at the time of gatherings. He concluded that the school building was in its nature at least in part a community centre. It was ancillary to the mosque and an adjunct to it. Accordingly it was similar to a church hall.

These decisions and others under the same provisions would have been known to those responsible for drafting and enacting the provisions in the 1988 and 1992 Acts (although it is probable that the Bill that resulted in the 1988 Act was too far advanced when Glenwright and Ludkin were decided to allow account to be taken of these). I will consider the significance of this shortly. Before doing so, however, I should deal with a feature of paragraph 11 that, as I have noted, was not present in the earlier provisions. This is the inclusion of the words "to the extent that" in both subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (2). The exemption accorded to places of religious worship and church halls etc was given "to the extent that" the hereditament consisted of one or more of those things, and the exemption given under sub-paragraph (2) was given "to the extent that" the hereditament was occupied as specified and was used in one or other of the ways specified in (a) and (b).

The words "to the extent that" also appear in other exemption provisions in Schedule 5 of the 1988 Act and they seem to me to be a useful, fair and practical addition to the provisions of the earlier legislation. Depending on the context in which they appear they are capable of bearing either a physical or temporal meaning or both (see Ryde D[617]-D[627]), and both parties in the present case agreed that this was so. The exemption in sub-paragraph (1) is given to the extent that the hereditament "consists of" a place of public religious worship or a church hall etc. The qualification here, in my judgment, is a purely physical one, so that those parts of a hereditament that are neither a place of public religious worship nor a church hall etc are excluded from the exemption. But the fact that, for instance, a church is used from time to time for secular concerts or a church hall is let out for functions unconnected with the church would not lead to reduction in the relief that is accorded. The church would still be a church and the church hall would still be a church hall and, to the extent that a hereditament physically comprised one or other or both of these, it would "consist" of it or them for the purposes of the exemption. The qualification as it applies in sub-paragraph (2), on the other hand, in my view operates in terms of both space and time. That is because exemption is conferred to the extent that the hereditament is occupied by an organisation of the sort specified and used as specified in (a) or (b), and a use can be viewed both in terms of time and the space to which it relates.

It was Mr Newberry's contention that the provisions of paragraph 11 should be applied generously as, he asserted in the light of Mr Radford's evidence, valuation officers had in practice applied them. He relied on what the Member had said in Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO) (see paragraph 37 above). In my view, however, if indeed it was correct that the provisions of section 7 of the 1955 Act and section 39 of the 1967 Act were to be applied generously (and the contention that they were was based on the single dictum I have referred to), any case for doing so must have disappeared with the enactment of the 1988 and 1992 Acts. These provided the opportunity for those devising the legislation and for Parliament to make good any limitations that they saw in the provisions in the light of experience of their operation over more than 30 years. The 1988 Act extended exemption to administrative and other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in a place of worship; and the 1992 Act extended exemption to the offices of bodies responsible for the conduct of public religious worship. It seems to me in the highest degree improbable that, if it had been intended that a building used for private rituals or for religious instruction or for living accommodation in connection with a religious use should be exempt, it would have been left to VOs, ratepayers and tribunals to divine this from provisions covering, on the one hand, church halls and similar buildings and, on the other, administrative and other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship. It is also the case that the qualification "to the extent that" has removed any case for generosity that might previously have existed in the case of a hereditament used partly for exempt and partly for non-exempt purposes. Thus, for example, in a case with the same facts as Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO), it would now be open to a tribunal to consider whether exemption should be given to the basement and ground floors but not to the residential accommodation above.

It appears from Mr Radford's evidence that valuation officers have accorded exemption to a range of types of premises that would not, as a matter of first impression, appear to fall within the provisions of paragraph 11. They include seminaries and rabbinical colleges, a library housing religious texts and a local history collection, and an education centre for children visiting a cathedral. However, while it is appropriate that I should be made aware of any potential wider effects my decision in this case may have (and I have had regard to the evidence about other premises with this in mind), whether any premises fall within the scope of the exemption must depend on the facts of the particular case, and it is not possible or appropriate for me to form a view on whether relief was rightly accorded in these cases. In any event, since what I have to do is to determine, on the basis of a proper construction of the provisions, the extent to which the subject hereditament attracts relief, it is of no assistance for this purpose to know what valuation officers have done elsewhere since relief may or may not have been correctly given. The statutory exemptions are there to be applied in the terms in which they have been enacted, neither restrictively nor generously. If on a proper construction of the provisions the facts do not support exemption, that is an end of the matter. It is for Parliament and not for valuation officers or tribunals to prescribe the circumstances in which relief from rates should be given. A valuation officer has no power to exercise generosity in favour of a ratepayer or class of ratepayer in relation to exemption any more than he has power to exercise such generosity when assessing or agreeing rateable values. Under the 1988 Act his duty under section 41 in relation to a local rating list and under section 52 in relation to a central rating list is to compile and maintain a list that is accurate.

There are two final matters to which I should refer on the construction of the provisions. Firstly, the extent of the exemption under paragraph 11(2)(a). This provides that a hereditament is exempt to the extent that it is occupied "by an organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship" in a place of public religious worship and "is used for carrying out administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in such a place". It will be observed that the word "organisation" is used in two quite different senses – first to mean the body constituted for the particular purposes set out and secondly to mean the process of making arrangements for or carrying into effect those particular purposes – although this does not, I think, give rise to any difficulty. What is important, in my view, is that the activities must be ones relating to the "organisation" of the conduct of public religious worship and not just to the conduct of public religious worship. The fact that it is administrative activities that are singled out for mention emphasises the nature of the exemption that is given. The activities may be administrative or they may be other activities: but they must be activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of worship. Mr Newberry, as I understood him, contended that the words "relating to" suggest that some weak connection would suffice to satisfy the provision, but I do not think that this is right. In my judgment the relationship must be substantial. It may be that the purpose of what is now subparagraph (2)(b) was to extend exemption to parts of premises used for some of the purposes that were under consideration in Church House Trustees v Dimmick (VO), and that the sub-paragraph (2)(b) exemption was added by the 1992 Act because it was found that this objective had not been sufficiently achieved by the wording used. There is, however, no need to speculate about this since the wording of the provision shows that it is relatively limited in its scope. It should not be regarded as an invitation to treat as exempt any building that is occupied by a church organisation and has some connection to worship in the church.

The second matter of construction is what constitutes a church hall or chapel hall for the purpose of assessing whether premises are similar to these. The test is not an architectural one: see Trustees of West London Mission of the Methodist Church v Holborn Borough Council (see paragraph 36 above). In Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee v Hampshire (VO) [1975] RA 1 at 23 the Member said that he thought that "a community centre is a reasonably good definition of a church hall". He quoted this in Gillett (VO) v North West London Communal Mikvah [1982] RA 346 at 349 before going on to record, without disagreeing with it, a rather fuller definition suggested by counsel for the valuation officer. Without myself attempting a complete definition, I think that in essence a church or chapel hall is a hall, often with other rooms and ancillary accommodation, which is used for functions and meetings by the congregation, and at times also by others, for the conduct of church business and sometimes for wider community purposes that reflect the nature and purposes of the ecclesiastical body that is in occupation. It is not itself a place of worship.

I turn then to consider the individual buildings at the Preston Temple. There is no doubt that the Stake Centre is exempt. It is part chapel and part chapel hall. As a chapel it is a place of public religious worship, and as a chapel hall it is used for typical church or chapel hall purposes. The Temple itself is not, in my judgment, exempt. It is in terms of function indistinguishable from the London Temple, which was held not to be either a church or a building similar to a church hall in Henning. The contention that the Temple was exempt as a building similar to a church hall was advanced in the Court of Appeal, but was summarily rejected by all members of the court. At [1962] 1 WLR 1091, Lord Denning MR said:

"…. The short answer is that this temple is not a church hall, chapel hall, nor a similar building. It is not in the least on the same footing as a church hall or chapel hall. It is a very sacred sanctuary, quite different from a building of that category. In my judgment, therefore, there is no exemption under section 7(2)(a) or (b) of the temple from rating and I would allow the appeal accordingly."

At 1100 Donovan LJ said:

"As regards section 7(2)(b), I am unable to regard this temple as a 'church hall, chapel hall or any similar building'. It is far too important in the life of the Mormon Church to be so described. I agree that the appeal succeeds."

And at 1101 Pearson LJ expressed his agreement that the Temple did not fall within the provision. In the House of Lords counsel for the Church, Mr Gerald Gardiner QC and Mr Hugh Forbes, did not place reliance on section 7(2)(b).

It was argued that there was a significant factual difference between the London Temple as considered in Henning and the Preston Temple in that the Preston Temple was part of a complex that included the Stake Centre, a place of public religious worship, whereas the London Temple stood alone. There is nothing, however, to suggest that the functions of the two Temples differ in any material respect, and the decision in Henning is in my judgment conclusive. It is the sacred nature of the function that most clearly distinguishes the Temple's function from the primarily non-sacred uses that characterise a church hall. The summary dismissal by the Court of Appeal of the Church's contention that the Temple was similar to a church hall is not surprising. The Temple is building in which the sacred ordinances of the Mormon Church take place. Its exclusivity, with access being accorded only to those with a recommend, is a reflection of its sacred nature and the purpose for which access is required. Nor, in my judgment, is there any question of the Temple qualifying for exemption under paragraph 11(2)(a). I have expressed my view above about the scope of that provision. It clearly does not extend to buildings used for the conduct of private religious worship. That there is a substantial connection between what goes on in the Temple and what goes on in the Stake Centre and other chapels is clear from the evidence of Mr Atkins, and it is unsurprising. But the activities in the Temple are not, except perhaps to some very limited extent, ones that are carried out in order to assist in organising the conduct of worship in the Stake Centre or other chapels. The activities are the performance of sacred ordinances in the Temple itself and activities ancillary to these.

The Missionary Training Centre is not, in my judgment, exempt under either of the provisions. The VO was correct in the way he put it in the valuation tribunal. The primary purpose of the centre is to provide orientation to Mormon priests, many of whom originate from overseas, before they start their mission and to instruct them on how best to present the message of the Church to the members of the general public on whom they will be calling. The function of the building has none of the characteristics of a church hall. There can be no question of exemption under subparagraph (1)(b). Nor could exemption arise under subparagraph (2)(a), the provision by reference to which the VO was prepared to concede exemption. Although as part of their training the missionaries are instructed in the conduct of chapel services, this is not the primary purpose of their training; and in any event that part of the training is an activity that appears to relate not to the organisation of the conduct of services but to the conduct itself. Moreover exemption would only arise to the extent that the building was used for activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of services, so that, even if part of the curriculum consisted of such matters, to accord full exemption to the building on this account would clearly be wrong.

The Patrons Services Building has three distinct areas. The foyer and day lounge serves the site as a whole, although it has a particular role in relation to those arriving at the site to enter the Temple. It does not fall under any of the exemption provisions. The shop similarly is not linked in function to any particular part of the site, except that the sale of Temple clothing is clearly related to the use of that building. Its activities do not relate to the organisation of the conduct of services. The same, in my view, goes for the third area, the family history centre. The activities there are most closely related to the Temple, where baptism of forebears identified by research is carried out. I can see an argument that the family history centre is used for office purposes (in particular for clerical work as defined in subparagraph (3)) and so qualifies for exemption under subparagraph (2)(b), although no such argument was advanced. However, although the work primarily involves the use of computers to access the extensive genealogical databases, on balance I think that this work, being carried out for their own purposes by individual Church members and members of the public, is not properly to be regarded as clerical work within the meaning of the provision.

The Patrons Accommodation does not fall within either of the provisions relied on by the respondent. It is simply short-term living accommodation that is primarily used by members of the Church visiting the Temple. As for the grounds, the extensive areas of landscaping and car parking surrounding the buildings, the correct approach seems to me to be this. Under subparagraph (1)(a) a place of public religious worship would include not only the building itself but also such land as was occupied with it, and the same would go for a church hall under subparagraph (1)(b). Similarly the exemption for parts of a hereditament used for administrative or other activities or as an office or for office purposes within subparagraph (2) would extend to other parts of the hereditament that were used for ancillary purposes, since these would properly be regarded as used for the principal purpose. The effect of this is that those parts of the grounds that are properly to be seen as part of the Stake Centre – the cultivated areas about the building and the car parking area that is dedicated to it – are exempt, but the rest of the grounds are not. The Grounds Building, serving as it does the whole of the site, is not in my view exempt. It is not part of the Stake Centre and it is not used for activities that relate to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship.

Conclusion

My conclusion, therefore, is that the Stake Centre is exempt together with the cultivated areas about it and the car parking area that is dedicated to it but that the rest of the hereditament is not exempt.

The parties are now invited to make submissions on costs, and a letter relating to this accompanies this decision, which will become final when the question of costs has been determined. Directions for the further conduct of the case will be given if there is no application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, or, if there, is when the appeal proceedings have been finally determined.

Dated 3 November 2005

George Bartlett QC, President