“The key words are ‘used in connection with’ agricultural operationson the land. Ordinary usage of the English language suggests that the buildings must be subsidiary or ancillary to the agricultural operations… It is true that attaching to the definition the meaning which I prefer will lead to there being many borderline cases. Rigid dividing lines may often be preferred to making the test one of degree. But on the other hand, as the history of the interpretation of this definition by the courts shows, an unreasonable dividing line leads to even greater difficulty. I do not foresee serious difficulty if ‘used in connection with’ is held to mean use consequential on or ancillary to the agricultural operations on the land which is occupied together with the buildings… It was argued for the respondent that the words ‘used in connection with’ agricultural operations should be strictly and narrowly construed so as to exclude buildings used to deal with the products of these operations. I observe that in the reported argument before the Lands Tribunal in Thompson v Milk Marketing Board (1952) 45 R. & I.T. 184 it was submitted with regard to a dairy farm that what happened to the milk after it had been ‘husbanded’ was in no sense an agricultural operation . One might pour it down the drain or use it in this way or that, but that had nothing to do with the agricultural operations on the land. The ultimate decision of the Court of Appeal in that case is not surprising if that was the kind of far- fetched argument submitted by the valuation officer. The whole object of producing a crop on the agricultural land is to market it in one form or another, and I think that anything done in the farm buildings, including storage and treatment must be held to be done in connection with the agricultural operations on the land. But here again there must be a limit. Everything is saleable at a price, so even storage for a time or very simple treatment is not strictly necessary. One must have regard to ordinary and reasonable practice. But there comes a stage when further operations cannot reasonably be said to be consequential on the agricultural operations of producing the crop. I agree with Lord Hunter when he said in Midlothian Assessor v Buccleuch Estates Ltd 1962 S.C. 453, 459: ‘I would agree that agricultural and pasturage do not cease when the crops are grown on beasts raised, but may properly include operations reasonably necessary to make the product marketable or disposable to profit.’ But I also agree with Lord Sorn when he said in Perty and Kinross Assessor v Scottish Milk Marketing Board, 1963 S.C. 95 that if a farmer set up a butcher’s shop 7 on his farm to sell his fat stock as meat no one would suggest that it should be derated, for the shop would be used for an independent purpose distinct from the farming operations.”
“…The words of the definition of ‘agricultural buildings’ suggest to my mind buildings that are needed as an adjunct or a necessary aid to agricultural operations taking place on agricultural land and used solely in connection with those operations. This does not necessarily involve that the use to which the buildings are put must be of minor or minimal importance but it does involve that no part of the use is unconnected with the agricultural land that is needed as an adjunct or aid to the operations and enterprises for which the layer houses are used.”
“Were the appellants’ buildings ‘used solely in connection with’ these operations? In my opinion, the answer is, No. I think that the language of the definition requires that buildings to come within it must be used as adjuncts to the agricultural operations on the land, or as Donovan L.J. said in Gilmore v Baker-Carr [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1165, 1175 ‘ancillary or complementary to the agricultural purpose of the land, and not vice versa.’”