That may be the company's activity but if it is a not for profit company then it does not have a business for VAT purposes. Carrying on something without a view to making a profit isn't a business.
Unfortunately HMRC, and Lord Emslie from the Court of Sessions would disagree with you, and probably insist on using the tests established since 1977 that say that whether you aim to make a profit or not is immaterial. Here in fact are the venerable (I assume) Lord's remarks in his judgement on the case of Morrisons Academy one of the two primary case law judgements used to determine whether an activity is business "“I now ask myself first of all whether the Tribunal were correct in concluding that no activities carried on continuously by a taxable person can ever be business if the profit motive is absent. In my opinion they were not. I can discover nothing in the natural meaning of the word business so to restrict its scope and there is nothing in the context of the taxing provisions as a whole to require one to read “business” in such a narrow way".
From this and the decision on Lord Fishers shooting party activities there is a six part test derived to decide whether a person is in business:
1) Is it a serious undertaking earnestly pursued: That seems to be the case here.
2) Does it have reasonable continuity: Yes
3) Does it have a measure of substance to its income: since it gets in over £70K then yes
4) Is it conducted in a regular manner on sound business principles: From what we know so far it looks like it
5) Is it predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration: Possibly some debate here but for the £200 annual fee that would be the case
6) Are the supplies made similar to those made by people who seek to profit from them (note: not is there a profit motive but could other people making similar supplies profit): Again this is a yes.
So the RA has a tick in every column of the business test, it's in business!
However as Pawncob says the easement or any other rights over land would be exempt and hence the taxable turnover is likely way below the threshold and there's no need to register and charge VAT.
Also depending on the make up of the limited company and its constitution there may even be a case for saying that the £200 doesn't represent consideration for a supply to the residents in the first case and so it falls outside the scope, but there's not enough info here to even start in on that route of enquiry, and without looking through a fair bit more caselaw I'm not entirely sure it would work anyway.