Appeal No. VA92/6/077
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Aer Lingus Commuter APPELLANT
RE: Hangar at Map Ref: 29A, Townland of Huntstown (Dublin
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 30th day of October, 1992 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a Rateable Valuation of £500.00 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law".
Mr. O'Donnell gave evidence on behalf of the appellant and Mr. O'Connor's written submission was taken as his evidence.
It quickly emerged that the essential difference between the parties was the comparative evidence. The appellant's side offered four comparisons namely Hangars 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In each of those comparisons rateable valuation was agreed. It appears that the method adopted in arriving at those agreements was that of rental evidence and that the valuations devalued at between £1.62 and £2.20 per square foot overall.
The respondent's side presented two comparisons, namely the Venair Hangar and the Iona Airways premises. It was strongly urged on behalf of the respondent that the Venair Hangar was the single best comparison.
It is quite clear from the photographs offered that the Venair Hangar is very similar to the subject premises and Mr. O'Caoimh argued that the figures in that case were based upon an agreement reached as recently as October, 1992.
While Mr. O'Donnell represented Venair at the making of the said agreement he told the Tribunal that the matter had subsequently been appealed. He further told the Tribunal that had he been aware of decisions subsequently made by the Tribunal he would not have come to that agreement.
The Tribunal accepts that the Venair premises are the best by way of physical comparison to the subject premises. In that case the respondent accepts that the Venair premises are slightly superior and this is reflected in his valuation of the subject premises. The Tribunal further accepts that the four comparisons offered by the appellant must be very much inferior to the subject premises and to that of Venair. On the appellant's case, valuation per square foot of the subject premises is far higher than that of the comparisons offered. Nevertheless the Tribunal is satisfied that for the sake of uniformity regard must be had to the comparisons offered by the appellant and that offered by the respondent.
Another matter that arose was that the respective valuers in arriving at their valuations calculated the areas on a different basis in that the appellant included the offices and hangar together and separately valued car parking and the respondent separately valued the offices, hanger and apron and said that car parking was taken into consideration as being very much ancillary. The Tribunal accepts the methods adopted by both sides as being valid but must opt for one in determining rateable valuation and opts for that adopted by the respondent.
Having regard to all of the foregoing the Tribunal determines rateable
valuation on the following basis, namely;-
The Tribunal, therefore, determines rateable valuation at £441.00.