Appeal No. VA95/1/103
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Wexford Harbour Embankment Company APPELLANT RE: Pump house at Map Ref: 10Ba, Townland: North West
Slob, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 25th day of April 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £30 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: Valuation History: Written Submissions: In his written submission, Mr. Bardon set out the background to the development of the pumphouse and the surrounding areas. He submitted that by reason of its usage the pumphouse had a direct association with the improvement and drainage of the farmland which it served and that its ownership by a body representing the farmers who farm this land, qualified it as a farm building within the meaning of Section 14 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852. Mr. Bardon further submitted that in the event of the Tribunal not adopting his proposal with regard to exemption that the valuation on the subject premises should be a nominal assessment of £5. A written submission was received on the 2nd day of November 1995 from Mr. Phil Colgan, District Valuer with 27 years experience in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent. In his written submission, Mr. Colgan described the subject premises and its valuation history. Mr. Colgan argued that the subject premises was not used exclusively for agricultural use but was of benefit to commercial enterprises in the area and for the maintenance of Wexford Harbour. Mr. Colgan set out his rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- Valuation Total area 1,974 sq.ft. @ £3 psf = £5,922 In conclusion, Mr. Colgan pointed out that the rateable valuation of £30 dated back to a revision in 1913. Mr. Colgan said that if one was to take the replacement cost of the building at house prices, because that is the quality of construction, then 1,974 sq.ft. @ £50 psf would give a net annual value of £98,700 @ 7% yield. Oral Hearing: The respondent was represented by Mr. Aindrias O'Caoimh SC, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor. Mr. Phil Colgan, District Valuer gave evidence. In opening, Mr. Haughton explained that the pump station which was built in or around 1850, pumps water out of some 200 to 300 acres of sloblands over the sea wall into the sea every night. He referred to the governing statutes, namely, the Wexford Harbour Improvement Act 1846 which was subsequently repealed by the Wexford Harbour Embankment Act 1852. The latter Act transferred the functions of the initial proprietors to the appellant company, which in turn, once the works were completed, sold off the lands to various individual owners, fifteen of whom comprise the Board of Commissioners established by virtue of Section 46 of the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1847. The only remaining portion of the lands vested in the appellant company is that containing the subject property. Mr. Joe Bardon of Messrs. Hennigan & Company gave evidence that the lands serviced by the pump were almost totally agricultural. He explained that there were in fact three sections in the subject hereditament, two of which were now obsolete since the new electric pump was installed in 1967. He stated that the old equipment was still in what he described as Section C of the building, since it was considered uneconomic to dismantle it as some of it had sunk into the floor. At the resumed hearing, Mr. Bardon gave further evidence in relation
to the development plan for the area and stressed the fact that no commercial
or residential development would be permitted on the subject property.
In reply to Mr. O'Caoimh in cross-examination, Mr. Bardon stated that
if a rateable valuation were to be applied to the subject property, it
should be "a mere token" or "a nominal" rateable valuation
by reason of the fact that a hypothetical tenant would look to all the
circumstances and disadvantages of the present property and hence there
would be no demand for a building of this nature in the open letting market. Mr. James Nolan, secretary of the Board of Commissioners said that in 1989 the subject property had been in a fairly bad state of repair and that the Commissioners had intended to demolish the entire building through lack of funds. He explained further that in 1989 the Office of Public Works (OPW) paid for the improvement works carried out on the subject and he detailed the building works which were completed. Mr. Nolan said that the OPW did not advance any monies towards the maintenance
or the upkeep of the building and that their only involvement since 1989
was the staging of an art exhibition in one of the vacant sections of
the building, for which they had received authorisation from the Board
of Commissioners. Replying to questions from Mr. Haughton, Mr. Colgan appeared to concede that contrary to what was contained in his written précis, the subject hereditament did not benefit what could be considered commercial or fishery enterprises. He further accepted that the subject was not in fact directly necessary to the maintenance of Wexford Harbour. In reply to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Joe Bardon produced in evidence an unofficial extract from the Valuation Lists relating to the nearby pump house on the South Slobs which indicated that that property described as "engine house, office and land" had a rateable valuation of £20 in 1954, reduced from the earlier rateable valuation of £25. In reply to further questioning from the Tribunal, Mr. Bardon gave evidence that up to 15 years ago there was a meal factory on the lands drained by the pump in the South Slobs. Submissions: He referred to Section 14, Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 and submitted that the subject property has always been valued and that therefore there was no question of exemption. Mr. O'Caoimh opened two Valuation Tribunal decisions which were both the subject of cases stated to the High Court, namely, Iarnrod Eireann v. Commissioner of Valuation, unreported judgment, Barron J., 27 November 1992 and International Mushrooms Limited v. Commissioner of Valuation [1994] 2IR Vol.3 part II p.472 and submitted that the subject property in the instant case, as in the latter two, was not part of a farm and could not therefore be described as a farm building. Neither, he said, could the subject property be said to be an improvement to lands since before the subject property was built, the lands which it drained could not be said to have been agricultural. Mr. Haughton submitted that any property which has a link with agricultural land is of its very nature an agricultural building. He referred the Tribunal to Halsbury vol.32 pg.48 and to the definition of agricultural buildings in English Law, which, he submitted was much narrower than that in Irish Law. He referred the Tribunal also to the case of Farmers Machinery Syndicate (11th Hampshire) v. Shaw (Valuation Officer) 1961 All E.R. 285 referred to at p.49 of Halsbury and submitted that "the subject property was directly comparable to the depot for cleaning and drying grain used by a syndicate of farmers". Determination: The Tribunal accepts Mr. Haughton's argument that even though the ownership of the subject hereditament is separate and distinct from the ownership of the adjoining agricultural properties, the subject property is essential to the agricultural activities carried on on the adjoining lands, and cannot therefore be described as anything other than a "farm building". Accordingly, therefore, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the subject property should not be liable to be rated by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852. |