|
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Irish Independent Newspapers APPELLANT RE: Printing Works at Lot No. 13B Unit 2023, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 4th April 2002, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €3,079.11 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal
are: The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place on Monday the 2nd December 2002 in the Arbitration Centre, Distillery Building, Law Library Dublin7. The appellant was represented by Mr. Brian Bagnall of Bagnall and Associates, Surveyors and Valuers. The respondent was represented by Mr. Kevin Heery, a Staff Valuer in the Valuation Office with over thirty years experience. Having taken the oath, both Mr. Bagnall and Mr. Heery each adopted their written submissions as their evidence in chief, which had previously been exchanged between the parties and submitted to the Valuation Tribunal. Appellant's Case Mr. Bagnall emphasised that this was predominantly an industrial building with a fairly sophisticated plant designed to suit the occupants business. There are eight blue towers in the printing room where the paper goes in at the bottom and comes out printed at the top. The mailroom, which is located to the rear of the print room, is the main workroom, taking newspapers in from the printing press, sorting and distributing accordingly. He pointed out that after lengthy negotiations with the Valuation Office a substantial portion of the rateable valuation had been agreed except for firstly the print room and secondly the mail room. Print Room Independent Newspapers had decided to go for a feature building to the front of their new property and used its profile to the Naas Road to good affect. Whilst he pointed out it was a feature building which had received a number of architectural awards, he still emphasized it was a functioning industrial building. Mail Room The agreed floor areas were as follows:- Mail Room 1617.92 square metres In his opinion Mr. Bagnall stated that a fair rateable valuation would have been more in the order of €2,390 as detailed in his submission. Mr. Bagnall proceeded to deal with the comparisons: - Comparison A Comparison B Comparison C Mr. Heery cross-examined Mr. Bagnall and referred to the substantial costs that had been incurred by Independent Newspapers in the order of c. €13.77 million. Mr. Bagnall accepted that a considerable amount of investment had been incurred by his clients. However he reiterated his earlier arguments in that he felt that just because a particular investor chose to provide a feature building to suit his business, this did not change the fact that in his opinion the structure was still primarily an industrial building, fronting the Naas Road at the front of the City West Business Park. The site is held under a 100-year lease (with five-yearly rent reviews) from the 23rd August 1999 at an annual rent of €355,527.00 per annum and site area is c. 1.78 hectares(c. 4.4 acres). Respondent's Case He stated that the press hall was fully air-conditioned and that the printing hall itself is supported in an in-situ reinforced concrete slab which is completely independent of the press hall main structure. The mailroom comprises a mainly three-storey structure that has the mailroom, plant room, administrative offices, trading room and other associated facilities. Its eaves height is circa 12.5 metres. Mr. Heery emphasised that the capital expenditure incurred on this printing works was far in excess of the expenditure generally incurred on normal type of warehousing. There were no direct comparisons for this type of property and he mentioned that the Irish Times printing works which was also in the City West Campus would be broadly similar but that it had not been assessed yet. He contended that a direct comparison with conventional warehousing was not appropriate in this case, as it would not reflect the major differential in capital expenditure on the structures. He considered that it was open to the Commissioner of Valuation to utilise the most suitable approach/method of valuation in order to arrive at a fair valuation in each particular case and referred to the view expressed by Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore in the Roadstone Case (1961) IR239. In view of the foregoing he was of the opinion that this was a case where consideration of capital expenditure incurred was of major importance in arriving at correct rateable valuation. He pointed out that he had assessed the valuation on two
bases. Basis 1 on cost basis. Basis 2 on the basis of an NAV arrived
at as per euro pricing per square metre. Under cross-examination Mr. Bagnall asked if this method of valuation would normally be used. Mr. Heery stated that yes it would be in such cases as Intel and Hewlett Packard. He felt that the mailroom had a very sophisticated air-conditioning system and walkways. Mr. Heery was of the opinion that an addition in the order of circa 10% would normally be added for air-conditioned buildings. He considers the contractor's method of valuation had its own validity in this case. Determination 2. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Bagnall that
if two adjoining occupiers decide to expend totally varying sums on
constructing premises it does not follow that the more expensive building
will necessarily achieve a higher rental or N.A.V. Having regard to the foregoing, the Tribunal determines the rateable valuation of the subject hereditament and the estimate of NAV as follows. A Printroom 835 square metres@ €90 per square metre
= €75,150.00 Total = €164,135.60 @ .63%= €1,034.05 add agreed
section €1462.14 |