Appeal No. VA92/3/029
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Moog Limited APPELLANT RE: Factory and Grounds at Lot No. 18D/22B Ringaskiddy,
B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By notice of appeal dated the 28th day of May, 1992, Lisney & Company on behalf of the appellants appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £500 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- "the valuation is excessive and inequitable having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts". The Property Valuation History Title Written Submissions (2) He said that Moog Limited were attracted to the area by the I.D.A.
and were persuaded to locate in Ringaskiddy because the I.D.A. had a block
of land available at a competitive price. Mr. Boland said that in relation to the valuation it has been agreed
between the Commissioner and the Appellant that the rateable valuation
should be estimated on the basis of calculating the Net Annual Value of
the subject premises at a specific date, that is November 1988, and reducing
the Net Annual Value by an appropriate factor i.e. 0.63%. Accordingly,
the only outstanding matter to be resolved related to the Net Annual Value
of the subject premises. Mr. Boland set out his method of calculating
the Net Annual Value. Mr. Boland offered a number of comparsions. He stated that as there is no comparative evidence in the immediate area the comparisons he offered should be strongly considered. These are attached as Appendix 1. A written submission was received from Mr. Tom Stapleton a District Valuer
with 30 years experience in the Valuation Office. In the written submission
Mr. Stapleton set out details of the property and the valuation history.
Commenting on the appellants grounds of appeal Mr. Stapleton stated that
a 14,000 sq ft extention (high tec building) was added to the factory
at a cost of £800,000 with the aid of a 40% grant from the I.D.A.,
this equated to £56 per square foot. In arriving at an N.A.V. for
this extention consideration was given to:- Mr. Stapleton set out the manner in which he calculated the Rateable
Valuation on the subject premises as follows:- New: New 1st 1316m² = c 25p £329 Mr. Stapleton in his submission set out the details of five comparisons and these are attached as Appendix 2. Mr. Stapleton stated that rental levels for high tec. factories in the Cork area had been fairly well established and agreed with various consultants in recent years at not less than £4.00 per square foot. He stated that on standard industrialised buildings there are wide variations in rental levels even within industrial parks e.g. Little Island. Oral Hearing Both representatives set out their evidence along the lines of the precis of their respective clients. It emerged in the course of the debate of the case that whereas the appellant had relied in the comparisons on passing rents, Mr. Stapleton had taken an approach based more on devaluations arising from actual rateable valuations fixed on premises which were claimed to be comparable to the subject. Mr. Stapleton elaborated in relation to many of the valuations fixed, indicating that they had been based upon actual passing rents for similar premises in the Cork area. When pressed by the Tribunal in relation to the most apt comparisons, Mr. Boland opted for comparison number five of his written submission in the Kilbarry Industrial Estate and Mr. Stapleton opted for the comparison of the Millipore premises noted in his precis in Section 7. Mr. Stapleton claimed that the comparison no.5 at Phase 1 Kilbarry Industrial Estate was not a premises made up to the same high technical standards as the subject and also countered that his comparison no.4 indicated that the Kilbarry premises ought not to be taken as an absolute measure of how high the rental could be for like premises. Both valuers agreed that the rents in the technology park were exceptionally high, and, that the subject premises was in an inferior location. Mr. Boland submitted that while Ringaskiddy was set up as a port side development with high ambitions principally for the chemical industry, it had failed to generate any significant port type trade which could be of help to the business which would be carried on in a standard industrial unit, such as the subject premises. He indicated that the road and sea transport facilities via Rosslare and Waterford were more cost effective and efficient, from a time point of view, than the less organised exits from the Ringaskiddy port. The Tribunal finds that this view was confirmed by Mr. Stapleton's reference to promotional literature for the Ringaskiddy estate, which indicated that the strategy of the developers of the estate was to ensure the development of port related continuous process industries. The continuous process industries which have established are in the chemical and feed grain storage processing area which require premises of a different nature then the subject premises. The Tribunal was also impressed by the fact that although the main emphasis of Ringaskiddy was not wholly consistant with the use of the subject, substantial recent expenditure was incurred thereon. Given the different approach of the two valuers to the case, the Tribunal have endeavoured to critically examine the valuation of the premises fixed at first appeal having regard to the comparisons offered by the appellants, and their general comments about the history and development of the location, together with the elaboration of Mr. Stapleton in oral evidence of the comparisons offered by him, together with his comments about the relativities of the comparisons offered by both sides. The Tribunal has found it impossible to come to any other conclusion but that the valuation fixed at first appeal is appropriate having regard to all the circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the valuation of the subject premises ought to remain at £504.25, as to land £4.25 and as to buildings £500.
|