Appeal No. VA94/1/009
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Byrne Mech Limited APPELLANT RE: Factory and Land at Map Reference: 8D, Townland:
Raheen, E.D.: Athenry, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of April, 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £350 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: The accommodation agreed between the parties is as follows:- Valuation History: Written Submissions: In his written submission Mr. Donnelly said that the property, the subject of the appeal, is an industrial unit comprising a total area of 31,400 square feet including offices and ancillary building. He said that the calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject hinged on the following:- 1) The type of building Taking these considerations into account, he said he calculated the rateable valuation as follows:- Offices 4,044 sq.ft. @ £2.35 psf = £ 9,503.40 Mr. Donnelly gave details of two comparisons within the area as follows:- 1) Brody Engineering Limited 2) Cigna Benefit Reprocessing A written submission was received on the 11th October, 1994 from Mr. John Smiley of the Valuation Office, on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Smiley said that the property was situated in the outskirts of Athenry, beside the railway station, on a site purchased from the I.D.A. in 1979. He set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- Offices 4,044 sq.ft. @ £3.00 = £12,132 N.A.V. £69,000 x 0.5% = £345.00 Mr. Smiley commented that as the areas quoted are not unusually large, no quantum reduction was warranted. Mr. Smiley offered three comparisons as follows:- 1) Fruit of the Loom (VA92/3/028) 2) Paclene Limited 3) B.L.C. Limited Oral Hearing: Mr. Donnelly described the subject as an industrial premises situate on the outskirts of Athenry, Co. Galway. He said that there was a scarcity of suitable industrial comparisons due to the rural location but that in his opinion, the nearby Brody Engineering Limited premises was the best comparison. However, comparing the two premises, he said that Brody Engineering Limited was a more modern and compact premises than the subject. In addition it was smaller and would be easier to rent. Mr. Denis Menton gave evidence in relation to the condition of the subject premises which he described as not being modern in any way, in poor condition on the exterior and having a leaking roof. Mr. Martin Gohery gave evidence in relation to rental levels in the area which he said would be in the region of £1.20 to £1.40 per square foot. Mr. Smiley contended that the offices in the subject were, in fact, well finished and attractive. He estimated that the eaves height of the building was approximately 18 feet rising to 25 feet in the large extension. Commenting on the Cigna Benefit Reprocessing unit which is used as an office facility, Mr. Smiley said that the premises devalues at £2.45 per square foot overall and that this is the standard rental level for I.D.A. factories whether used for offices or factory space. In relation to the construction costs of the subject, Mr. Smiley said that the figure of £28 to £30 per square foot, to include 10% office space, was appropriate. He concluded that the subject was, in his opinion, well finished, with attractive office space and having the advantage of a railway station adjacent. This latter point was contested by Mr. Menton who said that the railway station was of little use to the subject business which does not undertake transportation of goods. Determination: Taking into consideration the location of the subject, its condition
and the evidence adduced by both parties in relation to rental levels
the Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct rateable valuation is
£250 and so determines.
|