Appeal No. VA96/3/051
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Monery By Products Limited APPELLANT RE: Factory and land at Map Ref: 1B, Monery Upper,
ED: Crossdoney, RD: Cavan, Co. Cavan B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 15th day of July 1996 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £435 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the Courthouse, Cavan on the 22nd day of January 1997. The appellant was represented by Mr. Tadhg Donnelly, Brian Bagnall & Associates and the respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Walsh, M.A. B.Sc. (Surveying), Diploma in Environmental Economics and a Valuer with 10 years experience in the Valuation Office. Both valuers adopted as their evidence in chief, given under oath, their respective written submissions which previously had been exchanged by them and submitted to the Tribunal. Ms. Ita Brady, Financial Controller of Monery By Products Limited also gave evidence. The Property: The accommodation comprises:- Main Floor Area (including milling, fat reception area, fat refining
area, main production area and raw materials) 37,486 sq.ft. The comparisons adduced by Mr. Donnelly were:- 1. Lakelands Co-op, Crossdoney, Co. Cavan 2. Bailieboro Foundry, Bailieboro, Co. Cavan 3. Former Boxmore Plastics Limited, Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan Mr. Donnelly analysed the sale price to yield a net annual value for the buildings of 46,000 sq.ft. at £1. Based on his comparisons and the considerations which he submitted at hearing, Mr. Donnelly proposed a rateable valuation on the subject premises of £310 as set out below. Main buildings (factory and storage) 37,486 sq.ft. @ £0.80 = £29,988 Mr. Walsh submitted that the valuation proposed of £435 was in line with other industrial valuations in the area. He set out his calculation of the rateable valuation as follows:- Main floor area 37,486 sq.ft. @ £1.30 = £48,732 Plus Mr. Walsh offered two comparisons which he said were larger scale factories in rural locations. He said that both units were specifically geared and fitted out for a particular type of production. He said that the range applied on the office rentals in the area was £2 to £2.30 psf. and for general production from £1.50 to £1.75 psf. 1. General Steel Products Limited, Ballymackney Ms. Ita Brady, Financial Controller of the appellant company in her evidence outlined the difficulties confronting the rendering industry since 1990 when meat and bone meal was banned from ruminant feed. Arising out of the BSE crisis in early 1996 further restrictions were imposed on the industry and consumer pressure resulted in a further reduction in the demand for meat and bone meal products. As a consequence, the industry is mainly reliant upon the export market. New regulations coming to force in April 1997 will necessitate expenditure in the range of £1m to £1.5m at the subject premises. Under cross examination, Mr. Walsh agreed that the valuation of the Grove Turkey premises (comparison no. 2 in his précis) included an element of rateable plant which he had not separated out in his devaluation. Notwithstanding the fact that he was the appeal valuer in this instance he was unable to say what figure was attributable to the rateable plant. Mr. Donnelly said that he had been informed by the valuer acting for Grove Turkeys that there was a substantial element of rateable plant, but he too could not say what the actual figure was. Mr. Donnelly said that part of the Grove Turkey premises were finished to a high standard with tiled walls etc. Once again neither he nor Mr. Walsh were able to offer specific information which would be of assistance to the Tribunal. Under the circumstances the Tribunal finds this comparison to be of no help whatsoever. Having carefully considered all the evidence and the comparisons adduced by the valuers the Tribunal makes the following findings:- 1. Mr. Donnelly's comparisons are not helpful for a number of reasons
such as size 2. Of the two comparisons introduced by Mr. Walsh i.e. premises occupied by General Steel Products Limited at Monaltyduff and the Grove Turkey premises at Corhollan only the first is of any assistance for the reasons stated earlier in this judgment. As for the General Steel premises these would appear to be of more substantial construction than of the subject property. 3. The subject premises is a large complex of buildings of somewhat basic construction and this does not appear to be adequately reflected in Mr. Walsh's valuation. 4. The relevant date for this appeal is late 1994 and considering Ms. Brady's evidence, the Tribunal has had regard to the adverse effects of the BSE crisis on the rendering industry but only to the extent that its effects could have been gauged at that time. 5. Generally speaking the Tribunal found elements of the evidence adduced to be unsatisfactory. Mr. Walsh's information regarding one of his comparisons i.e. Grove Turkey premises was such as to make it of no assistance to the Tribunal. When an appeal has reached the stage of an oral hearing before the Tribunal
it is expected that the valuers will be totally familiar with the facts
relating to the subject property and all of the comparisons. Under the
procedures of the Tribunal each party is afforded an opportunity to examine
the others submissions and valuation in advance of the oral hearing. If
it comes to the attention of a valuer that the information regarding the
subject premises or any of the comparisons is incorrect or misleading
then that valuer is obliged to bring it to the attention of the other
valuer before the oral hearing commences. By so doing it may lead to a
satisfactory resolution of the appeal without further proceedings. The
valuer should remember that their primary duty is to the Tribunal and
it is incumbent upon them to ensure that all facts relating to the subject
property and the comparisons are exchanged and agreed. By so doing this
will help the Tribunal to focus on those issues that go to the route of
the dispute and not to spend time unnecessarily trying to grapple with
evidence that is imprecise or lacking in fundamental matters of fact.
Main Floor 37,486 sq.ft. @ £1.20 = £44,983 NAV = £65,708 @ 0.5% = £328. Plus Plant agreed @ £79 = £407. Say £405.
|