Appeal No. VA95/1/014
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988
Wexford Co-Op Mart APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Cornmill, shop, stores and yard at Map Ref: 1Cb,
Townland: Bridgetown North, E.D. Bridgetown, R.D. Wexford, Co. Wexford
Quantum - Comparisons
B E F O R E
Henry Abbott S.C. Chairman
Paul Butler S.C.
Patrick Riney F.R.I.C.S. M.I.A.V.I.
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1995
By Notice of Appeal dated the 7th day of April 1995 the appellant appealed
against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a
rateable valuation of £300 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:-
"(1) the valuation is excessive and inequitable.
(2) the valuation is bad in law."
The property comprises a large grain stores with load bearing walls and
floors and corrugated asbestos roofs. There is 30 feet height to most
of the roofs. There is in addition to storage facilities a large covered-in
grain drying facility. There is a large marshalling and parking area for
trucks, tractors etc. In recent years the stores have been extended to
include a new farm shop, hardware stores and a large concrete/tarmac yard
for storage of fertilisers, machinery, fuel for sale in the shop.
The complex was originally built and valued in 1981 at £310. It
was subsequently appealed and the rateable valuation was fixed by the
Commissioner of Valuation at first appeal at £300.
A written submission was received on the 20th day of September 1995 from
Sheelagh O'Buachalla, BA, an Associate of the Society of Chartered Surveyors
of Donal O'Buachalla & Company Limited on behalf of the appellant.
In the written submission, Ms. O'Buachalla described the premises as
in a small rural village close to the coast eight miles south west of
Wexford town. She said that the premises comprised a small trading centre
and grain storage facility. On a site of approximately 1½ acres.
The constituent buildings all basic, uninsulated and of dated construction
are as follows:-
(1) Fuel Store: Basic haybarn structure with concrete walls
(2) Store/Shop: Dating from the 1970's, a basic structure with concrete
block infill walls, steel stanchions and a single skinned corrugated iron
sheeted roof. Height to eaves to approximately 11 ft.
(3) Former Mill: Comprises a purpose-built mill dating from the 1960's,
of steel framed construction with part concrete walls, otherwise clad
in uninsulated corrugated asbestos sheeting.
(4) Grain Store: Adjoining the old mill the store consists of steel portal
frame construction rendered concrete block walling to height of approximately
5 feet. Eaves height 15 ft.
(5) Grain Store: Basic bulk store with reinforced concrete walls under
a haybarn corrugated iron sheeted roof. Eaves height approximately 16
(6) Maintenance Workshop: Basic haybarn structure with concrete block
walls to a height of 10 ft and corrugated iron cladding to eaves (height
Yardage: A triangular shaped concrete paved yard adjacent and ancillary
to the buildings.
Hardcored sloping compound area at the western end of the site.
Weighpit: A weighpit accommodating a 60 tonne weighbridge is provided.
Tanks: Three molasses tanks with a total capacity of 9,120 litres.
Bins: Adjacent to the sloping store are located six vertical "Simplex"
galvanised steel grain bins.
Ms. O'Buachalla set out her calculation of the rateable valuation on
the subject premises as follows:-
(a) Trading Centre
Shop 2,537 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £ 5,074
Disused Stores 3,980 sq.ft. @ £0.25 = £ 995
Balance 30,303 sq.ft. @ £0.60 = £18,181
@ 0.5% £121.00
Motive Power - 190 hp @ 5p £ 9.50
Storage Bins - 2,400 tonnes @ 2½p less 50% for obsolescence £30.00
Weighpit £ 5.00
Molasses Tanks - 2,000 gallons @ 50p/1,000 £ 1.00
Five comparisons were offered which are summarised below:-
(1) Wexford Farmers - trading centre located 1 Monamolin on the main
Analysis: Total floor area of buildings 12,490 sq.ft devaluing at £1psf
inclusive of extensive concrete paved sales yard and weight pit.
(2) Galavans, New Ross
Rateable valuation £180. A purpose built modern store and bulk store
complex. 1992/3 First Appeal
Analysis: 41,398 sq.ft. @ £87p inclusive of concrete yard, bins
(3) Greencore Plc., Wellingtonbridge, Wexford
Rateable valuation £180.
1994/3 First Appeal
Analysis: 17,385 sq.ft. @ £1.50psf
(4) Odlums, Dock Road, Waterford
Rateable valuation £65.
1992/4 First Appeal
Analysis: Bulk Stores 11,633 sq.ft. @ 80p
Covered yard 3,259 sq.ft. @ 30p
(5) Gorey Grain, Enniscorthy
Rateable valuation £380.
1993/4 First Appeal
Purpose built bulk stores 24,144 sq.ft. @ £1.
A written submission was received on the 14th day of September 1995 from
Mr. Philip Colgan, District Valuer with 27 years experience in the Valuation
Office on behalf of the respondent.
In his written submission Mr. Colgan described the premises and their
valuation history as set out above. He said that he considered this to
be a good industrial complex with well maintained buildings with large
car parking a marshalling areas and trading very successfully.
Mr. Colgan set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject
premises as follows:-
Grain Intake (a, b) 924sq.ft. @ £1psf = £ 924
Grain Stores (c, d) 13,445sq.ft. @ £1.50psf = £20,168
Oil Tank Stores (e) 1,326sq.ft. @ £1.50psf = £ 1,989
Power Houses (f, g) 304sq.ft. @ £1psf = £ 304
Workshop (h) 1,426sq.ft. @ £1.50psf = £ 2,139
Rollermill plus stores/workshop (i) 1,104sq.ft. @ £1.50psf = £
Hardware Stores (In j) 2,213sq.ft. @ £1.80psf = £ 3,983
Shop, office & canteen (in j) 2,537sq.ft. @ £4.00psf = £10,148
6 x 500 tons simplex grain bins = 3,000 tons @ £4.50 per ton =
1 x ton)
1 x 2 tons) Molasses tanks = 12 tons
1 x 4 tons) @ £4 per ton = £48
1 x 10,000 litres fuel tanks @ 5p per litre = £500
1 x 60 ton weigh pit
Storage yard 30,000sq.ft. @ 5ppsf = £4,500
Total Horse Power 190sq.ft. @ 10/HP = £1,900
Say NAV £60,000 x 0.5% = RV £300.
He also gave details of nine comparisons which are summarised below:-
(1) Noel O'Brien Limited - VA91/1/010
1990 First Appeal
Stores 10,755 sq.ft. @ £1.75psf
(2) Stokestown Port Services Limited - VA91/1/009
Warehouse 21,486 sq.ft. @ £1.60psf
(3) Irechem International Limited
Warehouse 18,424 sq.ft. @ £1.75psf
Rateable valuation £160.
(4) John Bolger & Company Limited
1991/4 First Appeal
New Stores 17,601 sq.ft. @ £2psf
Older Stores 21,804 sq.ft. @ £1.25psf
Rateable valuation £375
(5) Meadow Freight, Rosslare Harbour, Wexford
5,800 sq.ft. for £15,000 i.e. £2.59psf
(6) Rosbercon Industrial Estate
Industrial rents £1.78psf to £2.88psf
(7) RD: New Ross, 5C Butlersland, New Ross Urban
Fish processing plant
Offices 3,498 sq.ft @ £2.87psf
(8) RD: Wexford, On 1M Ballygillane Little, ED: St. Helen's
Modern warehouse adjacent to Rosslare Harbour
Office 509 sq.ft @ £2.58psf
(9) GH Lett & Co.
1990/4 First Appeal
Warehouse for soft drinks manufacturer
Warehouse 9,100 sq.ft @ £2.20psf
Rateable valuation £100
The oral hearing took place in Wexford on the 26th day of September 1995.
Ms. Sheelagh O'Buachalla appeared for the appellant and Mr. Philip Colgan
appeared for the respondent.
For on the outset, the appellant submitted a list of items and valuations
under the trading centre and agreed that both VA95/1/014 - Wexford Co-op
Mart and VA95/1/015 - Wexford Marts Limited should be heard together as
the valuation of the smaller premises would follow from the assessment
of the Tribunal relating to the larger premises. The valuation of the
larger premises, the trading centre was summarised by the appellant for
the Tribunal as follows:
Grain Intake 924 sq.ft. @ 25p = £ 231
Grain Stores 13,345 sq.ft. @ 50p = £ 8,067
Oil Tank Store 1,326 sq.ft. @ 25p = £ 331
Power House 304 sq.ft. @ 25p = £ 76
Workshop 1,426 sq.ft. @ 25p = £ 356
Stores 1,104 sq.ft. @ 60p = £ 662
Shop 2,547 sq.ft. @ £2 = £ 5,074
Stores 2,213 sq.ft. @ 60p = £ 1,328
@ 5% = £80
NAV £81,48 @ 5% £ 40
The manager of the subject premises gave evidence along the lines of
the précis that the subject was relating to the business of grain
collection and hardware business. The turnover of stock in the hardware
business indicated that demand was not buoyant and that contrary to the
contention of Mr. Colgan in his précis the premises did not enjoy
monopoly status relating to the retail trade but had to compete with hardware
multiples such as Chadwicks in Wexford town. Evidence was given as to
the older nature of the buildings but the picture emerged of buildings
which satisfied the purpose for which they were used.
Resolution of the substantial difference between the valuation of the
respondent and that of the appellant centred around examination of the
comparisons offered by both sides. For the appellant the fact that there
was a passing rent for the trading centre located at Monamolin on Gorey
Wexford Road which reflected a rent per square foot closer to the appellant's
estimates but at a better location suggested a lower valuation. The second
comparison of Galavans, New Ross also reflected a net annual value per
square foot of less than £1. Comparison number three of the appellant's
submission Greencore Plc, Wellington Bridge, Wexford reflected a net annual
value of £1.50 per square foot and was put forward by the appellant
to indicate the top of the market relating to an incomparably better premises
in terms of location and use. The appellant's comparisons numbers four
and five also corroborated the general picture sought to be painted by
the earlier comparisons.
The comparisons offered by the respondent namely, Noel O'Brien Limited,
Stokestown Port Services Limited and Irechem International Limited related
to three portside developments which had the benefit of shipping facilities
particularly in the case of Noel O'Brien Limited for all types of imported
feed grains and substitutes. These premises did seem to reflect a more
rapidly changing turnover than the subject. Comparison number four, John
Bolger & Company Limited, advanced by the respondent related to large
grain stores not dissimilar to the subject premises but with the exception
of the fact that this grain store was in the middle of the malting barley
growing area of Wexford and had the benefit of marketing arrangements
with Guinness. The appellants distinguished comparisons five to nine inclusive
advanced by the respondent as either being harbour based or industrial
While the Tribunal is more inclined to accept the appellant's comparisons
as more valid it nevertheless must consider the net annual value of the
Greencore premises as being a guide and considers that even Galavans,
New Ross tends to push up the net annual value of the subject somewhat
higher than the figures advanced by the appellant. Also the three comparisons
in Oldcourt, New Ross offered by the respondent while having a better
location nevertheless are low quality buildings which are associated with
the reasonably high net annual value and must operate to temper the approach
of the Tribunal towards the lower range of valuation offered by the appellant.
The same comment may be made in relation to John Bolger & Company
Having regard to the foregoing the Tribunal determines the valuation