Appeal No. VA96/3/039
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988
Noel Mahon APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: House and Post Office at Map Ref: 4GA, Townland:
ED: Bellavary, RD: Castlebar, Co. Mayo
Quantum - Differential between domestic and commerial valuation
B E F O R E
Fred Devlin - FRICS.ACI Arb. Deputy Chairman
Con Guiney - Barrister at Law Deputy Chairman
Brid Mimnagh - Solicitor Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 1997
By Notice of Appeal dated the 26th day of July 1996 the Appellant appealed
against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a
rateable valuation of £20 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 subject property is located in a rural area and beside the local national
school. It consists of a bungalow built in the early 1970's and acquired
by the present occupier for £11,000 in 1976. An extension at the
rear measuring 216 sq.ft. was subsequently added and is now used as a
sub-post office. The entire property was first valued in 1994 at a rateable
valuation of £20 arising from a request from Mayo County Council
to "Value post office". Of this figure £5 is attributable
to the post office and regarded as commercial, with the balance being
domestic. The accommodation comprises four bedrooms, kitchen, sitting
room, utility, bathroom and post office.
A written submission was received on the 20th March 1997 from Mr. Desmond
Killen, FRICS, FSCS, IRRV, a Fellow of the Society of Chartered Surveyors
in the Republic of Ireland and a Director of Donal O'Buachalla & Company
In his written submission, Mr. Killen stated that the dispute related
solely to the non-domestic portion of the premises assessed at rateable
valuation £5. The Appellant accepted a rateable valuation of £15
in respect of the remainder. Mr. Killen proposed a rateable valuation
of £2.50 on the premises which he devalued as follows:-
Rent applied @ £10 p.w./£500 p.a. i.e. Agreed area 20 sq.m.
216 sq.ft. @ £2.29 = £495 @ 0.5% = £2.50.
A written submission was received on the 14th March 1997 from Mr. Stephen
Dervan, a Valuer in the Valuation Office since 1985.
In his written submission, he described the property and proposed a rateable
valuation as follows:-
"(1) Post Office 216 sq.ft. @ £5 or £20 p.w. Say £1,000
RV @ 0.5% = £20.
(2) Estimated Capital Value Say £50,000
NAV @ 8% £ 4,000
RV @ 0.5% £20."
Mr. Dervan said that there was a limited amount of direct comparable
evidence in the general area which had been revised since 1989 under the
NAV system. However, he offered three comparisons as follows:-
1. Michael Barrett, On 2A, Leckneen, ED: Turlough
House and Post Office
RV £15 (Domestic £13). Valued 1990.
A temporary post office in the occupiers sitting room, prior to construction
of an extension to accommodate the post office.
2. Cassie Canning, 27, Bellavary, ED: Bellavary
House and Post Office
RV £9. Valued 1959.
3. John and Martin Roche, 11a.12AB, Ross West, ED: Pontoon
House and Post Office
RV £3.50. Valued 1962.
At the oral hearing held on the 26th day of March 1997 the Appellant was
represented by Mr. Des Killen, FRICS, FSCS, IRRV, a Director of Donal
O'Buachalla & Company Limited. The Respondent was represented by Mr.
Stephen Dervan, a Valuer in the Valuation Office.
Having adopted his written submission as his evidence in chief given
under oath, Mr. Killen made the following contentions.
1. The subject hereditament comprised a modern bungalow with a small
extension at the rear now used as a sub-post office.
2. The total gross area of the property is 1,528 sq.ft. of which 216 sq.ft.
comprises the sub-post office.
3. The rateable valuation of the entire is £20 and it is agreed
that £15 is in respect of the area solely in residential use.
4. The rateable valuation of £5 attributable to the sub-post office
represents a net annual value of £1,000 equivalent to a rent of
£4.63 psf as against £2.39 psf on the residential space.
5. Having regard to the location and nature of the property there is no
justification for such a wide differential in rates per square foot applied
to the residential and
Mr. Dervan having taken the oath adopted his written submissions as his
evidence in chief and made the following observations.
1. The operation of a sub-post office is under the control of An Post
which carefully examines the location to ensure that there is not an oversupply
of outlets. Hence, a sub-post office has an intrinsic value which must
be reflected in net annual value.
2. Whilst the comparisons contained in his submission are of little assistance
they were the best that could be found following an extensive examination
of the valuation records.
It is the function of this Tribunal to determine the net annual value
of the subject hereditament as a single unit of occupation in accordance
with the provisions of Section 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852
as amended by Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1986.
Having regard to the above, to the evidence and arguments adduced at
the hearing and in the absence of any evidence of rental value, the Tribunal
prefers Mr. Killen's valuation approach and accordingly determines the
net annual value of the hereditament to be £3,600, giving a rateable
valuation of £18. In accordance with the evidence £15 is attributable
to the section solely in residential use.