Appeal No. VA96/4/012
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988
R & H Hall APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Silos, Stores, Offices and Yard at Map Ref: 9,
Ward: North Dock B, County Borough of Dublin
B E F O R E
Mary Devins - Solicitor Deputy Chairman
Fred Devlin - FRICS.ACI Arb. Deputy Chairman
Brid Mimnagh - Solicitor Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1997
By Notice of Appeal dated the 12th August, 1996 the Appellant appealed
against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a
rateable valuation of £900 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 consists of a purpose built facility for the bulk handling
and storage of grain and feed stuffs. It is situated near the waterfront
on the southern side of Alexandra Road with frontage to 1, Branch Road
South and Alexandra Quay.
At First Appeal in 1987 the rateable valuation was reduced to £2,735
composed of two elements as follows:-
Buildings Valuation £965
Absolute Valuation £1,770
The Commissioner of Valuation made this reduction to take into account
the dismantled part of the conveyor system. An appeal was lodged against
this decision to the Valuation Tribunal the outcome was to reduce the
valuation to £600, that is, £300 buildings and £300
absolute. In 1995 the property was again listed for revision. The rateable
valuation was increased to take account of new buildings and issued as
Total £925 - £625 buildings and £300 absolute.
An appeal was lodged with the Commissioner of Valuation, as a result
of which the rateable valuation was reduced to £900, £600
buildings and £300 absolute. It is against this determination of
the Commissioner of Valuation that an appeal lies to the Tribunal.
A written submission was received on the 18th June, 1997 from Ms. Sheelagh
O'Buachalla, BA, an Associate of the Society of Chartered Surveyors and
a Director of Donal O'Buachalla & Company Limited on behalf of the
Appellant. In her written submission, Ms. O'Buachalla set out the valuation
history, the property description and set out her calculation of the correct
rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:-
" Previous valuation fixed by Valuation Tribunal £300 RV
*Less Block F - demolised agreed @ 45
New Store 17,964 sq.ft. @ £1.75 = £31,437
*Weighbridge Office 323 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £646
@ 0.63% = £32,083
Total RV £457
[* - At hearing Ms. O'Buachalla said that in ease of the Tribunal she
would apply a rate of £1.75 in respect of both the new store and
the weighbridge office. She
also indicated that she accepted the figure of £300 RV as fixed
by the Valuation Tribunal in respect of the old buildings. This gave a
total rateable valuation of £755.]"
Ms. O'Buachalla offered the Tribunal two comparisons in support of her
1. Subject Premises at 9 Alexandra Road (VA88/136)
RV £300 buildings. This was the rateable valuation on the old buildings
as determined by the Valuation Tribunal at the above appeal number. She
devalued the buildings in the subject premises on the basis of the Tribunal's
decision as follows:-
Weighpits 4,454 Sq.ft. }
(b) & (c) 3,820 Sq.ft. } @ £1.10
Store (f) 6,800 Sq.ft. @ £1.10
Offices (g) 2,076 Sq.ft. @ £2.20
Lockers (i) 215 Sq.ft. @ £0.55p
Stores/Workshops (j) Grd 2,184 Sq.ft. @ £1.10
1st 2,184 Sq.ft. @ £0.55p
Warehouse (l) 9,221 Sq.ft. @ £1.38
Checkers (m) 602 Sq.ft. @ £1.10
Lockers (o) 357 Sq.ft. @ £0.55p
Conveyor Housing 6,047 Sq.ft. @ £1.38
Top Floor (ade) 30,946 Sq.ft. @ £0.55p
2. Fashion Express Limited, 17sb Alexandra Road
Term: 25 x 5 from 8th June, 1995
Floor Area: 50,138 sq.ft. Devalues at £1.39 psf.
A written submission was received on the 13th June, 1997 from Mr. David
Walsh, B.Agr.Sc., a District Valuer with 27 years experience in the Valuation
Office on behalf of the Respondent.
In his written submission, Mr. Walsh set out the grounds of appeal, the
property description, valuation history and his valuation considerations.
Mr. Walsh assessed rateable valuation on the subject premises using two
methods which are set out below:-
Silo Block 38,710 tonnes @ 3.5p/tonne = £1,355 (abs)
New Store 17,964 sq.ft. @ £3.00 sq.ft. = £53,892
Check-in Office 323 sq.ft. @ £3.00 sq.ft. = £ 969
Weighbrs, Lockers, & Stores 14,793 sq.ft. @ £2.00 sq.ft. = £29,586
Offices 2,076 sq.ft. @ £3.00 sq.ft. = £ 6,228
Conveyor Housing 6,047 sq.ft. @ £1.00 sq.ft. = £ 6,047
£96,722 @ 0.63% = £609.35 Say £600 (buildings)
Total RV £1,955
Add appropriate valuation for the new building to the valuation decided
Valuation Tribunal in relation to the balance of the hereditament (refs.
VA88/136 and VA89/61).
Store 17,964 sq.ft. @ £3.00 sq.ft. = £53,892
Office 323 sq.ft. @ £3.00 sq.ft. = £ 969
£54,861 @ 0.63% = £345.62 Say £345
Valuation applicable to new store: £345
Valuation of balance of hereditament £300 (bldgs) £300 (abs)
Allow for demolition to provide space
for new store: £ 45
Total £900 ie, £600 (bldgs) £300 (abs)"
Mr. Walsh supplied the Tribunal with two comparisons in support of his
rateable valuation as set out below:-
1. Odlum Group Limited, In 11 Alexandra Road.
Grain Silo. 1987 First Appeal. Valuation £1,450 ie, £150 (bdgs)
and £1,300 (abs).
These silos are located in premises adjoining the subject property and
the RV is
equivalent to £0.07 per tonne.
2. Part of 48,420 sq.ft. grain store at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork.
RV £690. Ref: VA92/3/001. He said that this store was described
by agents for
the Appellant as 'effectively to shell specification only'. It has no
The Tribunal decision accepted the NAV applied in calculating the RV,
At the oral hearing which took place in Dublin on the 27th day of June,
1997 Ms. Sheelagh O'Buachalla of Messrs. Donal O'Buachalla & Company
Limited appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent was represented
by Mr. David Walsh of the Valuation Office.
Both Ms. O'Buachalla & Mr. Walsh adopted their written précis
as their sworn evidence.
Ms. O'Buachalla stated that only the valuation on buildings was in dispute
and that she had accepted the £300 attributed to miscellaneous by
Ms. O'Buachalla referred to the Tribunal's decision in VA88/136 and said
that using the devalued figures in relation thereto and applying an increase
of 25% in respect of the new store and weighbridge office her assessment
of the NAV of the latter was £1.75 psf resulting in an RV of £455.
Ms. O'Buachalla referred in particular to Block L of the subject hereditament
which, she said, devalued at £1.38 psf.
She referred to a comparison 'Fashion Express Limited' 17sb Alexandra
Road which she said gave an indication of rental values in the area of
£1.39 psf adjusted to 1988.
Mr. Walsh submitted that Fashion Express Limited was an unsuitable comparison
because of its irregular shape, differing floor levels and its walls which
were not reinforced. He further pointed out that the valuation for Fashion
Express Limited had been agreed at £1.80 psf.
Mr. Walsh submitted that the new store in the subject was a prime property
with three doors opening directly onto the road, that it could take in
virtually any type of commodity and further that it had a very good conveyor
He further submitted that the docks area has been doing particularly
well in recent years and he referred the Tribunal to the Lisney index
of industrial rents attached to his written submission at Appendix 3.
Mr. Walsh referred to his comparison No. 2 that is, R. & H. Hall
grain store at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork and to the Tribunal's judgement in
relation thereto at reference VA92/3/001. He pointed out that the Tribunal
had accepted the Respondent's assessment of NAV which devalued at £3
psf for a store, which in his opinion, was directly comparable to the
The Tribunal, while noting that Ms. O'Buachalla's devaluation of the earlier
Valuation Tribunal decision in relation to the subject property remained
unchallenged by the Respondent nonetheless does not consider such devaluation
to be the best comparative evidence available in the instant case.
The new buildings in the subject property are incontrovertibly good quality
buildings, well constructed and well located.
Taking this into account, therefore, together with the comparative evidence
adduced by the Respondent the Tribunal hereby affirms the decision of
the Respondent herein.