Text Size: - +
Go Back

00-1-028 Jaycee Printers Ltd.


Appeal No. VA00/1/028












Jaycee Printers Ltd.                                                                               APPELLANT




Commissioner of Valuation                                                                   RESPONDENT


RE:  Office, workshop at   Map Reference 87C/9 Bohermore, Townland:  Townparks St. Nicholas, Ward: (Castlegar), RD: North,County Borough of Galway




Barry Smyth - FRICS.FSCS                               Deputy Chairman


Rita Tynan - Solicitor                                           Member


Tim Cotter - Valuer                                              Member             






By Notice of Appeal dated the 20th day of April 2000 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £200 on the above described hereditament. 


The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that the valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law.




The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing that took place in the Council Chamber, Galway County Council, on 5th July 2000. Mr. Eamon Halpin, B.Sc. (Surveying), A.S.C.S., A.R.I.C.S., M.I.A.V.I., of Eamon Halpin & Co., Chartered Valuation Surveyors & Estate Agents represented the appellant.  Mr. Michael Keogh, District Valuer, represented the respondent. 

A written submission prepared by Mr. Eamonn Halpin on behalf of the appellant was received by the Tribunal on 26th June 2000.


A written submission prepared by Mr. Michael Keogh, on behalf of the respondent was received by the Tribunal on 21st June 2000.


Mr. Halpin gave sworn testimony on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Keogh gave sworn testimony on behalf of the respondent.


The following relevant facts either agreed or so found, emerged during the course of the hearing:


The Property

The subject property is located in the Liosbaun Industrial Estate on the Tuam Road, Galway City and comprises a detached industrial unit with ancillary office accommodation. The building is a modern unit with precast concrete portal frame, concrete walls and double skin roof decking. The accommodation is agreed as follows (gross external)


GROUND FLOOR                                       M2

Offices                                                            139.35

Production Area                                              501.30 (Effective headroom 4.27m)

(including dispatch bay)                                 28.89

External Shed

(Compressor Housing                           8.54)



Offices                                                              153.28

Storage                                                              479.46 (Effective headroom 3.0m)





All Mains Services are connected


Valuation History

The subject premises were assessed in the 98/4 Revision lists at RV £220 (effective from 1 January 1999). Following First Appeal the RV was reduced to £200 without agreement. Valuation appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.


Appellant's Case

Valuation Proposed


ESTM. N.A.V. (1988 Tone)

Offices                                                                        1,500 sq. ft. @ £3.50 =          £5,250


Basic Offices                                                                311 sq. ft. @ £2.50  =          £778


Gr. Floor         Workshop                                            5,396 sq. ft. @ £2.10 =          £11,332

                      (12ft headroom)

1st Floor           Offices/stores/canteen                         1,650 sq. ft. @ £2.50 =          £4,125


1st Floor           Mezzanine Stores                                5,161 sq. ft. @ £1.00 =          £5,161

                        (9ft6in headroom)

                                                                                    Total                            =          £27,455

                                                                                    @ 0.63%                     =          £167.86


                                                                                                                        (Say £168)



Valuation Arguments

1.      The premises has a ground floor workshop of only 12ft or 14ft working headroom.

2.      The 1st floor mezzanine storage area has limited headroom (9ft 6in under the roof beams - 13m) and has limited value due to the reluctance of most workshop users to locate on the first floor.

3.      That the estimated N.A.V. @ £31,750 is excessive in view of the comparisons and relative values at this location.

4.      The Commissioner of Valuation in adopting this NAV of £31,750 has over assessed the premises particularly in view of the low headroom of the ground floor area


Comparisons adduced are set out in Appendix 1 to this judgment


Respondent's Case

Valuation Assessed

The (reduced) Rateable Valuation of £200 devalues as follows:

Ground Floor:

Offices:                                   139.35 m2        @ £43.056                  =          £ 6,000

Production Area                      501.30 m2 -      @ £32.292                  =          £16,188

Works office                             28.89 m2 -      @ £37.67                    =          £  1,088

Compressor shed                     8.54 m2

First Floor:

Offices:                                   153.28m2             @ £32.29                    =          £4,949

Storage space:                         479.46m2        @ £10.764                             £5,161


RV:                                                                 0.63%                          =          £210.33

                                                                        Say                              =          £200

NAV £31,750



The grounds of appeal were fully considered together with agent's further submissions prior to the determination of the appeal.

Comparisons adduced are set out in Appendix 2 to this judgment



1.      This is a purpose built industrial unit which has a first floor of concrete construction from the date of the original construction and not added at a later date or being less than a full structural floor as might be understood by the use of the word mezzanine.

2.      The floor to ceiling heights at ground floor and to a minor extent at first floor are in dispute between the parties.  They Tribunal rules require that precis be exchanged prior to the hearing so that among other things matters of fact such as this can be agreed.  There is no point in debating such matters before the Tribunal where they are a matter of fact.  We draw attention to the Registrar's letter of instructions and it is our request that the appellant's and respondent's valuers contact each other before the hearings to clarify matters that might be in dispute.  It is a waste of the Tribunal's time to have to hear a debate on issues that it cannot possible resolve. 


In this case it is not disputed that the floor to ceiling heights in the subject premises are the same as in the one comparison that both parties have put forward the common comparison,J.R. Porter Ltd.  This common comparison is in our opinion the most relevant to the subject case and its valuation is also supported by the Castleprint Ltd. comparison.


In light of the evidence adduced and the comparisons referred to above the Tribunal affirms the rateable valuation of £200.