Text Size: - +
Go Back

00-3-014 North Western Regional Fisheries Board

Evidence was given on behalf of the Appellant by Mr. Vincent Roche C.E.O. of the

 

Appellant, in which he confirmed and clarified his summary of evidence referred to in Appendix (1) of this Judgment.

 

Under cross-examination by Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Roche conceded that the subject

 

premises would be the headquarters of the local catchment management

 

committee, the membership whereof generally represented angling and private fishery

 

Solicitor appeared for theRespondent. Mr. Hewson opened the law in relation to exemption for    public purposes briefly and referred to the fact that the North Western Regional Fisheries

 

 

The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place in the Council Chamber, Galway

 

County Council, County Hall, Prospect Hill, Galway on the 3rd day of May 2001. Mr. Dermot Hewson, Solicitor appeared for the Appellant and Ms Catherine  Egan, BL., instructed by the Chief State

 

with the public through the premises. Mr. Roche referred to a map which showed the

 

interests. He also conceded that the accounts of the Appellant showed substantial

 

Board had already obtained exemption in respect of its headquarters, by order of the Circuit Court dated 18th February 1986. 

 

 

Appeal No. VA00/3/014

 

AN BINSE LUACHÁLA

 

VALUATION TRIBUNAL

 

AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988

 

VALUATION ACT, 1988

 

 

 

North Western Regional Fisheries Board                                                    APPELLANT

 

and

 

Commissioner of Valuation                                                                        RESPONDENT

 

RE:  Office at  Map Reference 17K, Townland: Bangor, E.D. Bangor, R.D. Belmullet,  Co. Mayo

    Exemption - Public Purposes

 

B E F O R E

Henry Abbott - Senior Counsel                           Chairman

 

Michael Coghlan - Solicitor                                 Member

 

Tim Cotter - Valuer                                              Member             

 

 

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

 ISSUED ON THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001

By Notice of Appeal dated the 22nd day of September 2000, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £30 on the above described hereditament.

 

The Grounds of appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal are that; "the Board is appealing the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation not to exempt the Board's base on the grounds that Judge Grattan Esmonde ruled at Ballina Circuit Court on 18 February 1986, that the Board's headquarters in Ballina were exempted from rating under the 1852 and 1874 Acts.  The Board does not pay rates on its HQ and having regard to the above ruling, would argue strongly that its Bangor base should also be exempted from rates".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

catchment area relating to the premises as being quite a large part of coastal Mayo.

 

income from sources other than government funding.  He conceded that the subject

 

                                          

 

 

premises served a limited geographical area. He stated that the premises would not be

 

open to the public on a general basis, but that there would be normal business contact

 

 

 

Mr. Roche agreed that while a significant part of the income of the Appellant came

 

from 'own resources', there was a very substantial input of Government funds into the

 

Appellant's budget and the Appellant's budget was subject to the control of the

 

Government Comptroller and Auditor General and hence to the budgetary and accounting

 

The Tribunal also had the benefit of an extensive précis of evidence prepared by Mr.

 

Appellant, except in relation to the comments on pages 2 and 5 regarding the entitlement to

 

exemption.

 

It was submitted by Counsel for the Respondent, that the subject premises served

 

private interests, anglers being only a small segment of the Community and that the

 

composition of the proposed management committee taking responsibility for the

 

premises, reflected the private sectional nature of the interests being served. She

 

argued that the public in general had no interest in angling, much less commercial

 

fisheries, under the supervision of the Appellant. She urged that the case was one to

 

which the principles of the case The Mayor of Limerick v Commissioner of

 

Valuation,IR 6CL 420 ought to be applied. She urged that the facts of this case could

 

be distinguished from the line of cases in the exemption area represented by

 

Guardians of the Londonderry Union v Londonderry Bridge CommissionersIR 2CL

 

577 and Kerry County Council v Commissioner of Valuation 1934 IR 527.

 

   

Paschal Conboy, Appeal Valuer, the contents of which were not disputed by the

 

disciplines applicable to the public sector.

 

 

 

 

of the premises is nevertheless strongly public in its nature.

 

The Tribunal is moved to his view by an examination of the Fisheries Act 1980, and

 

the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1976 to 1990, providing for a

 

strong statutory remit to the Appellant Board and consequentlyany subsidiary

 

catchment management committee, to :

 

(a) Promote Angling

 

(b) Protect the environment.

 

(c) Promote tourism

 

(d) Enforce Fisheries Act.

 

(e) Conserve fishery stocks.

 

These functions are not limited to anglers or commercial fishery interests.

 

The Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence did not suggest that any private profit,

 

even for the Appellant, in any sense of the term, would be generated from the subject

 

premises and that the administrative arrangement for licenses for angling or fishing from the subject premises would not change this view. The fact that the powers of government

 

 

 

 

-~--

 

 

The Tribunal, while acknowledging that private or sectional interests are strongly represented on the proposed Management Committee controlling the subject premises, the purpose

 

FINDINGS

 

and the fact that the Appellant remains through Departmental and Audit control, firmly under the

control of the Minister, responsible  for the Fisheries Acts,

reinforces the opinion that the subject remains in effective public ownership.

 

 

regarding the enforcement of the Fisheries Acts have been delegated to the Appellant

 

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

Having regard to the findings of fact, the Tribunal is of the view that the subject

 

premises falls within the parameters of the proviso of Section 63 of the Poor Relief

 

(Ireland) Act 1838 as in the case of a building, land or hereditament dedicated to or

 

used for public purposes. Accordingly the Tribunal determines that the subject be

 

­­

 

 

 

 

 

 

entered as exempt in the Valuation list.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appeal No. VA00/3/014

 

AN BINSE LUACHÁLA

 

VALUATION TRIBUNAL

 

AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988

 

VALUATION ACT, 1988

 

 

 

North Western Regional Fisheries Board                                                    APPELLANT

 

and

 

Commissioner of Valuation                                                                        RESPONDENT

 

RE:  Office at  Map Reference 17K, Townland: Bangor, E.D. Bangor, R.D. Belmullet, Co. Mayo

    

 

B E F O R E

Henry Abbott - Senior Counsel                           Chairman

 

Michael Coghlan - Solicitor                                 Member

 

Tim Cotter - Valuer                                              Member             

 

 

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

 ISSUED ON THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001

By Notice of Appeal dated the 22nd day of September 2000, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £30 on the above described hereditament.

 

The Grounds of appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal are that; "the Board is appealing the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation not to exempt the Board's base on the grounds that Judge Grattan Esmonde ruled at Ballina Circuit Court on 18 February 1986, that the Board's headquarters in Ballina were exempted from rating under the 1852 and 1874 Acts.  The Board does not pay rates on its HQ and having regard to the above ruling, would argue strongly that its Bangor base should also be exempted from rates".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top