LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NI) 1964
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST VALUATION FOR RATING PURPOSES
VR/4/1973
BETWEEN
LEEMAN TROUGHTON - APPELLANT
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION - RESPONDENT
Lands Tribunal - Mr F Malcolm McKibbin MA(Cantab) FRICS
Belfast - 15th October 1973
This was an appeal against the valuation for rating purposes of a dwellinghouse, out-office
and land at Ballintaggart, Portadown, Co Armagh. In the list the reference was: Map No
56Ba, Valuation Office No 91, Townland Ballintaggart, Electoral Division Aghory, and Rural
District Armagh.
The subject comprised a bungalow with integral garage and store built in 1972 on a site of
about 3½ acres. The bungalow was valued for rating purposes at £40 and the attached
agricultural land at £3.75, making a total of £43.75.
On first appeal the value of the
bungalow was reduced to £39, with the land remaining at £3.75, to give a total of £42.75.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with this reduction and on the 6th August 1973 appealed to
the Lands Tribunal.
The Appellant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr R B
Sparkes ARICS, an officer of the Valuation Division of the Ministry of Finance.
The subject hereditament comprised land extending to about 3½ acres, part of a larger
family agricultural holding. Of this, about one half acre on which the Appellant’s bungalow
was built and to which the Tribunal refers as the “bungalow site” was valued with the
bungalow at £39, while the remainder, almost 3 acres, was valued separately at £3.75 and
distinguished as agricultural land. The amount, £3.75, at which this part of the subject
hereditament was assessed, was not in dispute, and accordingly both the Appellant and Mr
-1-
Sparkes directed their evidence towards the valuation of the bungalow site comprising the
bungalow, and garage and the immediate half acre.
The subject bungalow was of sand faced brick and artificial stone construction with
concrete tiled roof. It had main electricity and water services, while drainage was to a
septic tank.
The accommodation was:- entrance porch, hall with cloak cupboard and store, living room,
sitting room, large fitted working kitchen, 3 bedrooms, combined bathroom and WC, and a
room behind a garage of integral construction with the bungalow. The latter room, reached
only through a bedroom, was described by the Appellant as a “store room at the back of
the garage”, and by Mr Sparkes as a “study”. At the time of the Tribunal’s inspection it was
clearly part of the living accommodation and not a store room associated with the garage.
It was agreed by the Appellant and by Mr Sparkes that the usable floor area of the
bungalow, excluding porch, garage and room behind the garage, was 1,480 square feet,
and that the total external area excluding garage was 180 square metres, Mr Sparkes
having analysed the rateable valuations of all the comparables on a metric external area
basis.
The bungalow site, roughly triangular in shape with an average depth of 200 feet and a
frontage of 220 feet to a narrow third class road known as Dobbin Lane, was situated in an
agricultural area half a mile from the main Portadown/Armagh road, and two miles from the
Portadown Borough boundary. It was about three-quarters of a mile from the nearest bus
stop and some two miles from the nearest shop.
The Appellant stated that the subject hereditament was situated at a dangerous bend on a
very narrow road, only 8 feet 6 inches wide. It was in a purely agricultural area without
main drainage and the bungalow was designed as a “farm house” with a kitchen larger
than that normally required and provided in a residential bungalow. He considered that the
Respondent’s eight comparables were of no assistance, since five were two-storey houses
and the other three, though bungalows, were modern luxury type dwellings occupied by
professional people not in conjunction with agricultural land in an area schedule for that
type of development, with better roads with footpaths, street lighting, underground
electricity and telephone cables and modern council sewage disposal scheme.
-2-
The Appellant considered that the valuations of a number of comparables, details of which
he had obtained from the local councils, supported his appeal. He accepted Mr Sparkes’
explanation that the rateable value of one of these was that of an old farm house and not
that of a new dwelling which had been recently built on the same curtilage but which had
not yet been valued. Another of his comparables was an unfinished two-storey house at
Bottlehill which had been valued at a spot figure pending completion, since the occupiers
were living in a part of the house which had been completed. His remaining comparables
were a two-storey detached house at Ballintaggart and two detached bungalows at
Mulladry and Derryhale. Mr Sparkes gave a detailed analysis of the valuations of each of
these three comparables which devalued at 21 pence and 22 pence per square metre.
The Appellant accepted Mr Sparkes’ analysis in these cases but considered that the
subject bungalow, which he contended was a “farm house”, should be valued at a lesser
rate and that the valuation should not exceed £30.
Mr Sparkes agreed with many of the points made by the Appellant but was of the opinion
that the subject was on any view, an attractive modern bungalow very well finished and
constructed of good quality brick and tile. Although it was situated on a narrow minor
country road, it had the added attraction of privacy not found in estate development.
He gave evidence of the valuations of eight comparables, of which three were bungalows
and five two-storey houses. He stated that he had found it difficult to get comparables in
the area of the subject and so had included some two-storey houses as well as bungalows.
These comparables devalued at 20½ pence, 21 pence and 21½ pence per square metre
for the bungalows, and 21 pence to 22½ pence per square metre for the two-storey
houses. By comparison, Mr Sparkes had valued the subject as follows:-
Main Dwelling Block 180 square metres at 20 pence
Motor House Block 20 square metres
£36
say
3
Net Annual Value £39
To this must be added the agricultural land at the agreed value of £3.75.
-3-
DECISION
The Tribunal has inspected the subject hereditament and all the comparables.
The subject bungalow is most attractive and finished to a high standard, particularly in the
case of the kitchen and bathroom. Being very recently completed, the entrance drive is
rough, as is the immediate ground comprising the bungalow site.
It is a little less
conveniently situated than most of the comparables, but as Mr Sparkes pointed out its lack
of convenience is not very great and may well to many people be more attractive because
of its greater privacy.
The comparables are to a large extent very attractive and even, as the Appellant claimed,
luxury houses, and bungalows.
But apart from the more matured state of paths and
gardens, the Tribunal could see no measurable difference between the quality and
attraction of the subject and that of the comparables.
Dobbin Lane is narrow and winding, and at the time of the Tribunal’s inspection it was
being straightened and widened in places, including at the bungalow site. Indeed the
Appellant stated that the had known before his bungalow was constructed, that this
improvement would take place and so had sited it some distance back from the road to
allow for any widening. The hypothetical tenant would also have had this in mind and
would not have lowered his bid on this account.
The analysis of the valuations of the comparables shows that there is little distinction
between the rate per square metre for modern houses and bungalows in this area. The
Derryhale area in which four of the Respondent’s and one of the Appellant’s comparables
were situated may to some people be a more pleasant place to live, but the tone of the list
indicates that the hypothetical tenant does not make any very marked distinction.
The subject hereditament is not depreciated by its 3 acres of agricultural land and, in the
Tribunal’s view, the reduction made by the Respondent in the valuation rate to 20 pence
per square metre for the subject bungalow fully allows for any differences in attraction in
house, finish, or situation, between the subject and the comparables, which in the
Tribunal's view is minimal.
-4-
The Appellant has not shown that the entry in the list is wrong, and so the Tribunal
dismisses this Appeal.
The Respondent indicated that he did not wish to make any application for costs and
accordingly there will be no order for costs.
ORDERS ACCORDINGLY
8th November 1973
F MALCOLM McKIBBIN
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
-5-