LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST VALUATION FOR RATING PURPOSES
VR/21/1970
BETWEEN
NORMAN FRANCIS AND MARIE BAILEY - APPELLANTS
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND - RESPONDENT
Lands Tribunal - F Malcolm McKibbin MA FRICS
Belfast - 20th November 1970
This was an appeal against the valuation for rating purposes of a semi-detached dwelling
house, garage and garden at 54 Belmont Church Road, Belfast (Valuation Office No 87).
This hereditament was valued at £40 at the second general revaluation in 1957. On the
appellants' application it was listed for the 1970/ 1971 Annual Revision. The respondent
made no change in the valuation at this revision and at the subsequent First Appeal.
Mr N F Bailey, one of the appellants, appeared in person and the respondent was
represented by Mr J L Kennedy FRICS, an officer of the Valuation Division of the Ministry of
Finance.
The grounds of appeal were that the site immediately adjoining 54 Belmont Church Road
was used as a Corporation Yard and rubbish dump by the Cleansing Department of the
Belfast Corporation and that this user caused considerable annoyance and discomfort to
the occupiers of the subject hereditament. Mr Bailey contended that a substantial reduction
from £40 to £32 was warranted.
Mr Bailey gave evidence that he had occupied 54 Belmont Church Road since he and his
wife had purchased it in 1941. At that time the adjoining yard had been in existence but
only about four men had worked there. Now it was the headquarters of about forty men,
employed by the Belfast Corporation Cleansing Department and the consequent activity
and noise was inevitably much greater than before. In addition, a scheme had come into
operation in 1968 whereby members of the public were permitted to bring to the yard all
classes of rubbish which were dumped in two open metal bins seven feet high. When
these were full, rubbish was placed on the floor of the yard beside the bins. Considerable
use was made of this facility which was officially available from 7 pm to 9 pm each
evening in summer and from 7.30 am to 11.30 am on Saturday mornings throughout the
-1-
year. Mr Bailey stated that the public did not always observe these permitted hours of
dumping and frequently used the premises at other times. The volume of rubbish left in this
way was increasing. He considered that, while the attendants kept the yard as tidy as
possible, a health hazard must be considered. Rubbish collection started before 7.30 am
and in the six summer months continued until 9 pm. Street sweepings and privately
dumped rubbish lie in the open metal bins, and on the ground alongside, all day and all
night until collected very noisily about 10.30 am. If windows in the subject hereditament
were left open, dust and dirt were frequently blown into the house. The outlook of some of
the windows of his house was directly into the yard, and both the yard and the rubbish in
the open containers was most unsightly. In addition, at the permitted hours of private
dumping, there was frequently a stream of cars coming to the yard which blocked the
narrow carriageway of Belmont Church Road and caused traffic congestion apart from
making the egress by car from the subject hereditament difficult and at times dangerous.
Mr Bailey produced photographs illustrating clearly actual instances of the matters of which
he complained. He also produced a statement signed by six of his neighbours who
endorsed and supported his objections.
Mr Kennedy did not object to the introduction of these photographs or to the admission of
the supporting statement. He did however point out that although six of the appellants'
neighbours had signed this statement indicating that they objected to the use of this
Corporation Yard, none had taken any steps to ask for a reduction in the valuations of their
hereditaments.
Mr Kennedy gave evidence of visiting the subject hereditament and the adjoining
Corporation Yard on four occasions, including evenings and Saturday mornings in
September 1970. In his opinion there was no user of the yard at these times of such a
character as to warrant any reduction in the rent a hypothetical tenant would pay for the
subject hereditament. He gave details of the valuations of the subject and of a number of
adjoining hereditaments including those directly opposite the Corporation Yard across
Belmont Church Road, and he claimed that these showed that full allowance had been
made for the presence of the Corporation Yard. These valuations had all been
unchallenged since the second general revaluation in 1957.
DECISION
I have inspected both the subject and the other hereditaments mentioned at the hearing. In
particular I have visited the Corporation Yard on several occasions including a Saturday
morning.
-2-
A notice on the gate of this yard states that domestic refuse, including furniture etc, may be
deposited free of charge between 7 pm and 9 pm from Monday to Friday and on Saturday
mornings between 7.30 am and 11.30 am from 1st April to 30th September. From 1 st
October to 31st March refuse may be deposited between 7.30 am and 11.30 am on
Saturday mornings.
From the evidence presented by the contents of the metal containers during my inspections
on days other than Saturday, it is clear that during the month of November the depositing of
rubbish was not restricted to the stated hours prescribed for Saturday. It is also clear that
domestic refuse is interpreted in the widest possible sense but equally it is clear that an
official of the Corporation is in attendance to supervise and assist with the depositing of
rubbish in the containers provided. On my Saturday morning visit I saw that there was a
constant flow of private cars bringing rubbish, though this was not sufficiently dense at the
time of my visit to cause any traffic obstruction on the narrow Belmont Church Road
carriageway. However the evidence presented by Mr Bailey's photographs indicates that
such obstructions can and do occur, and I have no reason to doubt that the depositing of
rubbish is more intense in the summer than during the winter months.
I am satisfied that the situation has worsened for the occupiers of the subject hereditament
since 1968 and that the subject hereditament is more affected than any of the other
hereditaments situated nearby. From the agreed base that a satisfactory allowance for the
earlier position in 1957 was made in the assessment of the valuation at £40, I consider that
this valuation must now be reduced to allow for the further encroachment on the amenities
of the subject hereditament by the increased and extended activities at the Corporation
Yard. No matter how well and carefully it is kept and supervised, it is still a factor which
would affect greatly the views of the hypothetical tenant.
Mr Bailey asked for a substantial reduction to £32 in the valuation of the subject
hereditament. This would be too large, but I have come to the conclusion that a reduction
of £2 is justified by the increased activity and scale of operations carried on in the adjoining
yard.
The appeal is allowed to that extent and the subject hereditament will be entered in the List
at £38. The respondent will pay to the appellants the measured sum of three guineas
towards their costs of these proceedings.
-3-
ORDERS ACCORDINGLY
18th
December 1970
F MALCOLM McKIBBIN
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
-4-