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/76/1978
BETWEEN
THE MISSES M AND T KELLY - APPELLANTS
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND - RESPONDENT
Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland - Mr F Malcolm McKibbin MA (Cantab) FRICS
Belfast - 1st February 1979
This was an appeal against the valuation for rating purposes of the house, out-office and
garden at No 74 Cedar Avenue, Belfast. The Net Annual Value (NAV) was assessed at £380
at the Third General Revaluation. On application for revision this was reduced to £350.
A further application for revision resulted in no change being made and on a subsequent first
appeal, the Respondent reviewed the decision and declined to make any further alteration in
the entry in the Valuation List.
Being dissatisfied the Appellants appealed to the Lands
Tribunal on 5th July 1978. In the notice of appeal, the grounds of appeal were stated to be:1.
That there had been a general decline in the area.
2.
The value of the property has been lowered comparably to neighbouring property.
3.
There is a bricked up house next door.
4.
There are inferior type of properties around the subject.
5.
There is no central heating.
6.
There is only a wooden garage.
The alteration sought was - "lowering of the valuation of £350". And the reasons given for this
were - "The valuation is too high for the reasons stated in No 4 (grounds of appeal) and also
-1-
such valuation compares equally with property on the Malone Road which are far superior in
appearance and potential marketable value".
At the hearing, the Appellants were presented by Mr Patrick Donaghy of the firm of Paschal J
O'Hare, Solicitor, Belfast, while one of the Appellants, Miss Mary Ellen Kelly, gave evidence.
The Respondent was represented by Mr A R Hart instructed by the Crown Solicitor and Mr J M
G Bennett ARICS, an officer of the Valuation Division of the Department of Finance, gave
expert evidence.
Miss M E Kelly elaborated on the matters set out above as the grounds of appeal. She outlined
the negotiated purchase of the subject hereditament in 1975, when it was in a bad state of
repair.
At that time she understood the Housing Executive intended to acquire vacant
premises in this area including the adjoining end of terrace house, No 129 Cavehill Road,
which was bricked up and was a source of constant annoyance to the Appellants and which
caused damage to the subject hereditament since it was a breeding place for pigeons, rats and
other vermin. She considered that with shooting from time to time for across the Cavehill Road
towards the Antrim Road, the subject was in a most unattractive no-man's-land situation. The
adjoining houses, were terrace houses, and of much less good quality than the subject, and
detracted very much from the value of the subject.
She considered that her house was
assessed at the same NAV as much better houses in the Malone Road area, a much more
valuable situation, but she was unable to give any concrete example of any such assessment.
As regards the comparables offered by Mr Bennett for the Respondent, she considered these
were all larger and better houses than the subject and supported her contention that the NAV
of the subject was too high.
For the Respondent Mr Bennett stated that the subject was in an area where there was a
mixture of house types, a few detached houses like the subject, some semi- detached, and a
larger number of terrace houses. The neighbourhood had been adversely affected by civil
disorder, rioting and vandalism but the subject hereditament had been valued on a tone of the
list basis. The comparables on which he relied were all similar in that they were detached
villas of about the same size, in the same situation and the same state of repair as the subject.
He did not consider that the bricked up terrace house, No 129 Cavehill Road, immediately
adjoining adversely affected the letting value of the subject, and pointed out that one of his
-2-
comparables, No 137 Cavehill Road, was directly opposite a vacant house, which had had
windows broken. This might have affected a purchaser, but not the hypothetical tenant.
In answer to Mr Donaghy, Mr Bennett stated that while the garage building at the subject was
timber, it was a garage of 13 square metres while in the enclosed yard there were a coal store
and two stores of 11 square metres - 24 square metres in all - and these out-buildings were
assessed at £10. The garage at the comparable, No 137 Cavehill Road, was brick built, 18
square metres, and was assessed at £10.
DECISION
The Tribunal has inspected the subject hereditament and has viewed the exterior of the
comparables which are reasonably similar to the subject physically, but differ in varying
degrees in attractiveness of situation. This has been recognised to some extent by the slightly
different rates per square metre at which the Respondent has assessed the NAV in each case.
With one exception, the matters complained of by the Appellants have been allowed for in the
assessment of the subject hereditament. The exception is the situation of the subject close to
Cavehill Road and to Cedar Avenue, and with a two storey and attic end of terrace house
some 10 feet or so from the subject. This adjoining house, No 127 Cavehill Road, has been
vacant and vandalised for at least four years. The ground floor doors and windows have been
bricked up with rough, unsightly, concrete blocks, which in their turn have to some degree
been vandalised, with the result that there is access to the interior of the house for any
trespasser and obviously for rats and other vermin. As regards the roof, the back has a large
hole with many missing slates, while a dormer window at the front has largely disappeared
leaving a gaping hole as an invitation to roosting pigeons, of which there were quite a few
coming in and out during the Tribunal's inspection. The subject house is cement rendered and
painted white. The evidence of pigeons roosting on projections on the walls and roof is quite
clear, and the Tribunal also accepts Miss Kelly's evidence, not challenged, that the subject
hereditament is affected by rats and vermin from the adjoining house.
This is a considerably different situation from that of the comparable No 137 Cavehill Road
which is some distance back from the road and is separated by the width of Kansas Avenue
from another vacant house, No 139 Cavehill Road, which, in the Tribunal's view, is not quite so
-3-
bad as No 127 Cavehill Road and certainly impinges less on the amenities of No 137 Cavehill
Road. An additional point of difference is that No 137 Cavehill Road is brick built and two
storeys in height, with no attics to reduce its appeal in the letting market.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the hypothetical tenant would have reduced his rental bid for the
subject on account of unpleasantness of the bricked up and vandalised adjoining house. What
this reduction would have been, must be a matter of opinion, and the Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that an appropriate amount would be about 5 per cent or £20.
The Tribunal allows this appeal to that extent, and directs that the NAV of the subject
hereditament shall be entered in the Valuation List as £330.
The Respondent will pay the Appellants' costs of this appeal, such costs in default of
agreement to be taxed by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal on the County Court Scale
(Scale 1).
ORDERS ACCORDINGLY
F MALCOLM McKIBBIN
22nd February 1979
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Appearances:Mr Patrick Donaghy instructed by Mr P J O'Hare for the Appellants.
Mr A R Hart instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the Respondent.
-4-