LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL
VR/29/1989
BETWEEN
MRS MIRIAM MILLINGS - APPLICANT
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND – RESPONDENT
Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland - Mr A L Jacobson FRICS
Belfast - 4th June 1990
This appeal concerned the Net Annual Value of a ground floor shop at No 39 Smithfield
Square, Belfast. The assessment of the shop was fixed at £712 Net Annual Value when
the upper floors were converted to a hairdressing salon and separately assessed. At that
time there were road closures to provide the site for development of the Castle Court
Shopping Centre and works of demolition and development had commenced in September
1987 and were expected to continue to some time. The District Valuer's Certificate dated
11th May 1988 reduced that Net Annual Value of £712 by a temporary allowance of 33 1/3%
(£712 less 331/3% = say £476) for the considerable disruption to the area for a prolonged
period.
Following an application for revision made on 22 nd March 1989 to the District Valuer no
change was made by Certificate dated 27th June 1989. An appeal made on 17 th July 1989
to the Commissioner of Valuation resulted in no change by a Certificate dated 13th
November 1989 - the reason given being:-
"Valuation is fair and relative to those of
similarly circumstanced premises in the vicinity".
It is from that latter Certificate that this appeal to the Lands Tribunal was made on 24 th
November 1989. The grounds of appeal are:- "Road works in progress for long period of
time causes fall in trade and income to my shop - plus no footpaths, dirt dust and noise;
lorries and cranes 100 feet; and water consistently being cut off etc".
The following facts were agreed:-
-1-
1.
The ground floor shop which sells records, cassettes etc together with the
hairdressing salon on the upper floors are owned by the Appellant. The hairdressing
salon is occupied by the Appellant's brother Mr Sidney Raymonde Shapiro who
presently pays no rent to the Appellant.
2.
The shop is a fairly good deep but narrow shop with a display frontage.
3.
Street closures consisting of Charlemont Street, Garfield Street and East and West
sides of Smithfield Square together with part of Berry Street have been incorporated
into the site provided for the Castle Court Centre.
Disruption to the nearby general area has been caused by demolition works, works to
roadways and pavements, lorries and other heavy machinery (including cranes)
travelling to and fro delivering building materials, carrying away spoil and in
development operations.
Noise pollution occurred over some considerable time
(including severe noise from piling) and dust pollution was prevalent for some time.
Much traffic disruption occurred from time to time in Gresham Street because of
contractors' lorries , motor cars and cranes.
The Castle Court Centre, including a multi-storey car park opened earlier this year.
4.
The considerable disruption to the surrounding area warrants temporary reductions in
the Net Annual Values of a number of affected shops in the immediate surrounding
area. Such allowances have been "patterned in" by the District Valuer (after he made
such enquiries as he could from shop occupiers) as follows:(a)
Travelling south from North Street along Gresham Street:10%
to No 11 Gresham Street
No 13/21 Gresham Street - Vacant
20%
to No 22 and 24 Gresham Street
No 26 Gresham Street - Vacant
25%
to Nos 25, 27 29 and 31 Gresham Street
No 33 Gresham Street - Vacant
25%
to No 35/37 Gresham Street
-2-
25%
to Nos 34 and 36 Gresham Street
331/3% to No 36/38 Gresham Street
Nos 39 and 39A Gresham Street
No 40/41 Gresham Street - Vacant
(b)
Travelling south from North Street along Winetavern Street:10%
33½%
to No 45 Winetavern Street
to
Nos 23, 21, 19, 15/17, 13, 11A, 9A, 9, 7 and 5 Winetavern Street
No 11 Winetavern Street - Vacant
(c)
The new covered Smithfield Market:331/3% to All occupied units.
5.
That pattern of allowances allowed for the fact that at the northern end of Winetavern
Street there was additional disturbance from a car park development as well as from
Castle Court to the south.
The pattern allowed 331/3% for those hereditaments affected to the greatest degree
diminishing gradually as one proceeds away from the Castle Court development to
10%.
6.
No rent reductions were made by landlords to shop tenants in Winetavern Street or
Gresham Street. The Belfast City Council allowed a 33 1/3% rent reduction to tenants
of units in the new Smithfield Market.
Mr Sidney Raymonde Shapiro was given permission by the Lands Tribunal to represent his
sister, the Appellant - there being no objection from the Respondent. Mr Shapiro, in his
evidence, stressed the severe interruption to trade caused not only by the noise and dust
pollution but especially by the interruption to passing trade (either pedestrian or by private
car) caused by builders' lorries, JCBs, dumper trucks, concrete mixer lorries, brick delivery
lorries, cranes and other development machinery. Additionally, builders' staff parked cars in
any available space and from time to time pavements were broken.
-3-
Occasionally electricity and/or water were cut off temporarily. He showed the Appellant's
accounts for the years ending 30th November 1987 and 30th November 1988 - both years
showed a trading loss but the total sales for 1988 showed £19,761 and for 1987 £18,759 an increase of just over £1,000.
Mr Shapiro also stressed that the Appellant's shop now faced 195 feet of blank brick wall
not previously there. He considered that the capital value of No 39
Smithfield Square had
been reduced by 65% and it had been situated at the "vortex of the volcano". He requested
an allowance of 662/3% in the Net Annual Value of £712 (rather than 331/3% as allowed).
Mr Stephen Shaw of Counsel for the Respondent called Mr Dennis Roy Stanfield BSc
ARICS to give evidence.
Mr Stanfield accepted "that the creation of the Castle Court complex has caused
considerable disruption to the surrounding area for a prolonged period".
In those
circumstances it was necessary to make an end allowance on a temporary basis to the
assessment of each affected shop, the amount of which was dependent upon the degree to
which each hereditament was affected by the works and road closures.
He further stressed that Nos 39 and 39A Gresham Street had been given the highest
allowance (331/3%) in the pattern of allowances - thus admitting it was among the worst
affected hereditaments - but submitted that was in tone with similarly adjoining and nearby
premises.
DECISION
Although at the end of the hearing Mr Shaw (of Counsel) submitted that the Respondent
Commissioner had no case to answer, the Lands Tribunal cannot accept that submission.
It is quite correct to say that Article 54(2) of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 says:"On an appeal (to the Lands Tribunal) under this Article, the valuation shown in the
valuation list with respect to a hereditament shall be deemed to be correct until the contrary
is shown". The Net Annual Value of £712 is not challenged and the only issue is the
amount of temporary allowance to be given for the admitted disruption caused by the
demolition and building of the Castle Court complex and the closure of some roads
interconnecting with Royal Avenue. That is a matter of opinion and both Mr Shapiro for the
Appellant and Mr Stanfield for the Respondent Commissioner are entitled to an opinion - it
is the weight the Tribunal gives to the individual opinions that will decide.
-4-
The only solid fact in front of the Tribunal of a reduction in rent paid is the 33 1/3% given by
the Belfast City Council to the tenants occupying such units in the newly-erected covered
Smithfield Market that are already let. That abatement of rent was made by the Council for
a period of 2 years which was further extended in October 1989 to 30 th April 1990. That
was said to be because of the disruption caused by the Castle Court development. No
doubt that was a major reason but the Lands Tribunal's observations on the inspection of
the general area on the afternoon of this hearing confirms the Lands Tribunal's impressions
that that was not the only reason.
The new Smithfield Market has not the retailing
atmosphere of even the old temporary Smithfield Market which replaced the original and
even more so has not the atmosphere of the original Market. On the Tribunal's inspection
many small units were unlet and while the inspection lasted only one member of the public
was seen.
Coming now to the witnesses opinions and the weight to each by the Lands Tribunal. Mr
Shapiro's sister, the Appellant, has traded there for some years and Mr Shapiro opened his
hairdressing salon sometime before May 1988 (when it was separately assessed). He has
knowledge of the day to day disturbance to shoppers and of the way trade fluctuated.
Although his reason for the increase in total sales (although only about 5.3% to 5.4%) was
that prices were reduced to encourage sales, those figures introduced in evidence do not
support a doubling of the reduction from 331/3% to 662/3%.
On the other hand Mr Stanfield is a qualified surveyor/valuer who has specialised in rating
matters in the Valuation and Lands Office of the Department of Finance and personnel. He
was the appeal valuer appointed by the Commissioner of Valuation to report to him for the
First Appeal. His evidence showed that he had researched all that had happened in the
immediate vicinity and the temporary allowances made and the reasons therefor.
His
evidence showed a clear and well thought out pattern of allowances of 10% given for the
lease affected shops, through 20% and 25% to 331/3% for the most affected.
The Lands Tribunal prefers the rationale of Mr Stanfields opinion especially as no other
occupier of any ground floor shop affected more or less by the development has appealed
to the Lands Tribunal. The evidence was that a few appeals to the Commissioner may yet
be unfinished, but those entries in the Valuation List which have been accepted by
individual ratepayers must be accepted as correct in accordance with Article 54(2). The
Lands Tribunal, while appreciating that the considerable disturbance affected the trading
potential of the shop for a rather long temporary period, and with some sympathy for Mrs
-5-
Millings, the Appellant, finds that the allowance of 33 1/3% made by the Respondent
Commissioner is correct.
The Tribunal makes no change in the entry in the Valuation List of £476 OTHER and
TOTAL NON-EXEMPT.
The Tribunal makes no award as to costs.
ORDERS ACCORDINGLY
19th June 1990
Mr A L Jacobson FRICS
Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland
Appearances:Mr Stephen Shaw of Counsel (instructed by the Crown Solicitor) for the
Commissioner of Valuation.
Mr Sidney Raymonde Shapiro for Mrs Miriam Millings.
-6-