|
Appeal No. VA95/1/052 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Power Corporation (Upton Court t/a Family Leisure)
APPELLANT RE: Amusement Centre at Map Ref: 108,109 (part of)
Patrick Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 21st day of April 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £100 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: The property was held on a short term lease by Upton Court Limited from September 1992 at:- Rent: The company went into liquidation on the 11th April, 1994. A licence agreement was issued to a company called Lasoner Trading Limited (the current occupier) registered office 108, 109 Patrick Street, Cork in respect of Unit 27 and the foyer on the 1st July, 1994 at a rent of £500 per week. Valuation History: Following the 1978 revision shops and theatre comprising 700 permanent seats and 400 chairs were separately assessed. Rateable valuation of £420 was fixed on the theatre. This figure was reduced to £200 at 1984 First Appeal. At 1994 revision, following request from Cork Corporation to value "change of use" the valuation was increased to £470. The revising valuer reported the passing rent of £100,000 with premises now being used as family leisure centre. Following first appeal the rateable valuation was reduced to £100 on the subject premises with £120 on the balance of second floor. Written Submissions: In his written submission, Mr. Killen set out details of the valuation history and tenure of the subject premises. He said that the licence agreement as set out above had not been honoured and a variation was made by Power Corporation in an effort to get income from the hereditament as follows:- 8/8/94 to 4/10/94 £500 per week Rent invoiced:- 5/8/94 to 31/3/95 £17,166 Received £6,488.38 Mr. Killen observed from the above that the current rent of £100 per week was not sustainable. Mr. Killen commented that in general terms the Savoy Centre has traded poorly in recent years and he referred the Tribunal to its own decision in VA95/3/001 - Quills Woollen Market v. Commissioner of Valuation wherein this fact was recognised. Mr. Killen proposed that the valuation of the subject premises based on the rent should be as follows:- £100 per week = £5,200 per annum = Rateable Valuation £30. A written submission was received on the 9th February, 1996 from Mr. Tom Stapleton, a Valuer with over 30 years experience in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent. In his written submission, Mr. Stapleton described the subject premises and its tenure as set out above. He gave details of the valuation history. Mr. Stapleton said that the valuation was assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation Acts. He set out his calculation of rateable valuation as follows:- "Valuation Mr. Stapleton offered two comparisons details of which are set out below:- 1) Hickeys Fabric Shop 2) Balance of second floor 3) Second floor Oral Hearing: In evidence, Mr. Killen stated that the subject premises formed part of the Savoy Centre which was not trading successfully and in this regard he pointed out that nine units on the ground floor in the centre were now vacant. Mr. Killen referred to the fact that the subject property is now occupied at an extremely reduced rent and that even this rent which he said was in the order of £100 per week was in fact not being achieved. Mr. Killen said that it was contradictory of Mr. Stapleton to refer to the actual rent passing while at the same time justifying his estimate of net annual value per square foot at between £3.25 and £4.43. Mr. Killen stressed that the centre had not gone downhill because of poor management but because of general market trends and because of nearby developments in what he described as the "golden mile" of Patrick Street. He pointed out further that the subject property was not suitable as stores in view of its location on the second floor and its general inaccessibility. Mr. O'Mahony gave evidence that the Savoy Theatre section of the Savoy Centre had been vacant for a long time and that there had been no offers. He confirmed that the appellant company was still not receiving even the reduced rent for the subject property and he confirmed that the subject had not been used for anything other than amusements. He also confirmed that the rent being sought for the subject property from the occupier was £100 per week. In reply to Mr. Stapleton, Mr. O'Mahony stated that the biggest obstacle to letting or disposing of the subject property was its lack of accessibility. Referring to the comparison put forward by Mr. Stapleton namely, Leisureworld in McCurtain Street, Mr. O'Mahony said that it was very different from the subject in its accessibility, its location and in the fact that it was open for 24 hour periods. Mr. Stapleton said that in his opinion if the subject property were properly managed and marketed it should realistically be able to achieve rents of between £3.50 and £4.00 per square foot. He referred to his comparisons, in particular to Hickey's fabric shop which was achieving rents of £7.23 per square foot located as it is on the mezzanine/first floor of the Savoy Centre. Mr. Stapleton stated that the rent of £100 per week represented £1.40 per square foot, which in his opinion was the equivalent letting value of poor stores and could not be compared to the subject which was in the centre of Cork city. Determination: While it is true that the property is situate in the centre of the city, the Tribunal has taken into account the evidence in relation to the market values and in particular to the disadvantages inherent in the subject property, namely, its inaccessibility, its second floor location and the fact that its usage is thereby severely limited. In the circumstances and taking into account all of the evidence adduced the Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct rateable valuation of the subject is £56 and so determines.
|