|
Appeal No. VA95/4/031 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Stephen Pearce t/a National Crafts Limited APPELLANT RE: Art Gallery and Factory at Map Ref: 4Aa, Townland:
Shanagarry South, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 10th day of October, 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £170 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation appears to be based on a completely commercial value. These premises will be used for cultural, social and commercial purposes. This is not a prime location." The Property: Valuation History: Written Submissions: In the written submission, Mr. Collins described the premises as situated adjacent to a minor public roadway and close to St. Coleman's Church at Shanagarry. He said that it was a remote area and certainly not a good trading location. He said that it was 25 miles from Cork city, 12 miles from Midleton and 6 miles from the village of Castlemartyr on a minor road. Because of its location, he said, it was necessary to conduct an expensive and continuous advertising campaign to draw people to the location. Mr. Collins said that the showroom area of the subject premises has a head clearance of approximately 9 feet. He said that the ground floor area has a ceiling height of approximately 9 foot 10 inches. The area of the building is 55 metres by 11 metres, that is, 6,510 square feet on each of the two floors. Mr. Collins assessed the rateable valuation on the subject premises as
follows:- "Valuation: NAV: 6510 @ £2.00 = £13,020.00 Mr. Collins submitted two comparisons to the Tribunal to consider:- 12,000 square feet vacant for the last 2 years. (2) Brooklodge, Glanmire, Co. Cork A written submission was received on the 12th March, 1996 from Mr. Peter Conroy, District Valuer with 25 years experience in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent. In the written submission, Mr. Conroy described the premises and its location and valuation history as set out above. He said that the property is held freehold. Mr. Conroy set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject
premises on two bases, the comparative method and the developmental costs
method, as follows:- Lower Ground Floor: 7,013 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £14,026 Net Annual Value: = £35,000 OR Total development costs: = £700,000 Mr. Conroy gave details of three comparisons which are summarised below:- Ground Floor: 7,306 sq.ft. @ £1.75 = £12,785.50 N.A.V.: £16,000 @ .5% = £ 80.00 Mr. Conroy said that this comparison was inferior to the subject but that it did provide best evidence as to the appropriate levels for the subject property. (2) Cobh Heritage Trust Limited, 23,24A Ringmeen, Cork. Entire Centre: 20,000 sq.ft. @ £1.00 = £20,000 Mr. Conroy said that the shop area in this centre had not yet been assessed separately. He said the details of the lease are 900 square feet from August, 1994 at £12,500 per annum. (3) Jameson Heritage Centre, U.D. Midleton, Co. Cork. Area: 7,306 sq.ft. @ £7.60 = £55,555 R.V.: @ .63% = £400.00. This valuation was negotiated with agents acting on behalf of the appellant. Property is held under a leasehold agreement of 35 years from January, 1992 with 5 year review periods at £69,000 per annum. Oral Hearing: The respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Conroy of the Valuation Office. Mr. Collins referred to his written submission and said that in his opinion because of the remote location of the subject premises he felt it would be very difficult to rent. He pointed out that the shop is in fact more a showroom for the factory than a commercial venture. He referred to his comparisons and said that based on comparative evidence for industrial premises his estimate of rateable valuation for the subject premises was in the region of £114. Mr. Conroy referred to the first of the comparisons put forward by Mr. Collins and stated that this was a very old building and located in an industrial estate which was also vacant. Referring to the location of the subject, Mr. Conroy said that while the property was located in a small rural village, it was nonetheless close to the main pottery workshops for Shanagarry Pottery and that it was Shanagarry pottery which was sold in the subject property. Mr. Conroy pointed out that East Cork and in particular this part of East Cork is extremely popular with tourists and he referred to the proximity of Ballymaloe House and Ballymaloe Cookery School and the growing tourist industry in nearby Ballycotton. Mr. Conroy stressed that when considering the hypothetical tenant one must first look to the owners of the subject since it was purpose built. He said that industrial rates were not entirely appropriate by way of comparison as the property comprised mainly a display area, a gallery which can be used for art exhibition purposes, a coffee shop and an actual shop for the sale of the pottery. Referring to the development costs, Mr. Conroy stressed that these indicated
the very high quality of the building. Determination: The building is undeniably attractive and the Tribunal accepts Mr. Conroy's point that its location is largely determined by the existence of the original pottery. The Tribunal notes too that the building is part of a larger and on-going project. Because of the unusual nature of the subject property it does not seem to the Tribunal that it can be compared directly to industrial buildings. Mr. Conroy appears to have been reasonable in his assessment of net annual value in this case particularly by comparison to the adjacent pottery. In the circumstances therefore, and in light of all of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal affirms the decision of the respondent.
|