|
Appeal No. VA00/1/012 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Bank of Ireland (Castlebar) APPELLANT RE: Bank at Map Reference 13a, 14a Ellison
Street, B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 18th day of April 2000, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £315 on the above described hereditament. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of
Appeal are that; "the assessment is excessive and inequitable and
bad in law having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on
other grounds also". Mr. Hickey drew attention to an amendment in Mr. Davenport's précis by the addition on page 11, paragraph 12 of first floor canteen and store to the accommodation as set out therein. This alteration resulted in a revised net annual value of £44,190 say £44,000 and a resulting rateable valuation of £220 rather than £200 as in the original précis. Having taken the oath each valuer adopted as his evidence in chief his written submission which had previously been exchanged with the other valuer and submitted to the Tribunal. Material facts agreed or found by the Tribunal 1. Recent Valuation History It is against this latter figure of RV£315 that the current appeal lies to the Tribunal. 2. Location 3. The Property 4. Accommodation Total - 270 Sq. m. (2,907 Sq. ft.) Mezzanine Basement First floor Agri-business centre Overall Total - 602 Sq. m. (6,490 Sq. ft.) 5. Title The Appellant's Case Ellison Street is not as valuable as Market Street. He drew the Tribunal's attention to a number of Tribunal Judgements including Bank of Ireland Tullamore v Commissioner of Valuation VA95/6/013, Bank of Ireland v Commissioner of Valuation, 87/89 Pembroke Road VA96/2/055, Bank of Ireland v Commissioner of Valuation, 111 Main Street Bray, VA96/2/054. Mr. Davenport provided seven comparisons the details of
which are appended to this determination. I. TSB, 16a Ellison Street, 1990 Revision II. Irish Permanent Building Society, 16 Market Street III. AIB, 11 Market Street, Castlebar. IV. Stauntons Chemist/gift shop, 3/4 Market Street, Castlebar.
V. First Active Building Society, 13b/14a Bridge Street,
Castlebar VI. National Irish Bank, 23b Market Street VII. Moran Auctioneers 1a Ellison Street Castlebar Mr. Davenport stated that he had adopted a different level of valuation than in the 1994 appeal because since 1995 a number of Valuation Tribunal decisions were given where the Tribunal said that banks must not be compared solely with other banks but with other commercial premises including banks and therefore in his opinion the previous agreement was no longer valid. He said the previous valuation was now too high because it was done on the basis of comparison with banks only including banks in other locations. He noted that the upper floors in the AIB were at £5 per sq. ft. NAV and therefore felt that the Commissioner's figure of £10 per sq. ft. on the Mezzanine level in the subject case was inappropriate. He noted that there was return frontage and a rear entrance but it was not equivalent to the Bank of Ireland in Portlaoise where the building actually had frontage. In the subject case the building was set back a good distance from the street and separated from it by the car parking. In his opinion the rate of £11 per sq. ft. on AIB banking hall should be reduced for the subject case because although the AIB was a bigger floor area, it was in a better location and the rate should be reduced to reflect this location. Mr. Davenport proposed a rateable valuation of £220
calculated as follows: Front (Data) offices 427 £8 £3,416 Mezzanine Office 396 £5 £1,980 Basement First floor canteen and stores 780 £4 £3,120 Agri Business Centre Upper ground floor 650 £5 £6,250 Attic level 558 £4 £2,232 Total estimate of NAV £44,190 Reducing factor to translate NAV to RV 0.5% gives rateable valuation of £220. Under cross examination Mr. Davenport explained how the rateable valuation of £230 was arrived at for the 1994/3 appeal and said that since 1995 when the Tribunal had set down a number of judgements in relation to banks the method of valuing banks had changed and that it was now appropriate to look at other commercials premises as well as banks. He acknowledged Section 5 of the 1986 Act and its reference to properties recently revised, comparable and of similar function and he acknowledged that it was appropriate to look at other traditional bank buildings but also to look at other office buildings. He would not prioritise his order of comparisons in relation to banks, retail or office premises and he did not accept in doing that, that he was departing from similar function, as in his opinion a bank is an office use with a retail content. In response to a question that the subject premises had all the characteristics of a bank he stated that it was used as a bank, but that it was an office building first and foremost and that its identification as a bank was due to the bank signage. In relation to his comparisons he did not accept that the AIB is the one building that was a really appropriate comparison in that it was recently revised, comparable and of similar function. He stated that the Irish Permanent premises could be a bank and that the TSB premises is a bank. In re-examination by Mr. Hickey, he stated that the partition separating the banking hall from the data office could be taken away and that this space had previously been used as a manager's office. The Respondent's Case This is a very prominent building in a town centre location with two street frontages. There are mixed uses on the Ellison Street frontage and significant activity at the back of the property at its rear frontage including Dunnes Stores and a variety of smaller shops. The bank has not fully exploited the rear frontage but the potential is there. He stated that the ring road has caused development to occur behind the traditional main street shopping areas. He stated that the AIB premises was in a better retail pitch than the subject but that the rear of the Bank of Ireland premises is infinitely better than the rear of the AIB premises. He emphasised that he had agreed the 1994/3 Revision with Mr. Davenport and in his opinion it should be binding or carry enormous weight. He stated that the increase on appeal from £300 to £315 was not malicious but that the property was in fact bigger than the revising valuer had found. He stated that he had used exactly the same rate per sq. ft. as in the 1994/3 appeal which he had agreed. Mr. Conboy provided two comparisons, namely the existing premises as in the 1994 first appeal agreement and the AIB premises as already provided by Mr. Davenport as one of his comparisons. Comparison No 1 Ground floor 236.9 sq. m at £139.93 per sq. m. or
2,550 sq. ft. at £13 per sq. ft. Allied Irish Bank RV £275 Agreed in 1997 Appeal with Donal O'Buachalla 18 Car parking spaces are included Mr. Conboy calculated the rateable valuation as follows Ground floor 270.07 sq. m. at £139.93 per sq. m.
(£13.00 per sq. ft.) £37,791 Total 602.94 sq. m. (6,490 sq. ft.) NAV £63,334 applying a fraction of 0.5% = £316.67say £315 In support of his use of an overall rate per sq. m. on the ground floor rather than distinguishing the various areas he stated that the data office had previously been the manager's offices and that in all the comparisons areas within the overall ground floor would be demarcated as managers offices etc but were not distinguished in valuation terms. He stated that £13 per sq. ft. was agreed previously for this accommodation and therefore it was appropriate that it should be the same now. He expressed the view that £5 per sq. ft. was too low on the upper ground floor and mezzanine areas and that the mezzanine area is effectively part of the banking hall. While acknowledging that some change had occurred in the
basis of valuation in the mid 1990's following Tribunal decisions, he
said that nothing had occurred that would make him change his approach
to this valuation. He stated that his main comparison was the AIB premises.
He stated that banks were not his only comparison but would be his first
comparison and stated that if a bank is in a shop it should be valued
as a shop. He stated that there were no instructions within the Valuation
Office to value banks only in comparison with other banks but it was something
of a tradition because of the unique nature of traditional banks. He made
the following comments on the appellant's comparisons: Under cross-examination Mr. Conboy acknowledged that the appeal valuer in the AIB case would have been aware of the Bank of Ireland agreement from 1994 and therefore it probably had a bearing on the AIB figure. He did not accept however that his Bank of Ireland valuation was wrong and that he has no case as he is familiar with Castlebar and values in the area and it does not leave him without a case because of his experience as a valuer in the area. He acknowledged that traditionally banks had been compared only with banks in the Valuation Office and that therefore could have been valued too highly in the past. He accepted that the premises were capable of being used as offices. He did not accept that the only alternative use of the building was as offices and felt that other banks would have an interest. He outlined how he would go about valuing the premises if there was no bank in possession and the types of comparisons he would seek. He said he was strongly influenced by his previous agreement in relation to the subject premises. He stated that the data areas were not too different from the banking hall and that all the comparisons are on an all-inclusive basis. He stated that the mezzanine was ancillary to the banking hall and was valued at a lower rate per sq. ft. than the banking hall. In re examination he outlined his experience as a valuer and confirmed that he had agreed the previous valuation with Mr. Davenport in the 1994/3 appeal. He was satisfied that he had carried out his function correctly and that while he was influenced by what he had previously agreed, he did not have a closed mind on the subject. Submissions For the appellant Mr. Hickey said that the words "rebus sic stantibus" do not mean that the premises must be treated as a bank. He referred to Section 11 of the 1852 Act and commented that the mode or character means, the ordinary disposition of the premises. In his opinion the respondent had no case as one comparison was AIB and that valuation was based on the subject premises, which was a circular argument. Valuation must be based on other properties. The first step is to get the NAV. The respondent offered no evidence as to NAV pursuant to section 11 of the 1852 Act and section 5(1) of the 1986 Act. He has dealt with section 5(2) which in Mr. Hickey's view was not sufficient. He spoke about the historic treatment of banks and referred to Staunton's shop at £7.70 per sq. ft. and that the respondent's valuer had said that its valuation would not change if it were a bank and therefore there was no justification for £13 per sq. ft on the subject premises. He noted the Bank of Ireland Kilkenny case where the Tribunal's determination was at less than the figure that had previously been agreed. He noted that banks can become vacant and become used for other purposes. Determination The actual use of area, particularly in relation to the ground floor is not overly relevant to this valuation particularly as the comparisons are all provided on an overall basis with no indication as to varying rates to be applied to different areas. We are therefore dealing with the subject premises on an overall basis. We determine the Rateable Valuation as follows: Ground floor 270.07 sq. m. @ £118.4 per sq. m. (2,907 sq. ft.
@ £11 per sq. ft.) = £31,977 Agri Business Centre Upper ground floor Attic/First Floor Level Say NAV £52,000 @ 0.5% = RV £260 and the Tribunal so determines |