AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001
VALUATION ACT, 2001

Allied Irish Banks Limited APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT

RE: Bank at Map Reference Lot No. 22, 23 The Diamond,
Townland: Roosky, UD: Monaghan, Co. Monaghan

B E F O R E
Frank Malone - Solicitor Deputy Chairperson
Michael McWey - Valuer Member
Maurice Ahern - Valuer Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2003

By Notice of Appeal dated the 27th day of December, 2001, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €473.61 on the relevant property described above. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal were that:
"(1) the valuation is excessive and inequitable. (2) The valuation is bad in law".

The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place at Distillery Building, Church St., Dublin on Friday 6th December 2002.

Mr. Desmond M. Killen of GVA Donal O Buachalla appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Mr. Damien Curran, District Valuer, Valuation Office appeared on behalf of the Commissioner.
Both Valuers, having taken the oath adopted their said respective précis as being their evidence in chief.

Description of Property
The property consists of a three storey, semi-detached end of terrace commercial building in use as a bank, and situated at the Diamond, in the main commercial centre of Monaghan Town.

Accommodation
Ground Floor; Large Banking Hall and Interview room. (377.9 sq.m.)
There are offices and Locker rooms on upper floors and a strong room in the basement.
There are 22 car spaces in the yard.

Both parties have agreed that the valuation method to be used in this appeal is the comparative method.
Both parties have also agreed the valuation of the floor areas from Basement to car spaces and have agreed the area of the Banking Hall at 377.9 sq.m.
At issue is a disagreement on the valuation of the ground floor space and the enhancement value of the ATM.

Evidence for the Appellant
Mr. Killen stated that in the light of agreement on the area of the remainder, he wished to amend his précis and change the NAV to €85,815 and the RV to €429.
Mr. Killen said that he had valued the ground floor area of subject at 377.9 sq.m @ €181 which included the ATM. He said that the comparison with the Ulster Bank which was directly opposite the subject, was of vital importance to his analysis and that an ATM was in fact in existence and included in the valuation of the Ulster Bank, which he himself had undertaken.

He said that the Ulster Bank was extended and redeveloped and listed for revision in 2000. He consulted with Mr. Ray Sweeney, Revising Valuer on 19th October 2000 and agreed an RV of £245. This valuation included the ATM area of 7.1 sq.m. but due to a delay in obtaining his client's instructions, the valuation issued at RV £290.
This figure was not appealed due to an oversight.

The situation was rectified, by listing the property for revision, and a figure of £245 was agreed with the Revising Valuer, Mr. David Molony and issued in 2001/3 revision.

Mr. Killen produced photographs of the subject and also of his comparisons and stated that as the subject was 1.47 times the size of his principal comparator, Ulster Bank, the current level of valuation attributed to the subject property was too high. He stressed that the location of the subject was inferior to the Bank of Ireland, as it is set back in the Town Square. He said that he had made an adjustment of 12% to the rate applying to the ground floor to reflect these factors.

Evidence of the Respondent
Mr. Damien Curran, District Valuer stated that he offered his précis as direct evidence. He stated that the Valuation Office disagreed with the evidence of Mr. Killen in relation to the valuation of the ATM in the comparison of Ulster Bank. . He said that the Valuation Office did not dispute the existence of the ATM when the property was valued, but maintained that the valuation did not include an enhancement value for the ATM.

He said that he was relying on all his comparisons but he laid particular emphasis on the fact that his first comparison, Bank of Ireland Church Street, was in an inferior location to the property concerned.

Mr. Curran maintained that the Valuation Office valuation of €473.61 was fair having regard to comparisons in the area.

Findings and Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered the arguments and evidence of both valuers particularly in relation to the comparison of Ulster Bank which was considered by the Tribunal to be the key comparison.

The Tribunal notes that there was agreement between the parties that the Ulster bank premises, the subject of the Tribunal judgment VA99/2/001, had an ATM installed at the valuation date. The Tribunal notes however that the Judgment made no specific reference to it. It was the uncontested evidence of Mr. Killen that the ATM had been included in the valuation of the Ulster Bank which he had agreed with Mr Sweeney, the revising valuer, in October 2000 at RV£245. Mr. Sweeney was not present at the hearing.

The Tribunal accepts that despite an agreement having been reached, the valuation issued both at revision and at first appeal at RV£290 due to delays and oversights. At the appellant's request, the property was again revised and was valued by the revising valuer, Mr Moloney at the 2001/3 revision, at RV £245. Mr. Molony gave evidence at the hearing, that he had assessed the valuation at RV £245 as he understood it to be an agreed valuation.

In the particular circumstances of this case therefore, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Killen's evidence in relation to the Ulster Bank and the inclusion in the valuation of the ATM. It follows therefore that the existing valuation on the ground floor in the Ulster bank includes the ATM and is the best evidence of valuation for the ground floor of the subject premises. Having regard to all the comparisons offered, the Tribunal considers that an allowance as proposed by Mr Killen, to reflect the size and locational differences of the property concerned is appropriate.
Having regard therefore to all the evidence presented including the comparisons, and noting the agreement prior to the hearing in relation to the balance of the areas from the basement to car spaces, the Tribunal determines the net annual value of the property concerned to be €85,813.90 based on a ground floor NAV per sq. metre of €181. This gives a rateable valuation of €429 and the Tribunal so determines.