|
Appeal No. VA90/2/073 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA A.I.B. Bank, Balbriggan APPELLANT RE: Bank, offices, yard & small garden at B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By notice of appeal dated 30th July, 1990, the appellant appealed against
the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable
valuation of £220.00 on the above described hereditament. The grounds
of appeal are that the assessment is excessive, inequitable and bad in
law. Public Office/Staff Area 179 M² / l,926 Sq.ft.
Second Floor: Basement: External: VALUATION HISTORY: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr Killen referred to the judgment of Mr Justice Barron in the Irish Management Institute - V - the Commissioner of Valuation and to Roadstone Limited - V - Commissioner of Valuation [1961 I.R.] 239. He said that the subject property which was revised in 1982 is the only bank that has been recently revised. Mr Killen set out his calculation of the N.A.V. of the property as follows:-
GROUND FLOOR Zone A (20') 1130 psf. @ £12.00 psf. = £13,560 FIRST FLOOR Offices 348 psf. @ £ 5.00 psf. = £ 1,740 SECOND FLOOR Store 123 psf. @ £ 1.00 psf. = £ 123 BASEMENT Book Store 323 psf. @ £ 4.00 psf. = £ 1,292 EXTERNAL Motor House / Coach House say £ 500 Total £25,480 He said that by application of a fraction of 0.5% between the rateable valuation and the N.A.V. that he would calculate the amount of rateable valuation to be £125.00. A written submission was received from Mr Patrick McMorrow B.Agr.Sc a Valuer in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent on the 22nd January, 1991. Mr McMorrow said that he arrived at the N.A.V. for the subject property by reference to other high street lettings. He attached details of the rent in respect of Xtravision, Rush; Maxwells, Balbriggan; Brannigans, Balbriggan; in respect of ground floor rental comparisons and of McNamara's, Rush; Weldons, Rush; in respect of first floor rents. He said that in determining the relevant ratio between rateable valuation and N.A.V, other banks were analysed in accordance with Section 5(2) of the 1986 Valuation Act. He attached as comparisons details of Bank of Ireland, Balbriggan; Allied Irish Bank, Rush; National Irish Bank, Skerries; Bank of Ireland, Skerries; Allied Irish Bank, Skerries. He said that the subject premises is better located and is also of a superior calibre of construction and finish than any of the main retail comparisons quoted. Mr McMorrow then outlined his calculation of the N.A.V. of the subject premises as follows:- Ground Floor (Upper). Bank Hall/Office £ Alternatively: First Floor: Lower Ground Floor: Second Floor: Outside: He said that by applying a ratio of 0.63% to the N.A.V. of £35,000 he arrived at a rateable valuation of £220.50, say £220.00. ORAL HEARING: Mr Killen gave evidence along the lines already outlined in his written submission, and he summarised his approach to the case by drawing attention to the physical layout of the subject premises which he stated were not as good as purpose built banking premises constructed in accordance with modern design. He stated that the premises had been extensively refurbished at a cost of £109,000 recently and that the bank was built on sloping ground giving rise to high refurbishment costs. He also said that while the bank was in a prominent location on Georges Square in Balbriggan it could not be seen by traffic coming around the bend towards it. It had difficult kerb-side parking, as opposed to the plentiful kerbside parking capacity in the vicinity of the purpose built Bank of Ireland premises elsewhere in Balbriggan. Mr Killen argued that the Zone A rent for the Balbriggan, Bank of Ireland premises ought to be approximately £16.00 per sq ft and that using this rental the R.V.- N.A.V. ratio used by Mr McMorrow in his written summary would be significantly less than shown by him. Mr Killen argued for the use of 0.5% R.V.- N.A.V. ratio in the case when applying same to the aggregate rents for the subject premises. He argued strongly that the only comparable premises to the subject premises were the A.I.B. in Malahide, and the subject premises itself. Mr Killen's analysis of the A.I.B. Malahide valuation on a rental basis indicated that 0.5% ratio was used in the revision of 1989. However, Mr McMorrow countered that the O.5% was not in fact used on that occasion. Instead, a crude addition of a sum for extra carparking was added to the existing valuation of the A.I.B. in Malahide to arrive at the revised valuation. The Tribunal finds that not withstanding the fact that the Bank of Ireland premises was purpose built it does not enjoy as favourable and busy location as the subject premises in the town. The Tribunal also finds that the relatively lower rents which one might expect for the Bank of Ireland premises and the commercially sluggish units in the shopping centre in the Balbriggan urban area would not support a deduction of a ratio of O.5% Mr Killen argued that the rental comparisons used by Mr McMorrow to justify a Zone A rent of £15.00 per sq. ft. were much smaller Main street commercial outlets which were not comparable to the Bank of larger area. Mr McMorrow took issue with this argument in his written submission. He maintained this position in his evidence by saying that the subject premises had compensatory factors countervailing the expected diminution of price per sq ft by reason of more extensive area. The two factors advanced by Mr McMorrrow were superior standards of construction, and purpose design. The Tribunal finds it more likely that Mr McMorrow's valuations of rent are the most realistic in relation to the subject premises. The Tribunal finds that the owners of the subject premises are obviously confident in its economic viability and buoyancy. It is of relevance to consider that the Candon comparison rent related to a lease which later resulted in the sale of the leasehold premises for £40,000 following lease. While the total sum of £40,000 may not have been attributable to the value of the premises, nevertheless the occurrence of a premium would indicate that perhaps the Candon comparison advanced by Mr Killen may not have truly reflected the rental value of the premises used in comparison. Having regard to the foregoing considerations the Tribunal finds that the rateable valuation of the subject premises ought to remain at £220.00
|