Appeal No. VA93/1/002
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA First National Building Society APPELLANT RE: Offices at Map Ref: 7a/1 (ground floor) Bridge
Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 4th February, 1993 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £65.00 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive and inequitable". Valuation History The Property Written Submissions Mr. Power-Kelly also stated in his submission that his estimate of R.V.
is £35.00 for the subject property and he gave a detailed breakdown
of this estimate as follows:- Zone A 314 sq.ft. @ £9.26 = £ 2,907.00 Total NAV £5,220 @ 0.63% = R.V. £32.88 A table setting out details of six comparable properties was also included in Mr. Power-Kelly's submission, together with a location plan and site map of the area and also photographs of the subject and comparative properties. A written submission was received on the 14th July, 1993 from Mr. Christopher Hicks, District Valuer, on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Hicks set out brief details in relation to the property in his submission and also the basis for his valuation of £65.00. His submission included details of five other properties in the Balbriggan area as comparative evidence, the most relevant of which he said is the Credit Union Office. The submission also included a map of the Balbriggan area. Oral Hearing In response to a question from the Tribunal in relation to the valuation history of the premises, Mr. Hicks said that at First Appeal in 1987, the rateable valuation of the subject premises was agreed at £45.00 and that this figure was reaffirmed in 1988 as due to a backlog in the Valuation Office there was an overlap with 1987 valuations. Mr. Hicks further explained that in 1990 there was a complete revision of premises in the Balbriggan area. Previously only occasional valuations had been carried out and the 1987 valuation on the subject premises would have been on a basis which dated back quite a number of years and would have been on direct comparison with other properties on the street. However once there was a complete revision the balance between all the properties was altered. Mr. Hicks said that the first floor was valued in 1987 at £35.00 and the ground floor at £45.00. As the first floor has now been agreed at £20.00 this means that one of the 1987 valuations has been altered despite the fact that there was agreement in 1987. Mr. Hicks felt that although there has been no agreement in relation to the ground floor, the point is that the first floor has been reduced and the ground floor correspondingly increased. He proposed that £20.00 for the first floor and £65.00 for the ground floor is the appropriate Rateable Valuation. In reply Mr. Power-Kelly said that the first floor was agreed in 1987 First Appeal at £15.00 and on revision in 1988 at £35.00. He said that his client had agreed the rates at the latter figure without having taken independent advice and also at a time when the property was vacant and the owners therefore entitled to a full rates rebate. Mr. Power-Kelly commented on the comparisons adduced in his written submission. He described Bridge Street as being fairly narrow, with a steep hill and a high volume of traffic, high noise levels, dirt and dust. In comparison the Square further down the street is much wider and has better profiles for the shops on it. In relation to retailing, there is a substantial shopping centre which acts as a focal point and has good car parking facilities. Retail units on Quay Street which is the external street for the shopping centre are valued at £7.90 per square foot. In comparison the subject property is part of a terrace and lacks a specific profile and has the disadvantages already outlined above. Mr. Hicks said in relation to the valuation theory of zoning, that much depends on the frontage of the premises, which in the case of the subject premises is quite substantial and that in fact the First National Building Society has a street impact of some 30 feet. Mr. Hicks adduced evidence in relation to No. 14, Bridge Street, a Dry Cleaners situated across the road from the subject premises. He said that the rent in 1987 was £75.00 per week at 300 square foot or £14.50 per square foot overall. Mr. Hicks further said that the comparisons adduced by Mr. Power-Kelly were not suitable as Quay Street was very much a side street, whereas the comparisons he himself had used on Dublin Street, Bridge Street, Drogheda Street were therefore subject to the same disadvantages in relation to heavy volume of traffic as the subject premises. Mr. Power-Kelly said that the comparisons adduced by Mr. Hicks were approximately one-third of the size of the subject and that therefore a discount should be available. Mr. Hicks explained that he had agreed the Credit Union Offices in Balbriggan at £10.00 per square foot overall and that this property is well away from the town centre and outside the main commercial area. Having agreed to £10.00 on 1000 square foot of ground floor space he felt that some premium would have to be placed on the subject premises because of its location on Bridge Street. Mr. Hicks said that he had dealt with the valuation of one unit in the Quay Street Shopping Centre which had an actual passing rent of £24.00 per square foot. He felt that an enclosed Shopping Centre is an entity in itself and the rents within it do not compare well with other locations near by. He felt that the Quay Street Shopping Centre is not a successful one and said that the Quinnsworth unit is valued at £4.00 per square foot which is the lowest rate per square foot of any supermarket in the Dublin area. Determination
|