|
Appeal No. VA95/6/013 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Bank of Ireland, Tullamore APPELLANT RE: Bank and Offices (including 12a,12b O'Connor Square)
at Map Ref: 8.9.10 Bridge Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 6th day of November 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £375 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- "the assessment is excessive and inequitable having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on other grounds also." The Property: Ground floor Valuation History: Written Submissions: In the written submission Mr. Davenport described the subject premises and gave its location, tenure, accommodation and services. Mr. Davenport gave his assessment of rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- Ground floor NAV = £47,000. Estimate of RV £47,000 @ 0.5% = RV £235. Mr. Davenport supplied the Tribunal with details of seven comparisons which are summarised below. 1. Irish Nationwide Building Society 2. General Accident Insurances Limited 3. Office of Public Works 4. Irish Nationwide Building Society 5. Woodchester Credit Lyonnais Bank Limited 7. Xtra Vision A written submission was received on the 4th day of October 1996 from Mr. Malachy Oakes, a District Valuer with over 20 years experience in the Valuation Office. In his written submission, Mr. Oakes described the property and gave its valuation history as set out above. He assessed rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- Ground Floor Mr. Oakes gave details of six comparisons which are summarised below. 1. Bank of Ireland 2. Bank of Ireland 4. Ulster Bank 5. Trustees Savings Bank 6. Cork & Limerick Savings Bank Oral Hearing: Mr. Davenport gave evidence that while the exterior of the premises was undeniably attractive the interior was disappointing because of the rather obvious adaptation and reconstruction works carried out. He said that his estimate of net annual value of the subject was in the region of £47,000. In the course of direct examination by Mr. Hickey, Mr. Davenport confirmed
that while the Valuation Office seemed to have traditionally valued banks
as a separate entity it also had produced retail evidence in support of
its valuation on banks in both Swords and Sutton. Replying to Mr. Marray in cross examination Mr. Davenport said that the subject property had a frontage of 85 feet onto Bridge Street and only 60 feet onto The Square. He agreed that there were two entrances but did not concede that the entrance onto Bridge Street could be described as the main one. Mr. Davenport reiterated his belief that banking should not be valued as a distinct type of specialist function. In reply to further questioning by Mr. Marray Mr. Davenport seemed to agree that a ground floor would normally devalue at twice the rate of a first floor but explained his assessment of valuation on the first floor of the subject at £5 psf, saying that it was based on the premise that a hypothetical tenant would be likely to take the entire building. He also said that the rates on the ground floor vis-a-vis first floor could vary considerably depending on location. Mr. Malachy Oakes gave evidence that the subject was a very fine building in a prime location. He explained that he had looked to a wider area for comparisons as several banks throughout the country had been agreed since 1989. He disputed the validity of premises in O'Connor Square as comparisons, as The Square was, in his opinion, secondary to Bridge Street. Mr. Oakes seemed to feel that the figure of £9 psf which was the figure analysed at revision in relation to the Woodchester comparison on O'Connor Square was on the low side, in spite of the evidence of passing rent. In cross examination Mr. Oakes said that while it might be normal practice to first look to rental values in the vicinity he had been unable to find any suitable comparative evidence in Tullamore. He went on to confirm however that he had first looked to "the banking scene". Submissions: Mr. Marray submitted that the object of Section 5 of the 1986 Valuation Act was to maintain the tone of the list and that there was no suitable comparative evidence in the vicinity and hence that it was entirely reasonable for Mr. Oakes to look to banks in outside areas. Findings and Determination: The Tribunal has had regard primarily to the comparative evidence adduced in relation to premises in the vicinity. The subject property is undeniably a very fine building and it is noteworthy that the larger portion of it fronts onto Bridge Street which is certainly not a secondary location. In the circumstances the Tribunal determines that the correct rateable valuation of the subject property is £290 analysed as follows:- Ground floor First Floor Second Floor @ 0.5% = £288.60 Say £290.
|