|
Appeal No. VA96/2/055 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Governor & Company of the Bank of Ireland APPELLANT RE: Bank and 15 Car Spaces at Map Ref: 87/89a Pembroke
Road, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 25th day of April, 1996 the Appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £440 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 in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on other grounds also." The Property: The building is constructed with a concrete frame, concrete block infill walls, pointed brick work to all elevations, concrete floor, single glazed aluminium framed windows and a flat asphalt covered concrete roof. Entrance to the ground floor is via a series of raised concrete steps leading to a porch entrance lobby. Internally the premises are laid out with banking hall and ancillary offices on the ground floor with a strong room, store and canteen facilities at basement level. Title: Valuation History: Written Submission: In his written submission, Mr. Davenport described the subject premises and gave details of its tenure and valuation history. Mr. Davenport set out his valuation considerations. He said that he had assessed net annual value taking into account Section 11 Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 and Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1986. He said his valuation was based on rental evidence and on the rateable valuation of comparable and nearby office properties. He also said he had regard to the current rent paid on the subject premises, taking into account the appropriate loading factor to reflect the 14 year review pattern and also the stagnant office market between the years 1982 and 1988. Based on these considerations, he estimated rateable valuation as follows:- Valuation Method 2 In support of his valuation, Mr. Davenport supplied the Tribunal with a schedule of six comparisons briefly summarised below. 1. 91, Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 2. 85, Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 3. 87/89 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 4. 87/89 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 5. Texaco House, 83 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 6. 7, Wilton Terrace, Dublin 2 A written submission was received on the 13th day of November 1996 from Mr. Patrick Deegan, a Valuer with over 20 years experience in the Valuation Office. In his written submission he gave details of the Appellant's grounds of appeal, a description of the subject premises, its title and valuation history. Mr. Deegan set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject premises using two methods as follows:- Valuation Method 2 1. VA95/1/046 - Ulster Bank Limited 2. National Irish Bank 3. National Irish Bank 5. Bank of Ireland 6. A.I.B., Navan Road, Blanchardstown At the oral hearing which took place on the 22nd November, 1996 Mr. Eoin Hickey, BL appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Patrick Deegan, BA, BL of the Valuation Office. Also present were Mr. Tom Davenport of Messrs. Lisney and Mr. A. Ring Rose of the Appellant Company. Mr. Davenport gave evidence in relation to the fourteen year rent reviews in the lease of the subject premises and said that in 1982, during a period of high inflation it was accepted practice that a loading figure would be added in situations where the rent review period was longer than the normal five year span. Referring to the indices attached to his written submission Mr. Davenport said that these indicated that in the period 1982 to the end of 1988 approximately there was no great movement in office rental prices. In reply to a question from the Tribunal in relation to his comparison No. 3, Mr. Davenport explained that the 1994 revision figures differed from the actual rent passing by reason of several factors among them the "Tone of the list" and the rates impact factor. Mr. Davenport confirmed to Mr. Hickey in direct examination that the loading figure of 14% had been agreed by the tenant. In the course of cross examination by Mr. Deegan, Mr. Davenport confirmed that the rent agreed reflected the banking use of the subject premises. Mr. Deegan submitted that banks should be valued as a separate entity and in support of his contention referred the Tribunal to the judgement of Mr. Justice Barron in the I.M.I. v. Commissioner of Valuation and in particular to Mr. Justice Barron's interpretation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Valuation Act, 1986. Mr. Deegan stressed that his comparative evidence related to banks only and replied to Mr. Hickey in cross examination that he did have some difficulty with the Appellant's comparisons as he considered them unsuitable in terms of similar function. Replying further to Mr. Hickey, Mr. Deegan submitted that his estimate of the rent which a hypothetical tenant would offer for the subject premises as of 1988 was in the region of £69,000 to £70,000. He estimated that the building as a shell would attract rent in the region of £45,000 and that the balance would reflect tenant's improvements. However, in reply to further questions, Mr. Deegan conceded that he had no evidence of tenant's improvements in relation to the subject premises nor, apparently, had he sought any such evidence. Submissions: Mr. Deegan submitted finally that banks should be valued as banks. Findings and Determination: It is accepted that the loading factor of 14% was agreed between landlord and tenant and therefore the hypothetical tenant in 1988 would obviously have taken that into account. The Tribunal notes Mr. Deegan's submissions in relation to the judgement of Mr. Justice Barron in IMI. In this case, however, the ratio of 0.63% has been agreed and accepted and the Tribunal finds therefore that the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Valuation Act, 1986 are not strictly relevant. Taking into account therefore the comparative evidence in relation to neighbouring premises, all of which, it should be pointed out, are office type buildings, together with the evidence in relation to passing rent, the Tribunal has had regard to the question of the rates impact factor as of 1988 and in the circumstances determines that the correct rateable valuation of the subject premises is £300.
|