|
Appeal No. VA96/5/013 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Ulster Bank Limited APPELLANT RE: Bank at Map Ref: 26b, Bridewell Lane, Carlow Shopping
Centre, UD: Carlow, Co. Carlow B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 7th day of October 1996 the Appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £200 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- "1. the valuation is excessive and inequitable. The Property: The building is constructed in concrete block with an in situ concrete ground floor, a first floor of pre-cast concrete planks with a pitched and hipped tiled roof. The premises is held freehold. Valuation History: Written Submissions: In her written submission she set out the valuation history, location and description of the subject premises. She said that the floor areas had been agreed between the parties as follows:- Ground Floor Ms. O'Buachalla set out her calculation of rateable valuation as follows:- Ground Floor In support of her valuation, Ms. O'Buachalla gave details of seven comparisons which are summarised below. 1. Ken Black 2. Motor Shop 3. Bank of Ireland 4. Bank of Ireland 5. Bank of Ireland 6. A.I.B. Bank 7. VA96/6/006 - A.I.B. Bank In his written submission, Mr. Cuddihy set out his calculation of rateable valuation as follows:- Ground Floor In support of his rateable valuation he adduced four comparisons in which he gave a detailed breakdown of the valuation. These comparisons were as follows:- 1. Bank of Ireland 2. Ulster Bank Limited 3. A.I.B. Bank 4. VA95/1/023 - A.I.B. Bank Oral Hearing: Ms. O'Buachalla, referring to her written submission which she adopted as her sworn evidence stated that the premises was built in 1993/4 and was not part of the shopping centre as it had a separate entrance. She said that the bank was in a designated area. She said that her comparisons number 1, Ken Black and number 4, Bank of Ireland, Potato Market, Carlow would be her main comparisons and she did not really intend to rely on the other three comparisons offered by her in her précis. Ms. O'Buachalla said that she could not comment on the differences in figures for floor area between herself and Mr. Cuddihy as she said she was not involved in the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market valuation. She said that the Bank of Ireland at the Potato Market had a 90 ft frontage, was not designated but was in a better location. She also stated that her comparison number 1, Ken Black at £8 psf with a 63 ft frontage was a good comparison. Mr. Cuddihy put it to her that he had dealt with the Ken Black valuation and that the premises was not in close proximity to the entrance of the shopping centre and it was at the end of the terrace so that there was nothing to draw people up there. Ms. O'Buachalla did not agree that being at the end of the terrace would mean that the premises would not be as attractive. She agreed that the Ulster Bank and the Bank of Ireland were equally good premises but accepted that the Ulster Bank was painted white and did tend to stand out. Mr. Cuddihy questioned her as to why she valued the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market at £14 psf for the ground floor area but only valued Ulster Bank at £10 psf for the ground floor. In reply she said that her main comparison was with Ken Black at £8 psf. She stated that there was a decision of the Tribunal that there should be no difference in valuation between a bank premises and retail units. Mr. Cuddihy, adopting his written précis as his sworn evidence stated that the subject property was a bank right beside the shopping centre and in a designated area. He said that the most relevant comparison is the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market and that he placed a valuation of £15 psf on the ground floor banking hall on this premises. He also said that he considered that he should place a valuation of £17 psf on the subject premises because he had applied a small premium for the fact that it was in close proximity to a shopping centre and in a designated area. He said it is normal practice to take the ground floor of the premises as a whole since the occupant can use the area for stores or for retail as he wishes. Questioned by Ms. O'Buachalla about the relative proximity of the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market and the subject premises to the town centre, Mr. Cuddihy said that the shopping centre was now perceived to be the most attractive location and that rents were now on the decline in Tullow Street. He said that when the valuation was reached for Bank of Ireland in Potato Market, Tullow Street and Dublin Street would have been the main shopping locations in town. Determination: While noting Mr. Cuddihy's contention that a further £1 premium
should be added to the £15 psf figure in respect of the ground floor
of the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market comparison thus bringing the valuation
to £17 psf, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence shows
that the respective locations of the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market and
the subject premises are comparable and that no further premium should
be added as the location of the subject premises is not appreciably better. In the circumstances and taking into account the comparative evidence adduced particularly in relation to the premises known as the Bank of Ireland, Potato Market, the Tribunal determines:- Ground Floor The Tribunal therefore determines the rateable valuation at £183.
|