Appeal No. VA98/2/028

AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988

A.I.B. Bank, Richmond Street South APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT

RE: Bank & yard at Lot No. 60.61 Richmond Street South,
Ward: St. Kevins, County Borough of Dublin
Quantum - Relevant comparisons

B E F O R E
Con Guiney - Barrister at Law Deputy Chairman
Ann Hargaden - FRICS.FSCS Member
Rita Tynan - Solicitor Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1999

By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of April 1998 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £335 on the above described hereditament.

The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal are that:

"1. The valuation is excessive and inequitable.
2. The valuation is bad in law".

The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place on 17th day of February 1999 at the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Dublin. The appellant was represented by Ms. Sheelagh O'Buachalla BA, an associate of the Society of Chartered Surveyors and a Director of Donal O'Buachalla and Company Limited. The respondent was represented by Mr. Tom Costello, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. Having taken the oath each valuer adopted as their evidence in chief the written submissions, which had previously been exchanged with each other and submitted to the Tribunal.

Material Facts Agreed or Found by the Tribunal

Valuation History
At the 1914 revision of the property the R.V. was increased from £85 to £130 and this was reduced to £125 on 1914 First Appeal. Ulster Banking Company was the rated occupier. Following the 1945 revision the R.V. was increased to £195 but was reduced to £180 on 1946 revision. On 1960 revision the R.V. was increased to £200. On 1969 revision following conversion of first and second floors from residential to offices and the letting of first and second floor offices, the ground floor bank was separately rated at R.V. £180 and the first and second floor offices rated at £80. On 1969 First Appeal, R.V. of bank was reduced to £175 and first and second floor offices to £60. On 1971 revision following amalgamation of 45 Pleasant Street, the R.V. of £175 was increased to £191.

The subject premises were revised in May 1997 and the two valuations of £191 and £60 were amalgamated and increased to £275. This valuation was appealed and no change was made on appeal.

Situation
The subject premises is located on the West Side of Camden Street lower, close to its junction with Pleasant Street and is convenient to Wexford Street, Kevin Street and Harcourt Street.

Property
The premises comprises of a three storey over basement building (constructed in 1897) of rendered brick construction under pitch slated roof. A two-storey section (built 1945) adjoins the front building at the rear of No. 80.

The first floor consists of offices, canteen and toilets. The second floor consists of offices. The basement contains safe and filing room. There is a small yard to the rear of the property with vehicular access on to Pleasant Street. This provides parking for four cars.

Accommodation

Banking Hall (inc. ATM) 1,405 Sq.ft.
Offices 396 Sq.ft.
Stationery room 292 Sq.ft.
Passages / Stores 135 Sq.ft.

First flr. Offices 969 Sq.ft.
Store 31 Sq.ft.
Rear store 216 Sq.ft.

Second flr. offices 969 Sq.ft.
Store 31 Sq.ft.
Basement/Strong rooms 334 Sq.ft.
Store 180 Sq.ft.
4 car parking spaces

It was confirmed to the Tribunal that reliance would not be placed by the respondent on the appeal VA96/4/077 - AIB, Ballincollig.

The Appellant's Case
In her précis and direct evidence, Ms. O'Buachalla on behalf of the appellant stated interalia the following-

• That she was relying on her first method of valuation as set out in the precis page 4 which gave an R.V. of £220.

• Proposed to value ATM as part of banking hall space and that it should be valued at same rate as banking hall.

• That the ATM being a machine, is not rateable but that the space it occupies can be valued.

• That the ATM is an alternative banking use and does not enhance the value of the property.

• That decisions to date by the Commissioner have valued ATMs as part of the overall banking hall or have valued the entire ground floor at the same rate.

• That the addition of £16 R.V. for the ATM has the effect of increasing the rate p.s.f. on the banking hall.

• She had valued the car spaces at £300 per space because the yard is small. There are four car-parking spaces but this requires manoeuvring in respect of the usage of four cars.

Ms. O'Buachalla proposed an R.V. on the premises of £220 calculated as follows:

Ground Floor
Banking Hall & Staff area offices/stores 2,228 sq.ft. @ £10.50 = £23,394.

First Floor
Stores - Rear 216 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £ 432
First Floor Offices 969 sq.ft. @ £5.00 = £4,845
Cupboard Store 31 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £ 62

Second Floor
Stores 969 sq.ft. @ £3.00 = £2,907
Cupboard Store 31 sq.ft. @ £2.00 = £ 62

Basement
Strong room 334 sq.ft @ £6.00 = £2,004
Filing 180 sq.ft.@ £2.00 = £ 360
4 car park spaces @ £300 = £1,200
Total = £35,266
@ 0.63% = £ 222
R.V. Say = £ 220

In relation to comparisons Ms. O'Buachalla cited the following:

Comparison No. 1 - Irish Permanent Building Society - 14 Lower Camden Street
This comparison is directly across the street from the subject premises. It has a narrower frontage and was zoned because it is more like a shop. Overall the Irish Permanent devalues at £12.40 p.s.f. for 768 sq.ft. and she stated that she had made allowance for the fact that the subject is larger in arriving at £10.50 p.s.f.

Comparison No. 2 - First Nationwide Building Society - 41B Lower Camden Street
Frontage 30 feet, which is very similar to the subject. It has a larger floor area than the Irish Permanent. It devalues overall at 1,046 sq.ft. @ £14.41. This comparison was not zoned although it could be used as a shop and valued at different rates for the ground floor.

With regard to the upper floors she stated that she had regard to their use.

Comparison No. 3 - C.P.I. - 28 Lower Camden Street
A valuation of £4.80 p.s.f. was applied to the upper floors and £9.50 on the ground floor shop.

She said that there were no planning difficulties in relation to ATMs except in the situation of a listed building where planning permission can be more difficult.

Under cross-examination Ms. O'Buachalla provided the following information. She confirmed she acted for AIB, Lower Rathmines Road and objected to the Valuation Office using zoning in that case. She stated that she had only used it in this case for the assistance of the Tribunal if it considered it appropriate but she was not relying on it as her main method of valuation. This is a traditional bank and zoning is not appropriate.

The two rooms on the first floor used as stores are to office standard and could be used as offices.

Ms. O'Buachalla stated with regard to the ATM, that the Tribunal had already made a decision valuing an ATM as part of the overall banking hall. She stated that she did not feel that an ATM enhanced the value of the premises but it is just another use of existing space. She confirmed that her best comparisons were Irish Nationwide Building Society and Irish Permanent Building Society although the Irish Nationwide Building Society is a superior and larger property.

The Respondent's Case
Mr. Costello in his précis and direct evidence stated interalia the following with regard to his comparisons -

Comparison No. 1 - Irish Nationwide Building Society, 1 - 4 Lower Camden Street R.V. £1,000. Agreed 1991 revision. He confirmed that Ms. O'Buachalla's method No.2 is the same method as he had used in arriving at his valuation on this comparison. He compared Ms. O'Buachalla's method and his method of valuation in particular refering to:

1) Her figure on the banking hall of £13 to include ATM whereas his valuation was £15.

2) Offices 3,977 sq.ft. @ £10 in Irish Nationwide Building Society whereas Ms. O'Buachalla had applied £7 to a smaller area of 396 sq.ft.

3) Upper floors in Ulster Bank had no lift access, whereas Irish Nationwide Building Society had.

4) Front Offices 1st Flr. Subject. 969 sq.ft. @ £5, 2nd Flr. @ £3. Irish Nationwide Building Society 1st, 2nd & 3rd Flr. Offices were valued at £7.

Mr. Costello also cited a number of other comparisons as referred to at the Appendix 1 hereto.

With regard to his comparisons of ATM facilities, he said that, comparison No. 6, Ulster Bank Rathmines Road Upper is a rented ATM on a 10 yr lease @ £10,000 pa from 1993 R.V. £50.00. He said that he was not relying on comparison No. 7 Ulster Bank, ATM facility Rathmines Road Lower.

He advised, that an ATM is regarded as a development and is not exempt from planning permission and in the case of the subject hereditament, the Ulster Bank, planning application was made on the 29th September 1990 and granted on 31st January 1991.

Where an ATM is fronting onto the street it is considered to be a development he said for which planning has to be obtained and in his view it results in the enhancement of the hereditament.

Mr. Costello's proposed an R.V. as follows:

Under cross-examination Mr. Costello stated the ground floor valuation of 1405 sq.ft. @ £14.00 in his précis includes the ATM, but he has added £16.00 for the ATM allowing for the fact that it has taken up space and in his opinion he has made allowance for this. In his view the ATM space is worth more than the £16 which he had used, when comparisons are taken into account. He confirmed that most of the ATM's quoted by him as comparisons are not in banks and that the rent for an ATM is for the space occupied. He confirmed that he was defending the valuation of £275 although his valuation figure was £291. He stated the ACC Bank, Cavan, had an R.V. of £105 agreed F/A 94/3 and was listed at 95/4 to value new ATM. Following the revision £15 R.V. was added for the ATM.

Mr. Costello accepted that comparison No. 1, Irish Nationwide Building Society has a very impressive exterior, however internally it is not in a great state of repair and it is twelve years since reconstruction and much refurbishment would be needed.

He accepted that the frontage of his comparison No. 1 Irish Nationwide Building Society is twice that of the subject but that the valuation is three times that of the subject. He stated that there should be an increase in valuation because of the ATM, because it requires planning permission and that it could be shown by a separate valuation or by increasing the value of the ground floor banking hall. In his view it enhances the property and should be reflected in an increased valuation and he again cited the ACC Bank, Cavan.

Determination
The Tribunal has considered the written submissions of the appellant and the respondent and the oral evidence of Ms. O'Buachalla for the respondent and the oral evidence of Mr. Costello on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal has taken the following factors into consideration.

• Generally ATMs require planning permission and they enhance any bank or lending institution in that they extend the overall services and enhance operational flow and efficiency.

• The Irish Nationwide Building Society is a very impressive building externally and also is a much larger building. However there has been evidence that the internal decoration is somewhat dated.

• The Tribunal has also had regard to the comparisons on Camden Street Irish Nationwide Building Society, which devalues at £12.40p.s.f. and The Irish Permanent Building Society which devalues at £14.41p.s.f. ground floor overall.

• The Irish Nationwide Premises is probably the most appropriate comparison although it is noted that it is a more prestigious and a larger building.

• The Tribunal notes that the valuation of £275 does not in fact reflect the increase of £16 in relation to the ATM.

• In all the circumstances the Tribunal determines the R.V. to be £255 calculated as follows:

And the Tribunal so determines.