|
Appeal No. VA98/2/028 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA A.I.B. Bank, Richmond Street South APPELLANT RE: Bank & yard at Lot No. 60.61 Richmond Street
South, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL 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. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place on the 17th February 1999 at the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Dublin. The Appellant was represented by Ms. Sheila O'Buachalla BA ARICS ASCS, a Director of Donal O'Buachalla & Company Ltd and the Respondent was represented by Mr. Thomas Costello a District Valuer with over 36 years experience in the Valuation Office. Having taking the Oath, each Valuer adopted as their evidence in chief their written submission, which had previously been exchanged with the other Valuer and submitted to the Tribunal. The following material facts either agreed or found by the Tribunal are relevant to the determination of this appeal. Material Facts Valuation History Situation Description Accommodation Floor areas were agreed as follows:
The Appellants Case: 1. Ms O'Buachalla in her précis and direct evidence
stated; 2. Ms O'Buachalla relied on two comparisons, that of the National Irish Bank on the South Circular Road and 32 South Richmond Street in arriving at her valuation. Reference was also made to the Irish Permanent Building Society at 14 Camden Street Lower - see Appendices. However, Ms O'Buachalla indicated that she had not had regard to this comparison on Camden Street as South Richmond Street was an inferior location. She indicated that her comparison at South Richmond Street reflected the difference in valuations between that Street and Camden Street in that the former analyses at £16.00 p. sq. ft. zone A versus the latter at £19.50 p. sq. ft. Zone A. She indicated that she had valued the ground floor at a higher rate than the South Circular Road ground floor premises because it is a slightly smaller area. Ms O'Buachalla then proposed a rateable valuation of £235, calculated as follows:-
Mr Costello then cross-examined Ms O'Buachalla and asked whether planning permission could be taken for granted and whether Ms O'Buachalla was suggesting that planning permission was a formality. Ms O'Buachalla confirmed that she did not agree that it was a formality and that there is a risk with any form of development but in general the banks had found little problems with planning permission for this type of development. Ms O'Buachalla then stated that she believed that Kelly's Corner was inferior to Camden Street as the latter is a better retail location. Mr. Costello asked why the lift was not in use and Ms. O'Buachalla confirmed that the lift had not been used by the bank (for security reasons only) for a number of years. She then indicated that she felt that the National Irish Bank on South Circular Road was in a slightly better location than the subject as Clanbrassil Street has been redeveloped. Mr Costello then asked whether she agreed that there had been a number of redevelopments around the subject premises such as Camden Court Hotel, the Harcourt Centre, the Barge Pub and the new Portobello College a couple of doors away. Ms O'Buachalla agreed but indicated that there were some developments ongoing in May 1997 and that a number had not been completed in the area. She also indicated that this is a mixed commercial and residential area and there is still a number of derelict properties in the vicinity. Mr Costello then put it to her that he did not agree with her assessment of the surrounding area and that this building was not dependent on the Street as it is on a high profile corner at the junction of several routes in and out of the city. THE RESPONDENT'S CASE As well as a lift there is also a hoist which transport documents from the banking hall to the basement. He also referred to a ground floor plan, which shows where the ATM is located together with a secure room to the rear. 2. He referred to his comparisons as primary evidence for his assessment (see appendices) and then referred to Ms O'Buachalla's comparison at 32 South Richmond Street. The RV agreed on this was £61.00. Since then the major part of the property has been revised to £125 RV at ground, first, third and basement floors. The second floor was separately let and comprises 850 sq. ft. at £6.00 p. sq. ft., which analyses at an RV of £32.00. 3. Mr. Costelloe indicated that he had checked the appeal file on the valuation of the National Irish Bank on South Circular Road. He stated that the bank was zoned to arrive at the value and that an overall breakdown of the ground floor at £8.30 psf was not indicated on the file. The Zoned N.A.V. analysed as follows: Zone A 600 sq. ft. @ £20.00 He indicated that the zoning method was applied because the building was so deep and that £6.50 psf was applied to the first floor offices and not £6.00 psf. He then argued that if the property under appeal was similarly zoned, the NAV at ground floor would be £34,650 per annum which is actually higher than his own valuation. He stated that if we were comparing like with like, we should use zoning on the subject premises. Ms O'Buachalla then cross-examined Mr Costelloe and he
indicated the following: DETERMINATION Ground Floor Banking Hall 1,821 sq. ft. @ £14.00 (to reflect the size of the property and the presence of the ATM machine and the advantage this gives to the efficiency of the ground floor space and the ability to trade outside normal hours) = £25,494. Ground Floor Manager/Staff 465 sq. ft. @ £10.00 =
£4,650 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||