|
Appeal No. VA98/3/052 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (Portlaoise)
APPELLANT RE: Bank at Map Reference Lot No. 21 Main Street,
By Notice of Appeal dated the 4th day of August 1998, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £320 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the assessment is excessive, inequitable and bad in law having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on other grounds also." The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place on the 13th day of March 2000 at the Tribunal Offices in Dublin. The appellant was represented by Mr. Owen Hickey B.L. Mr. Thomas Davenport ARICS ASCS, Chartered Surveyor of Lisney gave evidence. The respondent was represented by Mr. Brendan Conway B.L. instructed by the Chief State Solicitor. Mr. Denis Maher, a District Valuer with approximately 24 years experience in the Valuation Office gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. On a preliminary issue Mr. Hickey objected to the inclusion in Mr. Maher's précis of an extract from Mr. Davenport's without-prejudice-submission to the Valuation Office in relation to the initial appeal and in particular the estimate of N.A.V. and thus R.V. contained therein. The Tribunal ruled that references to such without-prejudice-submission should not be included in the précis of evidence and that they would ignore those figures in assessing the N.A.V. and R.V. in the instant appeal. Material Facts agreed or found by the
Tribunal 1980 revision/appeal R.V. £275 Situation The property is situated in the centre of the town of Portlaoise with frontage both to Main Street and Lyster Square which in turn has frontage to the inner by-pass also known as James Fintan Lawlor Avenue. The property is directly beside Lyster Lane, the main link between Main Street and Lyster Square. New developments in designated areas on the east side of Lyster Square and also developments on the west side of Lyster Square and the Portlaoise Shopping Centre on the south side of the inner bypass road have diverted business in the town from Main Street to Lyster Square. Occupiers fronting Lyster Square car park include First Active Building Society, AIB Bank, Portlaoise Post Office, ACC Bank, Educational Building Society and Portlaoise Credit Union. Main Street occupiers include a variety of retail users and financial institutions. The population of Portlaoise (1996 Census) is approximately 9,500 and is expected to increase primarily due to Portlaoise now becoming a commuter town for Dublin, because of its accessibility by both road and rail. The Property The property comprises a part two storey and part single storey rectangular shaped bank premises with frontage to Main Street of approximately 31 feet and frontage to Lyster Square of approximately 41 feet the total depth being approximately 125 feet. The ground floor comprises a banking hall with ancillary offices and strong room and the first floor ancillary offices with kitchen and toilet facilities. In recent years new external facades have been provided on both elevations. Additional office accommodation has been provided at first floor level and there has been internal refurbishment. The total costs were in the order of £290,000. Accommodation The following accommodation is agreed The Appellant's Case Mr. Davenport stated that this is a modern retail/office building differing somewhat from traditional banks and that it is situated within a recognised retail area with its neighbours used for retail purposes and therefore a retail level of rent would be appropriate. The premises is relatively long and narrow with a maximum width of 33 feet and an overall depth of 120 feet although it does have dual frontages and access from both front and rear. There is a difference in floor level between the front and rear sections of the ground floor. He referred to various Tribunal Judgements including Bank of Ireland Tullamore - VA95/6/013, Bank of Ireland Main Street, Bray - VA96/2/054, AIB Sutton - VA95/6/25 and AIB George's Street, Dun Loaghaire - VA93/2/008. Mr. Davenport argued that all development in recent years in Portlaoise had taken place in designated areas to the detriment of the Main Street, despite it's upgrading. He listed nine comparisons the details of which are appended to this decision. In summary the details of these are as follows: 1) Unit 15 - Lyster buildings: 2) 22A Main Street, Portlaoise - Dowlings 3) Various units in Lyster Building. 1989 rent review gives a range of rents for retail areas in the order of £13.12psf to £15.30psf for units in the order of 500 sq. ft. 4) Allied Irish Bank Mr. Davenport stated that this is a purpose built bank building dated from 1986 with extensive frontage onto Lyster Square car park of approximately 180 feet. The property has a huge profile onto Lyster Square and a dominating presence over the surrounding retail area. 5) Two Units at James Fintan Lawlor Avenue 6) Large unit James Fintan Lawlor Avenue with ground floor 7,396 sq. ft. NAV @ £5psf Mr. Davenport made the following comments on the respondent's comparisons: The AIB building was the most dominating
one on the square and in a better pitch than the subject premises and
an infinitely superior building to the Bank of Ireland building. In
his view the respondent was applying £16psf on the subject premises
based on the respondent's comparison of the ACC building alone, which,
in his opinion was an unreliable comparison as the letting was higher
than the market rents at the time; that premises was designated and
in the1998 rent review the rent had been increased by only 5% whereas
various indices show a growth of 25% over the same period. Mr. Davenport estimated the NAV and thus
rateable valuation on two bases: 2) Zoning Basis In cross-examination Mr. Davenport said
that Portlaoise was the main commercial and retail town in the area
with a number of modern shopping developments. He stated that he looks
at the characteristics and location of a building and then looks for
appropriate comparisons and endeavours to compare buildings of similar
function with each other. In this instance he regarded the bank as a
retail unit because it has frontage to two retail areas namely Lyster
Square and Main Street. He accepted that the pre-revision valuation
of £200 was a Tribunal decision and that since that date expenditure
of £290,000 had been incurred on the premises. Although the premises
had been changed in appearance and upgraded, in his view this did not
add to the rental value significantly. He accepted that the frontage
to Lyster Square had been upgraded and that Lyster Square itself had
been upgraded. He did not feel that the bank would require very considerable
works to alter to retail use. The Respondent's Case Mr. Maher stated that Portlaoise was now bypassed by a major motorway type road and that it had become a residential dormitory town for Dublin with a consequent increase both socially and economically since the building was last valued. The effect of the refurbishment work was
that the building has been improved both internally and externally and
800 sq. ft. had been added on the first floor. It is now more imposing
with a traditional exterior and modern interior. He calculated the rateable valuation as follows: Ground Floor 3,375 sq. ft. @ £16.00psf Mr Maher said that for comparison purposes he had looked at banks in the town, particularly AIB and the ACC and building society premises and he also looked at banks in similar towns. In his opinion the FBD building is an office building and the ACC comparison showed that banks will pay more rent than other users. He expressed the view that the AIB premises is undervalued. It had been done on the basis of the subject premises prior to its refurbishment. The pre-refurbished Bank of Ireland had been analysed at £12.00 and this figure was applied to the AIB. He expressed the view that it was reasonable to compare banks with banks in similar sized commercial towns. The AIB, Navan, one of his comparisons is a state-of-the art premises and the subject Bank of Ireland is recently renovated and refurbished. He did not accept that the AIB in Portlaoise was the only valid comparison and said that one must look at the other comparisons. In total Mr. Maher provided eight comparisons, the details of which are appended to this determination and in summary are as follows: 1. ACC, Portlaoise 2. FBD, Unit 10AC/Unit 1 Kellyville Center 4. TSB, Nenagh 5. AIB, Nenagh 6. Ulster Bank, Carlow 7. AIB, Navan. VA95/1/023 8. Irish Nationwide, 23A Main Street, Portlaoise 9. First Active, Lyster Square In cross examination in relation to comparable
and similar function, Mr. Maher expressed a view that comparing a bank
with another bank is the best comparison to follow and that banks should
only be compared with banks if appropriate comparisons are available,
but if retail comparisons are available he will look at them. In this
case his prime comparisons in his opinion are banks and there are two
available. He accepts that AIB is comparable but in his view needs to
be adjusted because it was based on the subject Bank of Ireland before
it was refurbished. He stressed that in his view the AIB premises was
superior to the original Bank of Ireland premises but not the present
Bank of Ireland premises and therefore it was not appropriate that it
should be valued at the same rate. He accepted that the AIB was somewhat
more prominent but that all pedestrian traffic from Lyster Square to
and from Main Street funnels through Lyster Lane right beside the Bank
of Ireland premises. In re-examination he stated that each property
must be assessed on its own merits and comparisons adjusted to deal
with the facts of the subject premises. He stated that he did not have
all the information he needed in relation to the Bank of Ireland, Portlaoise
and he questioned the AIB figure and therefore looked at other county
towns that are more the less the same size. He stressed that the Bank
of Ireland now has good access to the rear as well as from the Main
Street and has an extra 800 sq. ft. on the first floor and has been
totally refurbished and also that in 1992 the Tribunal had fixed a figure
of £12psf on these premises. It was clearly more valuable now
than then and the ACC premises was a valuable comparison. Mr. Conway referred to the two Tullamore cases and quoted extensively from VA95/6/006, the AIB case and stated that while it was relevant to look at commercial properties generally when banks occupy particular buildings fitted out to a high standard that this must be taken into account. In his view the Bank of Ireland decision of the 24th of February 1997, VA95/6/013 does not affect the AIB case. In the subject case the Bank of Ireland gave the bank a typical façade for its type. He also stated that it was appropriate that the Valuer may consider other towns and that this was quite an imposing building. Mr. Hickey in response said that this building does not attract higher rents than its neighbours. Determination There is little dispute between the parties about the location or nature of these premises although the appellant argues that Main Street has suffered in rental terms because of developments on the inner relief road and those fronting Lyster Square but was unable to produce any rental evidence to justify this assertion. Clearly however the emphasis on trade has turned towards Lyster Square and the inner bypass and there have been considerable developments in this immediate area. Lyster Square has been considerably upgraded and to take advantage of this Bank of Ireland have also upgraded their Lyster Square frontage to present a good quality bank frontage to this area. While AIB appears to be a more imposing building, it has frontage only to Lyster Square whereas the Bank of Ireland has the advantage of dual frontage both to Lyster Square and additionally to the traditional Main Street and is immediately adjacent to the principal route between the Lyster Square car parking area and the Main Street. The Bank of Ireland has also improved its general ground floor area and increased its first floor area by 800 sq. ft. It is hard to see therefore how the Tribunal could determine the same rateable valuation as sought by the appellant on these improved and enlarged premises as it did in VA92/2/043, which was also carried out under the NAV system, although taking cognisance of the Tribunal decisions in relation to Tullamore and other bank cases outlined by the appellant. It is very difficult to find comparisons of similar sized buildings of quality and as well-located as this Bank of Ireland premises in Portlaoise and the only comparison approaching a similar size is of course the AIB premises which according to the respondent's Valuer was valued principally on the basis of the Tribunal decision on the Bank of Ireland premises in its pre-improved condition. We are reluctant to give too much cognisance to rateable valuations of banks or other premises outside the immediate rating area. The Tribunal determines the rateable valuation of these premises on the following basis: Ground Floor 313.5m2 @ £150 per m2
= £47,025
|