|
Appeal No. VA98/4/012 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Governor and Company of the Bank of
Ireland (Naas) APPELLANT RE: Bank, office, yard & small garden
at Map Reference 22, Main Street, B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of October 1998, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £435 (buildings) on the above described hereditament. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal are that; "the rateable valuation is excessive and 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 27th March 2000, in the Valuation Tribunal Offices. The Appellant was represented by Mr. Owen Hickey B.L., Mr. Thomas Davenport A.R.I.C.S., Chartered Surveyor of Lisneys, gave evidence. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Brendan Conway B.L., instructed by the Chief State Solicitor. Mr. Kevin Heery B.Comm. M.I.A.V.I., Grad. Diploma (Planning & Development Economics), a District Valuer with twenty-nine years experience in the Valuation Office, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. Having taken the Oath, each Valuer adopted as his evidence-in-chief his written submission which had been exchanged with the other Valuer and submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing. Material Facts Agreed or Found by the Tribunal Valuation History Situation Property - Single storey extension to Banking Hall; Total amount expended relating to the above improvements was £384,000. The property is in good decorative and structural order throughout, with the exception of the basement which is used for archival storage purposes only. Accommodation - Ground Floor Banking Hall/Offices 416.4 m2 Tenure The Appellant's Case - When bank buildings were previously valued with other bank buildings, Lisney agreed to higher valuations, until the decision of the Tribunal in the Tullamore Appeal VA/95/6/013. - The main commercial retail activity in Naas occurs further north on Main Street, around the area of Naas Shopping Mall and Superquinn. - The area of the subject property is dominated by offices interspersed with financial institutions and licensed premises, with no significant retail activity. - The areas of the subject property should be considered as one for rental purposes with a consequential lower value. - Valuation Office should have applied different values between Ground Floor Banking Hall and Ground Floor Offices, and that the Valuation Office should not have zoned the premises. - The older three-storey structure is not ancillary. - An analysis of recent agreements with the Valuation Office, or decisions of the Tribunal, confirm that historically the assessments on premises of the main banks have been higher. - The varying ceiling heights of the Banking Hall and steps to adjoining three storey offices were not properly considered by the Valuation Office. - The Following Valuation Tribunal Judgements are of relevance in this case; - VA 95/6/013 Bank of Ireland, Tullamore Mr. Davenport proposed a Ratable Valuation on the premises of £250 calculated as follows: Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor External Total NAV £50,097, say £50,000 @ 0.5% = R.V. £250 Mr. Davenport provided seven comparisons summarized as follows: Comparison No. 1 Analysis Comparison No. 2 Analysis Comparison No. 3 Analysis Comparison No. 4 Comparison No. 5 Analysis Comparison No. 6 Analysis
Analysis Mr. Davenport asserted that his most appropriate comparisons
were No. 2 and No. 3, i.e. N.I.B. and Naas Credit Union. Naas is the administration headquarters for Co. Kildare, a dormer town within commuting distance to Dublin, with a population in 1996 of 14,074 persons. The 1997 Revision took account of the earlier noted improvement works on the subject property. All of the older three-storey building (former residence) is used as offices. South Main Street is regarded as a secondary trading area, and that the east side of the street, where the subject is located is inferior in rental levels to the west side of the street where there are a number of retail users. Mr. Conway in cross-examining Mr. Davenport stated that; With regards to the comparisons provided by Lisney, Mr. Conway asserted that: A. Bank of Ireland is a much more substantial building
than Ferris O'Reilly's, the latter not having direct on-street or rear
parking. Respondent's case Ground Floor Bank Hall/Offices 4,482 ft @ £14.50
per ft = £64,989 416.4 m2 @ £156 per m2 ) Or, as check by Zoning basis Ground Floor Zone A 1,613 ft @ £25 per ft = £40,325 Say £87,000 Mr. Heery provided six comparisons Comparison No. 1 VA93/2/039 Analysis Valuation of £335 fixed at 92/4 1st Appeal. Traditional bank adjacent to Bank of Ireland. The frontage to bank is considerably less than subject property, 62 feet as against 88 ft. 21 spaces in car park as against 51 spaces with Bank of Ireland. Comparison No. 3 Analysis First Floor 692 sq. ft. @ £7.00 = £4,844 Small traditional bank adjacent to subject property. This bank is the subject of an outstanding 99/4 first appeal as a result of 99/4 Revision. The frontage of this bank is 30 feet as against 88 feet for the Bank of Ireland. There are 22 car spaces at back compared to 51 spaces in Bank of Ireland. Comparison No. 4 Analysis Or Valuation: ACC Bank is adjacent to subject property. Plain premises with small public area. Cramped situation in part of two buildings. Long narrow layout to premises. Frontage of 30 feet narrows to width of 21 feet over majority of area. No car parking attached. Valued on 1997/4 Revision /First Appeal. Comparison No. 5 Analysis Or Valuation: National Irish Bank is located at far end of Main Street to subject property. Not a very imposing building. Frontage is 20 feet to main street. No car park attached. Valued at 94/2 Revision/First Appeal. Comparison No. 6 Or Valuation: Refurbished Building Society offices at far end of Main Street to subject property. 20 feet frontage to Main Street. No car parking attached. Valued in 1994 Revision. Mr. Heery made the following additional comments: The Revision figure established in 1991 on the subject property was agreed with Lisney in 1996 and that Revision took account of suitable comparisons. The ground floor in all areas of the subject premises is fully integrated. The door serving the former three storey residence is normally kept closed and the public primarily uses the front door servicing the single storey area, and consequently, access to the older interior is through the single storey internal Banking Hall. A railing protects the under street level front of basement. He commented further on the Lisney comparisons as follows: No. 1. No improvements had been carried out at time of last valuation. No. 2. Valuation only applied to the first building, i.e. with the large sign overhead in the photograph. The older section had not yet been valued and parking is not permitted to the front. No. 3. Valued on lesser figure as confirmed by records. On cross-examination by Mr. Hickey, Mr. Heery acknowledged that the zoning approach may not be appropriate. Mr. Hickey stated that the Valuation Office should have adjusted their Valuation on the building as Mr. Heery had applied a value of £100 x 51 to the car park. Mr. Hickey stated his assumption that Mr. Heery had apparently employed a base figure of rateable valuation £300 and then took the amount spent on the improvements into account. Mr. Heery said the Naas Credit Union building has no parking, is smaller in frontage and floor area, and that a figure of £12.50 per sq. ft. might be an appropriate rental rate. Mr. Heery did not support Mr. Hickey's assertion however that if floor area increases, there might be a corresponding decrease in rental rates per sq. ft. Mr. Conway in summation referred the Tribunal to VA 95/6/006,
AIB Tullamore, Paragraph 5, VA95/6/013 Bank of Ireland Baggott Street
and VA98/3/051 Bank of Ireland, Portarlington. 1. The Tribunal considers that as the car park was valued, the Valuation on the building should be accordingly reduced. Furthermore, it considers that the offices should not be considered of a similar nature to the Banking Hall. It is the Tribunal's view that allowing for approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of difference in area, the AIB Bank (Respondent's Comparison No. 2) served as a particularly appropriate comparison. The Tribunal is mindful of previous determinations and in particular those noted by both Appellant and Respondent. The premises under Appeal has all the characteristics of a bank and should be valued not only in relation to other premises of similar use in the area, but also having regard to other comparisons which include offices and retail shops. 2. The parties agreed that the subject premises is in very good order having undergone a number of changes, extensions, and improvements over the years. The former three- storey residence is now in use as offices, and taken together with the single storey extension and rear extensions, car park and its location, it is reasonable to assume that the property is best suited to its current use. 3. The Tribunal in reaching its decision takes into consideration the location and information provided on the ACC, AIB and Ulster Bank and their proximity to the subject, and also the location and details of the NIB and EBS and their proximity to the main retailing areas of Naas. It has also taken account of the floor areas, street profiles and the availability of adjoining parking facilities for each of the comparisons submitted. Taking all the evidence into account the Tribunal determines the Ratable Valuation of these premises, calculated as follows: Ground Floor Former Residence Say £75,000 £75,000 NAV @ 0.5% = R.V. £375.00
|