Appeal No. VA99/2/001

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

Ulster Bank (Roosky) APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT

RE: Bank, yard & garden at Lot No. 1,2
Townland: Roosky (Diamond), Monaghan Urban, UD: Monaghan, Co. Monaghan

B E F O R E
Liam McKechnie - Senior Counsel Chairman
Ann Hargaden - FRICS.FSCS Member
Rita Tynan - Solicitor Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999

By Notice of Appeal dated the 9th day of April 1999 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £181 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".

1. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing that took place in the Courthouse, Monaghan on the 20th day of October 1999. Mr. Desmond Killen FRICS FSCS IRRV, of GVA Donal O'Buachalla & Company Limited appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Pat McMorrow B.Agr.Sc. (Economics), G.Dip. Planning & Development Economics, MIAVI, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Valuation. In accordance with practice and as required by the rules of this Tribunal the parties had prior to commencement of the hearing exchanged précis of evidence and submitted same to us. Having taken the oath each valuer adopted as his evidence in chief his précis. Mr. Killen amended his précis on pages 5 and 6. From the evidence so tendered the following facts either agreed or so found are considered by the Tribunal to be relevant to this appeal.

2. The Property
The property is located on the Diamond. It was constructed in 1970 and comprises a two-storey building with banking hall on the ground and offices at first floor. The agreed areas are as follows:

Ground Floor:
Banking Hall & Offices 1,552 sq.ft.
Kitchenette 53 sq.ft.

First Floor:
Offices 1,175 sq.ft.

3. Valuation History

1. Prior to 1996 Revision the subject hereditament comprised two valuations.
Ground floor - RV fixed at £105
First Floor - RV fixed at £45

2. 1994/2 First Floor - After occupation reverted to Ulster Bank a revision took place of the first floor only and the RV was fixed at £47.

3. 1996/4 Revision Ulster Bank requested a revision to amalgamate the ground and first floor RVs. The RV was fixed at £220.

4. Following first appeal the RV was reduced to £181.

Mr. Killen in his evidence stated that the bank was purpose built in 1970. The first floor consists of open plan offices with separate access from the street. This was let until recently as a separate hereditament. This floor has now been amalgamated with the ground floor as a single hereditament. Mr. Killen confirmed that the property was located in a prominent position on the Diamond, the traditional prime centre of Monaghan town. In relation to the ground floor he stated that the property is not a retail outlet and because it has a strong room, to command shop rental, major reconstruction would be needed in the subject and furthermore the presence of steps at the entrance to the subject would be another disadvantage for retail use.

He dealt in detail with his comparisons as contained in the submission and finally he proposed R.V. £135, as amended in his submission, as the R.V. for the subject.

Mr. McMorrow in his evidence stated that the valuation should be based on local commercial comparisons and said he used the Tribunal decision in AIB Bank, Tullamore VA95/6/006 as a guide in his approach to valuing the subject. He referred to the fact that the first floor usage has not altered since the amalgamation as a single letting and therefore decided to adopt the first floor valuation as determined by the Tribunal in reference VA96/3/027. He dealt in detail with his comparisons, which were local commercial premises in the vicinity. He also stated that he was not proposing to use the zoning method as his basis for valuation.

Findings and Determination
Having considered the written submissions and oral evidence presented by the appellant and the respondent the Tribunal finds the following;

1. The property is located in a very prominent position in the heart of the main commercial centre of Monaghan.
2. There was no evidence tendered of purpose built banks in Monaghan town that had been recently revised. The Tribunal considers that the most relevant comparisons are local comparisons.
3. The Tribunal finds that the most relevant comparison submitted is W.S. Black in terms of location and size. This is the standard retail frontage of 6.7 metres to Church Square but a considerably larger frontage to Mill Street to which it interlinks but at a different level. Although not as prominent as the Ulster Bank it is capable of immediate retail use.
4. Concerning the subject hereditament as a single entity it is our view that the hypothetical tenant would pay a slightly higher rent for the first floor as a single entity than he would for that section of the building taken as part of an overall letting.
5. It is also our view that extensive refurbishment would be necessary to convert the premises to retail use and this would be taken into account.

In view of the above factors, the Tribunal finds as follows;

Ground Floor 1,552 sq.ft. @ £15.00 p.s.f. = £23,280
Kitchen 53 sq.ft. @ £ 7.50 p.s.f. = £ 397.50
First Floor Offices 1,175 sq.ft. @ £ 7.00 p.s.f. = £ 8,225

N.A.V. £31,902.50 @ 5%
R.V. £159.51
Say £160

And the Tribunal so determines.