|
Appeal No. VA99/3/019 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Governor & Company of the Bank of
Ireland (South Mall Cork) APPELLANT RE: Bank at Map Reference 83/84 South
Mall, Townland Sundry, B E F O R E
1. By Notice of Appeal dated the 27th day of July 1999, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £360 on the above described hereditament. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of
Appeal are that; "the assessment is excessive and inequitable and
bad in law having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on
other grounds also". 3. The subject property comprises a three storey plus attic purpose built bank premises located in mid-terrace on the northside of South Mall in that section between Crane Lane and Smith Street. At the rear there is a single storey extension together with a small enclosed yard with direct access onto Crane Lane. 4. South Mall is generally regarded as being the prime business and office location in Cork and occupiers include several financial services and professional companies. The building was constructed around 1930 and is typical of the period when banks constructed buildings to reflect an image of financial strength and stability. Internally the ground floor is laid out so that the banking hall is approached from the pavement by a hallway and vestibule entrance. At the front of the building is found the manager's office and a second entrance used only by staff. The banking hall is two storey in height and office accommodation is found at mezzanine, first and second floor levels. The staff canteen is located at second floor level and there is a strong room at ground floor level whilst the attic space is unused and in poor condition. 5. The property was included in the November 1997 quarterly revision list and the rateable valuation was increased from £250 to £420 which figure was reduced to £360 at first appeal stage. 6. A written précis and submission was received from Mr. Davenport on the 17th January 2000 and at the hearing this was adopted by him as being his evidence in chief given under oath. In his précis Mr. Davenport proposed a rateable valuation of £245 calculated as set out below;
Net Annual Value Say - £39,000 In support of his opinion of net annual value and rateable valuation, Mr. Davenport submitted details of 9 comparisons which may be summarised as follows; 1. 71 South Mall Ground Floor
Analysis:
Analysis:
Analysis 4. 32/34 South Mall Analysis:
5. (b)
Analysis:
Analysis: 8. (a) 12 South Mall Analysis:
Analysis In his précis Mr. Davenport contended; (i) That the property has all the characteristics of an office building with no retail display area. (ii) Since the property is located in a mainly office location it is appropriate that the valuation be assessed by reference to office rental levels. (iii) That the offices at mezzanine level afford poor quality accommodation. (iv) An allowance should be made for quantum having regard to the total area of the building of 510 m2. 10. In supplementary evidence Mr. Davenport contended; (i) That rents on South Mall are not uniform and that the prime area is that section between No.'s 55 & 72. (ii) That the most relevant comparison is No. 71 South
Mall, which is an open market letting of a purpose built bank premises
occupying a better location than the subject and with a larger street
frontage. (iv) Whilst it is always better to compare banks with banks he nonetheless had included a number of office comparisons in order to provide what he described as being a flavour of rental values in South Mall at or about November 1988. (v) In his valuation he had attributed no specific value to the staff entrance but had reflected it in the overall price placed on the ground floor space. 11. Under cross-examination Mr. Davenport sustained his opinion that the most appropriate comparison was No. 71 South Mall and did not accept the proposition put to him that bank premises should be valued higher than a conventional office building occupying a similar location. Nonetheless, he did agree that older bank premises have a higher and better quality of specification and finish than modern bank premises which were not dissimilar to modern office accommodation in terms of construction and finish. 12. Mr. Stapleton suggested to Mr. Davenport that some allowance ought to be made to reflect the fact that the regional Bank of Ireland cash centre adjoins the subject premises. Mr. Davenport disagreed and pointed out that the cash centre was a separate hereditament and by virtue of its security use, it was not interlinked with the subject property at any level. 13. Mr. Stapleton adopted his précis of evidence
which had been received in the Tribunal on the 13th January 2000 as being
his evidence in chief given under oath. In his précis he proposed
a rateable valuation of £360, calculated as set out below:
Net Annual Value - £57,000 9. In support of his valuation Mr. Stapleton supplied details of the rateable assessment of five bank premises which may be summarised as set out below; 1. 13 South Mall Analysis
Second Floor
Analysis: First Floor 97.4m2 @ £64.58 per m2 Net Annual Value - £58,000
Analysis
Net Annual Value £10,700 Rent Payable under Lease (1/6/89) = £67,500 pa Total Net Annual Value =£78,000
Analysis: Net Annual Value £55,000
Ground floor Banking Hall 100.9m2 @ £161.46 = £16,291
(£15psf) 1st flr. offices 62.9m2 @ £ 64.58 = £ 4,062 (£ 6psf) 2nd flr. offices 95.6m2 @ £ 64.58 = £ 6,174 (£ 6psf) 3rd flr. canteen, offices 96.0m2 @ £ 43.05 = £ 4,128 (£ 4psf) Basement - strong room 22.9m2 @ £107.64 = £
2,465 (£ 5psf) Total Net Annual Value of Building = £45,078 5. A.I.B. Bank, 10 Bridge Street Analysis: Total RV =£365 (i) That the property was constructed and fitted out to
a high standard and was a (iii) That some upward adjustment must be made to reflect the proximity of the regional cash centre. 12. Under cross-examination Mr. Stapleton agreed that South Mall was the prime office location in Cork but did not accept the proposition that rents along the Mall varied with location. He agreed that Winthrop Street and Bridge Street were retail locations but nonetheless he was of the opinion that it was helpful to include as comparisons, banks located along these streets if only to indicate the rents that banks were prepared to pay in these locations which from a banking use point of view, were inferior to South Mall. He agreed with Mr. Davenport that 71 South Mall was the most suitable of all the comparisons and expressed the view that it was an inferior property to the subject. In relation to this comparison he urged the Tribunal to look at the net annual values as agreed rather than the analysis of the passing rent as put forward by Mr. Davenport. 13. Findings: (ii) The property, which is about 70 years old was designed and constructed to the then prevailing standards. As a consequence the layout is somewhat inflexible but nonetheless the Tribunal does not agree with Mr. Davenport's opinion that the double height in the main banking hall does not add value in terms of rental value. (iii) The parties are agreed that the most relevant comparison is No. 71 South Mall which is an open market letting of a purpose built bank premises similar in general layout and appearance to the subject but having a much larger ground floor area. Whilst it is a common comparison Mr. Davenport analysed the rent payable under the lease from 1st June 1989 whilst Mr. Stapleton analysed the net annual values on the basis of three separate rateable hereditaments totaling £78,000 as against the rent of £67,500 for the entire. The Tribunal prefers Mr. Davenport's approach since the subject hereditament is also a multi-storey building with Banking Hall at ground floor level with offices overhead. (iv) An examination of Mr. Davenport's other comparisons indicates that the rental level for typical ground floor offices on South Mall at or about November 1988 was in the range of £12 to £13psf (v) No. 13 South Mall is also a common comparison with a rent of £30,000 per annum as at April 1989 and a net annual value also of £30,000. Mr. Stapleton analysed the net annual value of the ground floor on what appears to be a zoning basis whilst Mr. Davenport devalued the rent at an overall rate of £13psf. Mr. Stapleton's average figure on the ground floor equates to £13.67psf (vi) Having regard to the fact that there is an abundance of comparable evidence on South Mall itself, the Tribunal attaches little weight to the comparisons located on Winthrop Street and Bridge Street as they are by common consent located in primarily retail locations. (vii) The Tribunal attributes most weight to the evidence in relation to No's 71 and 13 South Mall, both of which are bank premises. The additional evidence on the Mall is also helpful. (viii) In relation to the subject the Tribunal prefers Mr. Davenport's method of valuing the ground floor at an overall rate and that no separate value should be attributed to the staff entrance area. Nonetheless the presence of this separate staff entrance must be reflected in the overall rate applied and in addition an allowance must be made to reflect the somewhat unique characteristics of the banking hall. The Tribunal does not consider any allowance should be made for the proximity of the regional cash centre. Determination Ground Floor First Floor
RV @ .63% = £296 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||