Appeal No. VA90/2/082
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Coral Leisure (Ireland) Limited APPELLANT
RE: Betting Office (pt) 145, Parnell Street
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 24th day of July, 1990 the appellants appealed
against the determination of the respondent fixing the rateable valuation
of the above described hereditaments at £40.
Total improvements £23,000 (allow £11,000 as tenants fixtures
Net annual value Say £6,550
Mr Gormley then calculated the rateable valuation at £40 on the
basis of applying a percentage of 0.63 between net annual value and rateable
valuation. He supplied three comparisons whose valuation, he says, compares
favourably with the subject premises. The comparisons are all on the same
street and carry out the same business:-
2. Edwin McWilliam (Betting Office) 1985 Revision
3. G.C. Hackett (Betting Office) 1988 Revision
Details of the comparisons supplied by Mr Gormley are attached at Appendix "A".
On the 13th November, 1990 a written submission was received from Mr
Peter G. O'Flynn, M.I.A.V.I., a valuer with Messrs Druker Fanning &
Partners, on behalf of the appellant. In this submission Mr O'Flynn describes
the premises and said that since the development of the Ilac Centre and
the surrounding areas, the end to the west of O'Connell Street has improved
to the detriment of the side on which the subject property is situate.
He said that the current rent is £4,200 per annum and in accordance
with the terms of the Lease, the Lessee is responsible for payment of
rates, internal and external repairs, to contribute to the Landlord each
year a sum equal to one half of the premium paid by the Landlord in insuring
the entire premises, and to use the premises only for business purposes.
Mr O'Flynn outlined the accommodation as follows:-
Frontage to Parnell Street 12' 6"
All principal services, including mains water and drainage, electricity and telephone, are supplied and connected to the premises.
Mr O'Flynn said that the property is situate in an area that has deteriorated in both stature and importance as a retail area over the past number of years. He said that many of the adjoining premises in this area are either available on the open market or permanently closed and derelict. He said that the surrounding area is undesirable and the tenant experiences continuous problems with break-ins and vandalism to his property.
Mr O'Flynn attached the following comparisons:-
Property Rent Sq. Ft. Rent per sq. ft.
Accepting the general ratio applied by the Commissioner of Valuation,
i.e. .63% of net annual value he calculated the rateable valuation as
Mr O'Flynn argued that the rent for the subject property was £4,500 and that Mr Gormley had taken a greater net annual value. Mr Gormley explained that in calculating the net annual value he had annualised half of the improvement expenditure, over a ten year period, and had added this to the rent passing. An allowance of 10% had also been made for rental growth since 1983. Mr Gormley said that in allowing £11,000 of the improvement expenditure towards fixtures and fittings, which are not rateable items, he was being generous to the appellant.
The Tribunal having considered the written submissions of both parties and the oral evidence has concluded that the most relevant comparisons are the bookmakers premises in the same street. The properties put forward as comparisons by Mr Gormley are similar properties carrying out the same business in the same street and have been recently revised. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the rateable valuation of the subject property by comparison is very reasonable. The Tribunal therefore determines that the rateable valuation of £40 on the subject property be upheld.