|
Appeal No. VA02/4/034
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA The Market Square Partnership APPELLANT RE: Car park at Map Reference: Pt. 8.9.10.11., Market
Place, Ennis, County Clare B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated 13 November 2002 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €304.74 on the above described relevant property. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are:- This appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of Limerick County Council on the 4th March 2003. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin, BSc (Surveying), ASCS, ARICS, MIAVI, and the respondent by Mr. Noel Norris, B.Comm, MIAVI, ASCS, MRICS, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. Prior to the hearing the valuers exchanged and submitted to the Tribunal précis of evidence and valuation which was subsequently received into evidence. The Property Valuation History The Appellant's Evidence At the outset Mr. Halpin amended his opinion of Net Annual Value contained
in his précis to reflect the fact that the parties had agreed that
the number of spaces was 263 and not 302 as stated in his précis.
Accordingly he put forward the following valuation. In support of his valuation Mr. Halpin introduced details of 7 car parks elsewhere in the country as set out in Appendix 1 attached to this judgement. In his evidence Mr. Halpin said that the construction of the subject car park was tax-driven and that the rent payable under the lease was not a market rent in the true sense of the term. Hence the rent payable was of no assistance in arriving at an opinion of Net Annual Value. Whilst he had produced a valuation on the receipts and expenditure method, he was not relying upon that valuation but had introduced it only to show the financial situation of the operating company. As a result he was relying solely upon the comparative method of valuation and had examined the assessments of a number of multi-storey car parks throughout the country in order to arrive at his opinion of Net Annual Value as set above. Mr. Halpin in evidence went on to say that the subject property was the only multi-storey car park in Ennis. Generally speaking, he said, on and off-street car parking charges in Ennis were low and parking was poorly controlled. This somewhat benign regime acted as a deterrent to the operation of the subject property leading to a very low occupancy rate of 16.4%. A hypothetical tenant in the market, he said, would take this factor into account when arriving at an opinion of rental value. Under cross-examination Mr. Halpin agreed that none of the comparisons which he had introduced were of much assistance but he said they indicated the levels of value attributed to car parks in much better locations than the subject and which operated at much higher levels of occupancy. Making such allowances as he considered appropriate for location and levels of occupancy he had come to the conclusion that his opinion of Net Annual Value was fair and reasonable. The Respondent's Case 263 car spaces @ €253.94 each = €66786.22 In his evidence Mr. Norris said that Tralee was a town somewhat similar in size to Ennis and, in the absence of any directly comparable properties in Ennis, it was reasonable to rely upon comparisons drawn from another rating area. Under cross-examination Mr. Norris did not agree that the parking conditions in Ennis were easier than Tralee. Mr. Norris said the two towns were similar in size and the level of commercial activity in both towns was also similar. Nonetheless, Mr. Norris did concede that the subject property operated at a low level of occupation and agreed that this was something a hypothetical tenant in the market would take into account and would perhaps adjust his opinion of rental value downwards from the established level found in Tralee. Findings Determination |