|
Appeal No. VA06/2/009
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Omniplex Cork Ltd. APPELLANT RE: Cinema at Lot No. Unit C, Ballinure Road, Mahon
B, Mahon, County Borough of Cork B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 12th day of April, 2006 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €3,400.00 on the above described relevant property. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are: "The valuation is inequitable, excessive and bad in law." The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held at the offices of the Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 7th June, 2006. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Martin O'Donnell, BA(Econ), FIAVI, Grad. Dip. (Planning & Development Econ.) and the respondent by Mr. Francis Twomey, a Valuer, Grade 1 with the Valuation Office. The Issue Valuation History The Property There is extensive surface car parking available in the Shopping Centre. Normal access from the car park to the cinema is through the northern entrance at the lower ground floor level, with immediate access to the foyer, booking office and shop by stairs or escalator. Accommodation
Tenure Appellant's case He said that there was a lot of vacant space in the basement which was of little or no value. The subject premises came in shell condition. The fixtures and fittings can be moved and taken away at any time, as can the heating and ventilation systems. The cinema was fitted out at a cost of €5.5 million. There were 4 small office rooms and toilets in the basement. He said that there were two city centre cinemas, the Capitol and the Gate, in the same rating authority area. These were situate in valuable city centre locations. The Capitol is now closed. In his opinion they were a different type of cinema to the subject property which was a multiplex located in the suburbs. He pointed out that when comparing Cineworld in Dublin city with multiplexes in Dublin suburbs the rate per seat is significantly different. For this reason, he maintained that it was essential to look outside the rating area to find similarly circumstanced multiplex cinemas to assist in assessing a fair and reasonable rating valuation. He said that the Capitol Cinema was now closed for redevelopment other than as a cinema. He maintained that valuation of seats was the most favourable method of valuation to his clients. He said that in the Tribunal's decision in VA95/5/006 - Abbey Cinema Group the decision was given on a seating basis. He also pointed out that cinemas in Dublin city centre were valued much higher than in the suburbs. He gave 10 comparisons which are set out in Appendix 1 hereto. All of them with the exception of No's 1 and 2, the Gate Cinema and the Capitol Cinema, are outside the rating authority area involved herein. The Gate Cinema in Cork city (No.1) is in the city centre and demands higher rental values and has a greater captive audience than suburban cinemas. This cinema was built in a tax designated area and was valued in 1998. The Capitol was first valued in 1990 and revalued in 1996. At the outset of the hearing Mr. Twomey objected to Mr. O'Donnell giving any comparison outside the rating authority area concerned, relying on Section 49 of the Valuation Act, 2001. In his précis Mr. O'Donnell gave 3 methods of valuation namely (a) rate per sq. metre (b) number of seats and (c) current rent, and maintained that the seating method was, in his opinion, the correct method to be adopted in this case. Mr. O'Donnell's opinion of rateable valuation is at Appendix 2 hereto. Cross examined by Mr. Twomey, he said that the subject cinema was on the edge of a predominantly residential area and agreed that it had a huge catchment area. He said that about 374 sq. metres of the basement area was void and should not be valued. He agreed that cinemas with car parking are more valuable than cinemas in the city centre and that in the city centre patrons had to pay for parking. He also said that more screens in a cinema rendered it more profitable. He further agreed that the design and scale of the subject cinema was "state of the art". He also said that most new cinemas were multiplex and accordingly were not comparable with older cinemas. Mr. Twomey referred to the decision of Mr. Barron J. in Irish Management Institute v Commissioner of Valuation [1989] No. 372 SS wherein he stated that "What must be considered are valuations which:- He put it to Mr. O'Donnell that it was therefore perfectly in order for the Tribunal to accept the two city centre cinemas as acceptable comparisons as they were within the same rating authority area. Mr. O'Donnell would not accept this for the reasons already given by him. Respondent's Case He said that the subject premises were much more valuable than cinemas in the city centre. He said that he felt constrained by Section 49 of the Valuation Act 2001 and must therefore deal with comparisons, in this case, that were city centre cinemas. He also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Abbey Cinema Group wherein it is stated that the Tribunal was satisfied that the correct approach was not one based on a price per seat basis or on adopting a capital value basis but rather by using a price per sq. metre basis. This was the basis used by him and was as far as he was concerned the correct basis. He said that he did not know the rent payable and that he was not concerned with this in arriving at his valuation. He made his valuation on a rate per sq. metre basis and confined himself to comparisons within the rating authority area, namely the Gate and Capitol Cinemas in the city centre (see Appendix 3 to this Judgment). He contended that any comparisons outside the rating authority area were not in compliance with Section 49 of the Valuation Act, 2001. His comparisons (with the exception of his No. 2 comparison, Reel Cinema, Blackpool Retail Park) complied in full with Mr. Barron J.'s decision in the IMI case referred to already in this judgment. The Reel Cinema was valued in October, 2005, after the valuation in this case and, accordingly, he conceded that it could not be used as a comparison. Mr. Twomey contended for the following valuation: Cinema 4,074 sq. metres @ €109.28 per sq. metre €445,206 Cross examined by Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Twomey stated that he valued on the tone of the list. He did not need to look at the rent in this case as he did not consider it relevant. The subject cinema was, in his opinion, far superior to the city centre cinemas. He went with the tone of the list and drew his conclusions from comparisons having made the necessary adjustments. He agreed that the Reel Cinema, Blackpool, his No.2 comparison, was valued in October 2005 after the valuation of the subject property and was not therefore on the valuation list at the relevant date and should be excluded. Findings and Determination 1. The subject property is in a large residential area on the main arterial
ring road in Cork city. It is very easily accessible. Having regard to the above the Tribunal has determined the net annual value of the property to be as follows:- Cinema 4,074 sq. metres @ €109.28 per sq. metre €445,206 NAV €517,314 @ 0.63% RV €3,259 And the Tribunal so determines. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||