|
Appeal No. VA97/4/044 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Trustees of Skerries Golf Club APPELLANT RE: House, Clubhouse, Office & Land at Map Reference
1Da, Hacketstown, Holmpatrick, Skerries, Fingal, Co. Dublin B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 29th day of July 1997 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £277 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive and inequitable when compared with other similar sports establishments which have been recently revised and appealed." The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place in the Tribunal Offices in Dublin on 11th March 1998. The Appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin B.Sc. (Surveying) A.R.I.C.S. M.I.A.V.I. and the Respondent by Mr. Noel Rooney, a District Valuer with over twenty years experience in the Valuation Office. Prior to the commencement of the oral hearing both parties had provided to the Tribunal and exchanged between them written submissions which they adopted as their evidence in chief given under oath. The following facts either agreed or so found are considered by the Tribunal to be relevant to this appeal. 1. The Property Clubhouse - 10,866 ft2 2. Valuation History 3. Appellant's Evidence Club House - Ground Floor : 5670 sq.ft. @ £2.50 = £14,175 Plant room and store : 273 sq.ft. @ £1.00 = £ 273 Mr. Halpin, said that he considered the Contractor's method not to be the best method for valuation and referred to the decision on that point as contained within the case of National Basketball Arena -v- Commissioner of Valuation (VA94/2/041). He produced photographs for various club houses which he considered to be comparable in the Dublin and Eastern seaboard area. Mr. Halpin was of the view that Laytown and Bettystown Golf Club was a particularly appropriate comparison. However, all of the comparators listed were to a certain degree of relevance to the subject premises. Under cross examination, Mr. Halpin indicated that he considered the ground floor to be of poorer quality than the upstairs area in that the ceiling was lower and that it was finished to a lower standard. He accepted that apart from Laytown and Bettystown there had been no history of separate valuations for floor areas within golf club premises. Mr. Halpin stated that he understood that golf clubs organised their own affairs as they saw fit and could move the facilities around internally to suit themselves. He was of the view that it was impossible to set an accurate tone for the valuation of golf clubs generally. He said that the course was a drawing card in certain cases. He also indicated that the proximity to Dublin may have relevance. He went on to say that some clubs ran themselves effectively as businesses and not as clubs. Concluding, Mr. Halpin indicated that he considered the valuation presented within his précis to be fair and accurate. He continued to remain of the view that by virtue of the fact that the floor to ceiling height for the ground floor was reduced below stairs, a lower valuation was appropriate. He contended that the upstairs should be valued at £2.50 p.s.f., the lower floor should be valued at £1.75 p.s.f with further valuations for the ancillary buildings valued at rates set out earlier in this judgment. 4. Respondent's Evidence (i) Clubhouse 10,866 ft2 @ £3.50 pft2 = £38,031 @ 0.63% = £276.53 (ii) Construction cost nett of V.A.T. - £823,382.00 Adjusted building cost - 823,382 x 122 = £639,418.29 N.A.V. @ 6% = £38,365.09 @ 0.63% = £241.70 add for NAV on store, sheds) £5,863.00 @ 0.63% = £36.93 Mr. Rooney stated that the premises was in fact a full two storey building
and that there was no history of split valuations where golf clubs were
concerned. He indicated that he considered the contractor's method relevant
as a basis for valuation. He noted that there were twenty two golf clubs
in the area and that fifteen had been revised under the NAV system. He
stated that there were five new clubhouses among these. He noted that
Malahide had been presented for valuation under the contractors method.
He noted that subsequently Under cross examination, he accepted that the ratio of 6% could vary between different cases. In concluding, Mr. Rooney indicated that he would be inclined to value Dublin courses higher than country courses. He considered the location of the subject premises as being proximate to Dublin and considered a figure of £3.50 p.s.f. for the entirety of the club house premises to be appropriate. Mr. Rooney confirmed his general agreement with the areas and valuations of the Appellant as regards the other adjacent buildings under valuation. 5. Findings and Determination When considering a fair valuation for the clubhouse premises, the Tribunal has taken note of the comments of the valuers as regards location, status of golf course turnover etc. It is the view of the Tribunal that especially when valuing modern purpose built golf clubhouses, it is appropriate to consider the premises as a whole and not to consider a split valuation as suggested by Mr. Halpin in this instance. The Tribunal has considered the merits of the various comparisons introduced by both valuers. It is the view of the Tribunal that the subject premises may be favourably compared with Headford Golf Club as a parkland golfcourse primarily serving the local community but accessible from Dublin. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that a proper rateable valuation for the main clubhouse and adjacent buildings is £240 based on a net annual value of £38,235 as set out below;
Clubhouse 10,866 ft2 @ £3.00 pft2 = £32,598 |