Appeal No. VA92/5/017
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Ballyphehane Credit Union Limited APPELLANT RE: Office at Lot No. 22 Lower Friars Walk, E.D. Evergreen
County Borough of Cork B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of July, 1992 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £120 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that The Property Valuation History Written Submissions In his submission, Mr. Conroy, confirmed details in relation to the property and valuation history, as stated above. Mr. Conroy's submission also included four comparisons of which three relate to Credit Union premises in the Cork area and one bank. Also included are copy letters from O'Kennedy & Company to the Valuation Office confirming representation of appellant at first appeal stage. The other advising recommendation of R.V. of £120 at first appeal. Oral Hearing The appellant was represented by Mr. George Cantwell Manager, Mr. Dan
Mc Auliffe and Mr. Tony Drummond both Directors. Mr. Peter Conroy, a District
Valuer with 22 years experience in the Valuation Office appeared for the
respondent. Mr. Conroy raised on behalf of the respondent a preliminary issue as to whether Messrs. O'Kennedy & Co., Valuation and Rating Consultants, who were once engaged to act on the appeal, had actually agreed on behalf of the appellant the valuation put forward by Mr. Conroy. He relied on a letter dated the 1st of May, 1992 from O'Kennedy & Company in which they said 'we wish to advise that we are recommending a rateable valuation at £120 on the above premises to our clients'. The Tribunal is of the view that the letter indicating that a valuer is recommending a certain figure to a client does not indicate a clear authority to accept that figure and accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should proceed on the basis that no settlement figure was agreed between the parties. Mr. Cantwell advanced the following reasons for reducing the valuation:- (2) The premises were not on a high street location, with only one small corner shop opposite. Shopping tended to be done from the area in the City Centre, because of its proximity. (3) Other comparable premises put forward by Mr. Conroy and noteably Bishopstown were on better letting locations. (4) Cork Savings Bank did not in fact keep the site and allowed the credit union to use same. (5) Because the subject property was 4,000 square feet approximately
it should be entitled to a certain quantum reduction when set against
the comparables of (6) The Credit Union started from small beginnings as a new pilot venture in an area which itself was principally established in the early 1960's. (7) The organisation was essentially a non-profit organisation taking in deposits on the promise of a very modest dividend or interest payment and lending the funds only to the members in the area at equally modest charges. (8) The increase of the rate bill implied by the valuation of £120 was enormous and would be viewed by the members of the Credit Union as a penal imposition on their efforts. (9) The car parking around the area was not suitable and very restricted. (10) The premises did not reflect ordinary commercial opportunity but reflected an exceptional goodwill built-up by community spirit and constant voluntary work and organisation coupled with good management down the years. (11) The Credit Union works within a restrictive legislative setup unlike Banks. Mr. Conroy, argued that he had to look at the valuation objectively and that he had allowed a generous discount for the quasi commercial nature of the activity carried on in the property. He did emphasise however, that he was bound to take into consideration the recently fixed valuations of comparable properties and he put forward the valuations of Credit Unions in the area set out in his comparisons. Mr. Conroy, argued that the quantum reduction sought by the appellants would not apply to the difference in quantum between the subject which was larger than average and the comparisons offered. He opined that for the quantum effect to come into operation much greater dimensions in area would be required. During the course of the hearing the Tribunal suggested that a rates
impact factor might be called into operation in aiding the valuation process
as both Mr. Cantwell and his Directors Mr. Conroy insisted that his approach to the valuation generally would have allowed for this and indicated that his valuation should stand. The appellant felt that a doubling of the existing valuation would be acceptable to them. Findings The Tribunal finds that many of the eloquent arguments of the appellants team representing it in the Tribunal should be addressed to another forum in relation to the attainment of some legal preference or exemption to encourage Credit Unions through the rating code such as has been available to some charties. Inspection by the Tribunal revealed a cramped site and an over dependence on street parking in a residential area. Nevertheless, the building was very functional and in a pivotal area, where perhaps modern planners would have left more space for commercial and community facilities. The Tribunal has much sympathy with the appellant and other Credit Unions. In this context the Tribunal could not but note part of the Credit Union prayer prefacing the report for the AGM 1991 which was presented asking the Almighty to, "grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand" and the Tribunal feels that in this particular case while it can respond to the prayer by giving their complete understanding they cannot offer much consolation in the commercial sphere and finds that they are constrained to accept Mr. Conroys general approach to the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the valuation of the subject is and should be £120 as reduced on first appeal.
|