|
Appeal No. DS97/0/002 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Bank of Ireland, Father Matthew Quay, Cork APPELLANT RE: Warehouse at Map Reference 4a and 5 Father Matthew
Quay, County Borough of Cork B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of April 1997 the appellant appealed
against the determination of the Local Authority in fixing a market value
of £200,000 on the above described site under Section 22(1) of the
Derelict Sites Act 1990. A written submission prepared by the Respondent was received by the Tribunal on 22nd September 1998. The written submission described the property as a large six storey former warehouse of traditional construction. The written submission stated that the property with an adjoining premises had been acquired approximately one year previously for a sum in the region of £450,000. The subject premises is listed in the current Cork City development plan and was listed at the time of acquisition. The proposed valuation was stated to be an apportionment of the total price paid for the properties, i.e. £200,000 for the subject premises. Finally the written submission described the property as No. 6, Fr. Matthew Quay, Cork. The appellant did not provide any written submission to the Tribunal. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place in the Council Chamber, Cork County Council, Victoria Cross, Cork on 24th September 1998. Mr. Justin Fennell, Solicitor of P.J. O'Driscoll & Sons appeared on behalf of the appellant together with Mr. Denis Horgan, Auctioneer and Valuer. Mr. Martin Fagan of the Estates Office of Cork Corporation represented the Respondent and he was accompanied by Mr. Noel McCarthy from the same office of Cork Corporation. At the outset of the hearing Mr. Fennell confirmed that the appellant was raising no legal issues and that the appeal related solely to the issue of quantum. Again Mr. Fagan stated that, since the appellant had not presented any written submission, he would request an adjournment of the hearing should he be unable to deal adequately with the evidence produced by the appellant. In fact during the course of the hearing Mr. Fagan did not make any request for an adjournment. Mr. Horgan in his sworn testimony said the proper description of the site was numbers 4 and 5 Fr. Matthew Quay and this was accepted by Mr. Fagan for Cork Corporation. In his evidence Mr. Horgan stated the use of the site was narrowed because the building had been listed by Cork Corporation. The building had been listed in the 1992 and 1998 Cork development plan. The effect of listing meant that the existing configuration of windows on the building had to be retained. This made an internal development of apartment spaces difficult to realise. Mr. Horgan stated that in his opinion the property should be valued at £100,000. Mr. Horgan went on to describe the difficult parking conditions at the subject premises. There is a narrow space for parking. Again because of the narrow space it was difficult for lorries to unload and turn around. Mr. Horgan stated that parking adjacent to the site is controlled by Cork Corporation by way of disk system. In further evidence Mr. Horgan stated that the zoning for the site in the Cork development plan excluded office and retail use. Mr. Horgan stated that planning permission for sixteen apartments at 750 sq.ft. each was feasible there. In his cross examination Mr. Fagan put it to Mr. Horgan that the total floor of the subject premises was in the region of 25,000 sq.ft. Mr. Horgan could not confirm this. He accepted in cross examination by Mr. Horgan that site values for apartments in Cork City at the present time were in excess of £10,000. Mr. Fagan put it to Mr. Horgan that Cork Corporation operated a disk parking system for residents at residential complexes. Mr. Fagan further put it to Mr. Horgan that the current development plan for Cork City did not exclude any specific zoning for the subject premises. Mr. Fagan again put it to Mr. Horgan that an old mill building at Douglas Street, Cork had a similar window configuration to the subject premises and it had been successfully converted into an apartment complex. Mr. Horgan did not contradict any of the three foregoing propositions put to him by Mr. Fagan. In his sworn testimony Mr. Fagan stated that he had prepared the written submission to the Tribunal. The written submission was accurate except for the description of the property as being number 6. Mr. Fagan qualified his written submission by stating that the subject property and the adjoining property had been acquired for £500,000. Mr. Fagan stated that there had been an offer for the subject premises in the sum of £200,000 about the time Cork Corporation had made its assessment of the property for the purposes of the derelict sites register, that is in March 1996. Mr. Fagan stated he had received this information from the vendor's agent. Again Mr. Fagan stated that the total floor area of the building was in excess of 20,000 sq.ft. He further stated that the unimproved value of this area was £10 p.s.f. Mr. Fagan referred to the Cork Development Plan for 1998 which confirmed that the subject premises was not specifically zoned to exclude uses such as office or retail. Mr. Fagan then gave evidence as to the Douglas Street development in Cork which he stated had been converted to apartment use with a window pattern similar to the subject property. Under cross examination by Mr. Fennell, Mr. Fagan stated that John Downing was the vendor's agent who had informed him of the offer made for the subject property in 1996. Mr. Fagan did agree under cross-examination that the Douglas Street development was smaller than the subject premises being four stories in height. Mr. Fagan did not agree, however, that the parking difficulties at the subject premises were exceptional. In his closing submission Mr. Fennell stated that the evidence adduced by him showed the various disadvantages of the site. These limited the type of development that could be carried out there. This narrowed the market and the value of the subject premises if the appellant wished to sell it. Mr. Fagan in his closing submission stated that the Bank of Ireland had acquired the premises for their regional offices. The Bank had subsequently changed its plans. He further stated that buildings of this type had been successfully adapted for residential use. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of Mr. Hogan and the submissions of Mr. Fennell on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal has also considered the written submission of the respondent and the evidence and submissions made by Mr. Fagan on behalf of the respondent. The Tribunal considers that greater weight must be attached to the evidence of Mr. Fagan and it is persuasive. In particular the Tribunal finds that the subject premises is one which can be put to a variety of uses, the development plan for the area having not specifically excluded any specific use thereon. Furthermore the Tribunal accepts that an apartment complex could be developed there analogous to the development at Douglas Street in Cork City. Again, while accepting that there are problems at the site of the property with respect to parking, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of the respondent that residents in an apartment complex there could obtain parking disks from Cork Corporation to park there. Finally the evidence of Mr. Fagan that an offer of £200,000 was made for the property in 1996 about the time of its assessment for the derelict sites register and again that the unimproved capital value of a floor area in excess of 20,000 sq.ft. stood at £10 p.s.f. was not challenged by the appellant either by way of evidence or cross examination at the hearing. Accordingly the Tribunal affirms the decision of the respondent in fixing a value for the subject property in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 and the Tribunal determines the market value of the subject property to be £200,000 in accordance with Section 22(5) of the Derelict Sites Act 1990. |