|
Appeal No. VA94/3/042 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Huntsgrove Developments APPELLANT RE: Gymnasium at Map Ref: 9A/Unit 19, Ashbourne Town
Centre, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of October, 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £60.00 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: The subject premises is located over the shops. The current rent is approximately £6,000 per annum, that is, £8,000 including service charges. Valuation History: Written Submissions: Mr. Killen said that his estimate of the appropriate N.A.V. and R.V.
for the subject premises is as follows:- A written submission was received on the 2nd February, 1995 from Mr. Patrick McMorrow, B.Ag.Sc(Econ), Dip.Plng. and Devmt. Economics, a valuer in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent. Mr. McMorrow in his written submission described the Centre in some detail and commented on the fact that it had a successful anchor supermarket occupier and a good tenant mix. He outlined the valuation history of the Centre and drew attention to the fact that whilst 26 units were subject to First Appeal only 13 have proceeded to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Mr. McMorrow stated that the primary supporting evidence for the assessments now before the Tribunal was that in relation to other units within the Centre as fixed at the 1992 First Appeal stage. Additional support was to be drawn from the rental evidence and NAV's at Rathoath Shopping Centre and a shop in the Mall at the Broadmeadow Housing Estate. Both of these shopping developments in his opinion were inferior to the Ashbourne Town Centre and the evidence derived from these comparisons indicated that if anything the NAV of the subject unit was low. Details of his comparisons are set out at Appendix 1. In relation to the subject premises, Mr. McMorrow, assessed the rateable
valuation as follows:- Oral Hearing: Mr. Killen referred to his written submission and submitted that the rents passing in the initial lettings were too high. To support his argument he gave evidence that the current rent on the subject was £8,000 which included £2,000 service charges, whereas the initial rent achieved was £14,000. He referred to Units 24 & 25 which had failed entirely to let as offices and were currently let as a snooker hall at £13,300 per annum. Mr. Killen referred also to Unit 26 which remains unlet and seems unlikely to ever be let as offices. In the absense of any direct comparable letting values, and in this context, Mr. Killen dismissed the first floor letting values of Broadmeadow Shopping Centre and Rathoath Village Shopping Centre as invalid, he submitted that the first floor of the subject development had turned out to be what he described as a flop. Mr. McMorrow in evidence said that the N.A.V.'s that he had attributed to the first floor premises were reasonable if not indeed modest, in comparison with Broadmeadow and Rathoath, both of which he submitted were much inferior. He accepted that 5 out of the 8 first floor premises were under appeal but submitted that his estimate of N.A.V. was in accordance with the N.A.V. fixed at 1992 First Appeal on the remaining three units. He said that the latter units were the best comparative evidence available. Determination: In the circumstances, in attempting to assess N.A.V. for the subject premises, the actual market situation must be considered. The Tribunal accepts the appellant's evidence in relation to the difficulties encountered in letting these first floor units and notes in particular the reduction in current rent on the subject premises from the rent originally achieved in 1991. Taking into account, therefore, the evidence adduced and the submissions made the Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct R.V. of the subject hereditament is £45.00. At the oral hearing current evidence was given in respect of four other office units at first floor level and which were also the subject of appeals to the Tribunal. Details of the four units under appeal are as follows:- (2) VA94/3/045 - Huntsgrove Developments. (3) VA94/3/046 - Huntsgrove Developments. (4) VA94/3/047 - Huntsgrove Developments. The Tribunal considers the evidence adduced in regard to Unit 19 (VA94/3/042)
to apply to each of the above hereditaments and determines in each instance
the rateable valuations as set out below:-
|