|
Appeal No. VA09/2/026 & 027
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Nick Walsh APPELLANT RE: Property No. 2197083, Beauty/Hair Salon at Lot No. 15b, (VA09/2/026) and Property No. 858164, Beauty/Hair Salon at Lot No. 15a, (VA09/2/027) Baileys New Street, Custom House B, Custom House, County Borough of Waterford. B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notices of Appeal dated the 22nd day of June, 2009 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing valuations of €18 (VA09/2/026) and €40 (VA09/2/027) on the above described relevant properties. The grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notices of Appeal are: "Valuation is excessive. This property has not had a tenant in two years." (VA09/2/026) "Valuation is excessive and the property is situated on a street which is non-commercial." (VA09/2/027) The appeals in relation to both VA09/2/026 – Nick Walsh and VA09/2/027 – Nick Walsh were heard together and proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the Tower Hotel, Waterford on 13th day of November, 2009. At the hearing the appellant represented himself. The respondent was represented by Mr. Edward Hickey, Chartered Surveyor, a Valuer in the Valuation Office. Location The Properties Concerned The property concerned in appeal VA09/2/027 adjoins property VA09/2/026 and is fitted out as a beauty salon at ground floor level with a mezzanine floor. At ground floor level there are 6 treatment rooms, a reception area and toilets, comprising total accommodation of 85.56 sq. metres. The mezzanine floor has a total area of 7.71 sq. metres and could be used for storage. Rating History The Issue The Appellant’s Evidence Mr. Walsh stated that he spent considerable money upgrading property VA09/2/027 and obtained planning permission for it to be used as a restaurant. After completion of the upgrade 5 years ago, Mr. Walsh stated that he offered the premises to let but there had been no interest. His wife then went into occupation and currently runs the premises as a hair salon. Mr. Walsh claimed that this business is not making any money and it is likely to be closed prior to Christmas 2009. Mr. Walsh stated that property VA09/2/026 has been virtually unoccupied for most of the past 5 years also. There had been a tenant in occupation for a short while, who operated the premises as a hat shop. However, the tenant vacated the premises as the business was not viable. Mr. Walsh then decided to convert the premises into a hair salon. There was a tenant in occupation of the hair salon for a period of 8 weeks and subsequently it remained unoccupied until relatively recently, when Mr. Walsh’s daughter opened a ladies clothes shop in the property. However, Mr. Walsh stated that this business is not profitable. In relation to the surrounding properties, Mr. Walsh stated that the public house beside the Munster Bar is experiencing a low-level of trading and that another bar nearby has closed down. Mr. Walsh stated that the only hope for the area was if a proposed development of a Viking Quarter within the vicinity by Waterford City Council went ahead. His properties had been looked at by the Council for use as a museum within this development. However, given the current economic situation the status of this proposed development is now uncertain. In conclusion, Mr. Walsh stated that location of the subject properties is in need of revitalisation and that the RV on the properties is totally excessive. Within his notices of appeal Mr. Walsh had proposed a RV of €9 in respect of property VA09/2/026 and a RV of €20 in respect of property VA 09/2/027. He also submitted a document from Sherry Fitzgerald Estate Agents outlining rents of a number of properties within the area. Cross-Examination Mr. Hickey put it to Mr. Walsh that under the legislation the respondent had to value a property based on the floor area, its location and comparisons and not on the economic situation. Mr. Walsh replied that the street had gone down, that it was primarily a residential street and was a very poor area for commercial activity and that the prospects were not good. Mr. Hickey further put it to Mr. Walsh that the respondent had to put a valuation on the properties and that Mr. Walsh had failed to provide any evidence as to how he had valued the properties. Mr. Walsh replied that he felt the valuation had to go down rather than up, as the commercial activity in the street had declined. In response to a question by the Tribunal as to whether it was fair to value the subject properties at a third of the value of the respondent’s Comparison No. 3, Mr. Walsh stated that it was not fair, as that property had superior frontage and the other properties on that street were entirely commercial. The Tribunal asked Mr. Walsh what rent he would look for if his properties were located in the same location as Comparison No. 3 and he said €10,000 per annum. When asked what rent he would ask for in the properties’ current location, he replied that he would look for half of that. Respondent’s Evidence Mr. Hickey contended for a rateable valuation of €18 in respect of property VA09/2/026 calculated as follows: He contended for a rateable valuation of €40 in respect of property VA09/2/027 calculated as follows: In support of his opinion of rateable valuation, Mr. Hickey put forward the same three comparisons in respect of both properties, all of which are located on the quays in superior locations to the subject properties. The first comparison, Ann Power, was revised in 1999 and at the time was operating as a beauty/hair salon. The property is valued at a rate of €174.58 per sq. metre based on total accommodation of 23.08 sq. metres. His second comparison, Toni & Guy hair salon, has a total shop area of 108.78 sq. metres and is valued at a rate of €116.71 per sq. metre. The final comparison, Garoid Ryan, was valued in 2009 and was not appealed. The property has a total area of 38.5 sq. metres and is valued at a rate of €123.70 per sq. metre. It was vacant at the time of valuation, but is now let to a physiotherapy practice. Mr. Hickey admitted that all along that part of the quays there is a lot of vacant property. Mr. Hickey gave evidence that no representations were made by the appellant at representation stage. He stated that it was only at appeal stage that representations were made and no evidence was submitted by the appellant in terms of comparisons or proposed RVs. Mr. Hickey stated that the appellant had submitted a letter from Sherry Fitzgerald, which just shows the state of the commercial market at a particular time. He contended that in valuing the subject properties, he has to comply with the provisions of the Valuation Act, 2001. In response to a question by the Tribunal, Mr. Hickey admitted that the location of the subject properties was not good and that it was, without doubt, a fairly poor retailing area. He stated that side streets of the type where the subject properties are located were more suited to office use. The Tribunal also enquired from Mr. Hickey as to the frontage of the two properties and he stated that the frontage of property VA09/2/026 was 5.2 metres and of property VA09/2/027, which was a long, narrow, L-shaped unit, was 2.9 metres. Cross-Examination Mr. Hickey admitted under questioning from the Tribunal that property VA09/2/027 has a very small frontage, but he contended that it has a good finish. He admitted that it would be more appropriate for office use. Mr. Hickey stated that the key issue to be determined was by how much the subject properties should be discounted from those properties located on the quays. Findings The onus of showing that the valuation of the properties concerned, appearing in the Valuation List, is incorrect is on the appellant. There was no dispute between the parties as to the description of the subject properties or the total accommodation. It was also common case that the properties are located in a very poor retailing location, with no other retail units on the same street. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal is of the view that there are no direct comparisons to the subject properties. However, the respondent’s Comparison No. 3, Garoid Ryan, is the most relevant comparison, due to its proximity to the subject properties. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal accepts that Comparison No. 3 is in a much superior retail location to the subject properties and, accordingly, when valuing the subject properties, a substantial discount against Comparison No. 3 should be allowed. The Tribunal finds that the respondent failed to make sufficient allowance for the inferior location of the subject properties as compared with the comparisons it cited when valuing the subject properties. Determination The Tribunal determines the rateable valuation of Property VA09/2/027 to be €34, calculated as follows: And the Tribunal so determines.
|