|
Appeal No. VA95/1/044 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Henry & Bridget Goff APPELLANT RE: Caravan park and offices at Map Ref: 12D, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 20th day of April 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £71 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- "1. the valuation is excessive and inequitable The Property: Valuation History: Written Submissions: In the written submission, Mr. Killen described the premises and gave details of its development and expenditure. He said that the caravan park was purchased in April 1991 for £35,000. At that time there were 48 unserviced sites. Following planning permission and expenditure of approximately £100,000 the present park emerged as follows: 1) All 68 sites are fully serviced. He said that the caravan park is not registered with Bord Failte as it cannot meet the requirement of providing 20 sites for touring vans. He said that the appellants owned and managed the caravan park themselves and their only paid employee was their son who works part-time. In assessing net annual value Mr. Killen considered four methods as follows:- (a) Rental Value (b) Contractor's Theory & Investment Method (c) Comparative Basis (1) Courtown Caravan Park Limited (2) VO Lot: 16 He said that this valuation was not assessed on NAV but at an RV of £1.30 per site. He said that it was a superior site to the subject both in location and development. Mr. Killen gave details of another comparison:- Michael Weafer On the comparative basis, Mr. Killen submitted the following valuation:- A written submission was received on the 1st day of November 1995 from Mr. Phil Colgan, District Valuer with 27 years experience in the Valuation Office on behalf of the respondent. In the written submission, Mr. Colgan described the property, its location and valuation history as set out above. Commenting on the grounds of appeal, Mr. Colgan said that the grounds of appeal to the Tribunal had changed somewhat from the First Appeal grounds which he asked the Tribunal to consider. Mr. Colgan said that the occupancy was not based on two months but that yearly agreements existed with the tenants. Mr. Colgan based his assessment of net annual value on market value of the subject premises. On this basis he set out his calculation of the rateable valuation as follows:- Estimated market value - Say £110,000 x 8 yp = £12,600 Buildings/Admin Block Total = RV £71. OR Total net rental income 68 sites @ £466.67/site = Say £31,733 Say 50% Tenants contribution to rent = £15,866.78 OR Buildings - 526 sq.ft. @ £3 = £1,600 x 0.5% = RV £8 Mr. Colgan supplied details of seven comparisons which are summarised below. (1) Seamus McKenna (3) Ballymoney Mobile Home Park (4) Courtown Caravan Park (5) Hedley Fleming (6) Tara Cove Holidays Limited (7) Michael Water Oral Hearing: During the oral hearing the Tribunal heard evidence that the caravan park, the subject premises of the appeal, was approximately one and a half miles from the beach and was owned and managed by the appellant and that their son was the only paid employee. Accounts were made available to show the income and expenditure involved herein and evidence was also given that the caravan park was only open between March and October but each tenant has a key with which to enter at other times. Further, the caravan park is only illuminated during the months of July and August and Bank Holiday weekends. Mr. Killen, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the caravan park at Courtown was much superior, had better facilities and was much nearer to the beach. He also submitted that the grounds as set out by him at appeal stage did not suggest any new grounds of appeal. However, nothing turned on this and no point of law was involved. In his submission for the Valuation Office, Mr. Colgan said that the subject premises had a very good prospect of making profit, even if it was a high risk investment. He considered that it was an advantage that the caravan park was not directly beside the sea because of the late night drinking and general activity that goes on near the beach late at night. Taking the written and oral evidence into account and the relevant comparisons offered, the Tribunal considers that this property is towards the bottom end of the market and because of its distance from the beach, it is at somewhat of a disadvantage. The Tribunal therefore, determines the rateable valuation at £56.
|