|
Appeal No. VA00/3/052 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Harcourt Inn Ltd APPELLANT RE: Hostel at Map Reference: 27 Harcourt
Street, Ward: St Kevins Dublin B E F O R E
By notice of appeal dated 10th day October, 2000 the appellants appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing rateable valuation of £245 (€311.08) on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that " The valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law." 1. This appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of the Tribunal at Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, on the 31st of October 2001. 2. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin ASCS, MRICS, MIAVI of Eamonn Halpin and Company and the respondent was represented by Mr. Terry Dineen a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. 3. Prior to the oral hearing the valuers exchanged written submissions and valuations, copies of which were forwarded to the Tribunal, and subsequently accepted into evidence under oath at the oral hearing. 4. The subject property comprises a typical four storey over basement Georgian Terrace House together with a two-storey coach house at the rear. There is also a three storey return block to the main section of the house. Evidence was given at the hearing that the property was purchased in 1996 for approximately £424,000 and following planning permission for a change of use from offices to hostel, the building was refurbished internally and opened for business in 1998. The property is situated on the west side of Harcourt
Street in that section between Camden Place and Montague Street, close
to St Stephens Green. The properties in the vicinity are mainly Georgian
in style and used for a range of activities including offices, hotels,
guest houses and residential. Main Building 733.3sq.m. It is agreed that the accommodation provided consists of 15 en-suite bedrooms together with the usual ancillary kitchen and lounge accommodation. 5. The subject hereditment was valued at the 1999/4 revision and assessed at a rateable valuation of £285.00 which figure was reduced at first appeal stage to £245.00. It is against this decision that the appeal to this Tribunal now lies. 6. Mr. Halpin having taken the oath adopted his submission and valuation, previously received by the Tribunal, as being his evidence in chief, given under oath. In his evidence Mr. Halpin contended that the property was used as a hostel and provided accommodation for people seeking asylum. In the circumstances and in accordance with section 5.2 of the Valuation Act 1986, it was proper that the Net Annual Value should be determined by comparison with other hostels in Dublin City Centre. In his opinion the respondent had erred in his valuation approach and sought to value the subject property by comparison with other Georgian Buildings in Harcourt Street and other parts of the city, which were being used as offices or guest houses. 7. Mr. Halpin, in his submission contended for a rateable valuation of £155 calculated as set out below. Main Building 733.3sq.m. @ £30.19 p.sq.m. = £22,138
Rear Coach House In support of his opinion of Net Annual Value, Mr Halpin put forward details of six other hostel type premises in Dublin City Centre as set out in Appendix 1 attached to this judgement. 8. Under cross-examination Mr. Halpin would not accept
the proposition put to him by Mr. Dineen that it was the building that
had to be valued and not necessarily the user. Whilst he agreed that the
accommodation included 15 en-suite bedrooms, he did not agree that the
property was more like a guest house than a hostel in the accepted sense
of the word. Mr. Halpin said that the building had planning permission
for hostel use and could not be used for any other purpose without first
obtaining a change in the planning status. As far as he was concerned
it was a hostel and should be valued as such and the valuation determined
by comparison with other hostels of a similar function elsewhere in Dublin
City Centre. 9. Mr. Dineen having taken the oath adopted his submission
and valuation, which had previously been received by the Tribunal as being
his evidence in chief given under oath. Gross Areas Or As Offices Net Areas In support of his valuation, Mr Dineen put forward details of seven comparisons, which are set out in Appendix 2 attached to this judgement. 10. In his evidence Mr. Dineen argued that the subject property by virtue of its central location close to St Stephens Green and its physical attributes was suitable for a variety of uses including offices and guest house. The premises in the immediate vicinity were of similar type and used for a variety of purposes and in his opinion these uses were in the same mode or category and their Net Annual Values should therefore be assessed on a similar basis. Mr Dineen said there was no significant difference between a hostel and a guest house, other than perhaps a higher number of occupants per room. A hypothetical tenant in the market would look at the subject property, its state of repair and all other relative matters before arriving at an opinion of rental value but would make no significant allowance for its use as a hostel, guest house, office or indeed any other potential commercial use. Mr. Dineen, under cross-examination agreed, when valuing a property it was good valuation practice to compare like with like and he always did his best to adhere to this principle. However in his opinion there was no fundamental difference in this instance between hostel use and guest house use. He had looked at the quality of the building and its location and arrived at his opinion of value by comparison with similar buildings in similar locations and which were used in a similar fashion. 11. Findings 1. This Tribunal must determine the Net Annual Value of
the subject property in accordance with the statutory provisions, that
is Section 11 of the 1852 Act as amended by Section 5 of the Act of 1986.
Under the rule of rebus sic stantibus "the rent is to be estimated
for a particular hereditment as it stands with all its privileges, opportunities
and disabilities, created or imposed by its natural position, all the
limitations and restrictions imposed upon the tenants by law and as it
is used and occupied when the assessment is made" (Robson Brothers
(Brewers) Ltd., -v- Durham County AC (1938) AC321). 12. Determination The Tribunal, having carefully considered all the evidence
and arguments adduced by the parties and having regard to all the comparisons
proffered, determines that the rateable valuation of the subject hereditment
is €282 calculated as set out below: |