|
Appeal No. VA02/2/068 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Peter & John McHugh APPELLANT RE: Hotel at Map Reference Lot No. 98d Kilkilloge,
ED: Cliffony North, County Sligo B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 18 April 2002, the appellant appealed against
the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable
valuation of €253.95 on the relevant property described above. The
Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal are that: The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which was held on 11th December 2002 in the offices of Galway Corporation, City Hall, Galway. The appellant was represented by Mr Owen Hickey, BL, instructed by John Walsh & Co., Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Ms Sean Quinn BL. Ms Sheelagh O Buachalla, Director, GVA Donal O Buachalla, gave evidence on behalf of the appellant. Mr Damien Curran, District Valuer, gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. In accordance with the Rules of the Tribunal the parties had, prior to the commencement of the hearing, exchanged their précis of evidence and, having taken the oath, adopted them as their evidence-in-chief. The Property Location of Property Accommodation Tenure Valuation History The Appellant's Case In response to Mr. Hickey, Ms. O Buachalla stated that she wished to amend her Comparison No. 1 and instead of a reported RV of €82.53, she said that she wished to make a correction to €63.48. Also after some discussion with Mr. Curran, she said that she wished to withdraw her Comparison No. 2 because there was some doubt about its facts and figures. Ms. O Buachalla was cross-examined by Ms. Quinn, enquiring firstly if she was aware of an issue relating to the water quality at the subject premises and secondly if she knew that there was an allowance made on the original valuation and she replied in the negative. She also questioned her on the practice of valuing different sections of hotels at different rates and Ms. O Buachalla responded that it was normal practice that the older section would be valued at one rate and newer sections at a higher rate because of the fact that it was a newer building. She also replied to Ms. Quinn in cross-examination that she was not aware that the subject property had been originally valued as a guesthouse. Ms. Quinn also questioned her on her method of valuation, particularly on her use of the Turnover Method and Ms. Quinn put it to her that it was normal practice that this valuation method was used more in relation to licensed premises rather than hotels. Mr. Curran said the hotel was a seaside hotel located in rural Sligo. Previously, in 1991 it was valued as a guesthouse but in approximately 2000 it was extended as a hotel. He said the property was an attractive hotel and that generally he would value properties by either adopting the tone of the list or on overall square metre basis. Mr. Curran commented on Ms. O Buachalla's Comparison No. 3 Ocean View Hotel, Strand Hill. He said this was actually closer to Sligo town than the subject property. He also stated that generally the turnover method was used for licensed premises but because there were so many variables associated with hotels, such method may not be an accurate method of assessment to determine NAV/ RV. Mr. Curran was cross-examined by Mr. Hickey. Mr. Hickey questioned Mr. Curran on the fact that he had stated the subject property was a guesthouse in 1991 and questioned the difference this might make. Mr. Curran outlined that it would have been valued at a lower rate, as it would have less facilities than a hotel. Mr. Hickey also questioned Mr. Curran on his method of valuation and he referred to a case of where Mr. Curran himself used the turnover method but Mr. Curran in response said that the turnover method is just used as a check method not as an exclusive method for the reasons he had already outlined. Mr. Hickey also referred to a case in which Mr. Curran was involved, i.e. VA01/1/026 Cabra Castle Hotel. Mr. Curran in response to Mr. Hickey stated that different valuers will use different methods and he said that in the case of hotels, the rate per square metre is, in his view, the best method to adopt. Mr. Hickey went on to question Mr. Curran in relation to the Revising Valuer, Mr. Moloney, and what discussions were held with Ms. O'Buachalla. The Chairman however felt that, as Mr. Moloney was not present, such discussions would not be admissible at the Hearing. Findings and Determination The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence and argument adduced by the parties and makes the following findings. 1. This property was developed in piecemeal fashion and as such the layout of the hotel is poor and operationally inefficient. 2. The demand for the function room is very low and consequently not of any great additional value to the overall turnover of the hotel. 3. The lack of a lift service in the hotel and the difficult access arrangements to some of the bedrooms renders it less attractive to potential guests. 4. The fact that the permanent population in Mullaghmore is only approximately 60 persons and that the resort area is seasonal, together combine as a commercial disadvantage for this particular property. 5. The Comparisons presented by the Valuation Office No's 1 & 2 are of no great assistance because they appear to differ greatly from the subject property and in the view of the Tribunal, are in a better location/s. 6. Comparison No. 3 which was common to both parties, i.e. Ocean View Hotel, best assisted the Valuation Tribunal in coming to a decision. Accordingly therefore the Tribunal now establishes the Net Annual Value
of the subject property as follows:
|