Appeal No. VA93/4/023
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Mr. Fred McGowran, RE: Licensed House at Map Reference: 5Ca, Townland:
Ballinahinch, B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 2nd day of November, 1993 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £180 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: The premises consists of a modernised licensed house and restaurant, part two storey and part single storey. The ground floor contains a modern bar, lounge, kitchen, dining room, toilets and ancillary stores and the first floor comprises living accommodation. It is a detached premises with car parking to the side. All main service are connected to the property. Tenure: Valuation History: In 1977 the property was listed for revision to take account of extensions to the restaurant and the closing of the shop and the valuation was increased to £130. The property was again listed for revision in 1992, to take account of further changes to the premises and the valuation was increased to £200. The appellant was aggrieved by this revision and appealed to the Commissioner. At First Appeal the valuation was reduced to £180. It is against this valuation that an appeal lies to the Tribunal. Written Submissions: In the written submission Mr. McAuliffe described the property, its location, accommodation and valuation history. Mr. McAuliffe said that in calculating the net annual value on the subject premises he had regard to:- 1) Location - He said that the new motorway which by passed the bottle necks of Bray and Shankhill has shortened the journey to Wicklow and Wexford by a considerable amount of time. He said that the effect of this had been that towns along the route, in particular Ashford, had ceased to be popular stopping off points for motorists. The effect of this had been dramatically detrimental on the turnover of the Ashford House. 2) The Design and Layout of the Property - He said that the property was designed for a large number of patrons and that the layout was not now suitable for the small numbers that frequent the establishment. He said that this meant there was a dramatically inefficient use of labour, light, heat and space. 3) Turnover of the Business - The turnover had declined in the last year from £340,160 to £321,160 and is expected to continue to fall. 4) The Tone of the List - He said that the tone of list had not been
maintained in relation to this particular rateable valuation as was evidenced
by the Mr. McAuliffe set out his calculation of the net annual value on the subject premises on the turnover and capital value basis as follows:- 1) Turnover Basis 2) Capital Value Basis In summary, Mr. McAuliffe said that Ashford House was a large under utilised roadside public house which was prematurely extended to cater for an expected increase in business which did not materialise. He offered the comparisons summarised below:- 1) The Grand Hotel 2) Harry Leonards Public House 3) The Leitrim Bar 4) Mulvihills 5) Shay Doyle A written submission was received on the 9th June, 1994 from Mr. Tom Cuddihy, a District Valuer with 27 years experience in the Valuation Office, on behalf of the respondent. In the written submission Mr. Cuddihy described the property, its tenure, services and valuation history as set out above. He set out his calculation of the rateable valuation by reference to the purchase price and accounts supplied as set out below:- Method 1 Est. N.A.V. = £43,000 x 0.5% = £215.00 R.V. Method 2 Est. N.A.V. = £33,000 x 0.5% £165.00 Mr. Cuddihy offered 4 comparisons in the area as summarised below:- 1) Peter King 2) Railway House 3) The Coach House 4) The Beehive In summary Mr. Cuddihy said that an analysis of the comparative evidence
showed that the appellant's R.V. relative to licensed turnover compared
favourably with other licensed houses in the surrounding area. From the outset the appellant relied upon the declining turnover saying that this mirrored a miscalculation relating to the development of the new motorway from Dublin. The vast expenditure made on extensions to the subject had not with hindsight proved to be a wise investment and there would be either no return or a poor return on same. The relevance of the various comparisons were debated and it emerged that the Beehive premises with a valuation of £300 situated on the same road not too far away was probably the most appropriate comparison. It is somewhat regrettable that the premises closest to the subject was not revised for a considerable number of years and therefore was not available as a valid comparison. The Beehive seems to be carrying on trade successfully although grappling with the same locational difficulties (as the subject). It has a turnover superior to the that of the subject and appears to be overall a better premises. Nevertheless, the trade seems to be there to sustain such an extensive roadside facility. The subject has been let for three years at an annual rent of £20,800. This rent, while reflecting a poor trading pattern in recent years, may not represent the true N.A.V. if the premises were trading up to potential. Having regard to the foregoing the Tribunal finds that the approach of Mr. Cuddihy has been fair and reasonable, and is satisfied that the Commissioner's decision in fixing a rateable valuation of £180 should be affirmed and so determines
|