Appeal No. VA95/1/066
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA William & Kay Napier APPELLANT RE: Licensed House and Yard at Map Ref: 17a.17ab',
Townland: Annabella (Part of), B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 22nd April, 1995 the appellants appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £85 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "no alterations made to premises. Turnover has not increased to warrant such a large increase in valuation". The Property: Valuation History: Written Submissions: A written submission was received on the 29th November, 1995 from Mr. Peter Conroy, District Valuer with 25 years experience in the Valuation Office. In his written submission Mr. Conroy described the subject premises and its valuation history. Commenting on the grounds of appeal Mr. Conroy said that the valuation was fair and equitable and in accordance with the Valuation Acts. He said that the valuation was comparable with valuations of other properties recently revised and of similar function. He set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- "Valuation R.V.: £85.00 (Domestic £13.00) Note: Purchase price 1989 = £150,000 N.A.V.: @ 10% = £16,500 Mr. Conroy offered four comparisons which are summarised below:- (2) Noel Dinan, 1.2a William O'Brien Street, Mallow, Co. Cork. (3) Flicker Inn Limited t/a Beachers Brook, 151C Main Street, Mallow,
Co. Cork (4) The Archers Limited, 3B Ballydahin. In conclusion Mr. Conroy said that the subject property had been valued at 10% of annual turnover or 10% of capital cost which in his view was reasonable and fair. Oral Hearing: At the outset Mr. Napier expressed his concern that the increase in his rates arising out of the uplift in the rateable valuation of the subject property from £37 to £85 could not easily be absorbed given the state of the business. He also expressed the view that he was being penalised for carrying out alterations and in view of the fact that other business premises generally in the Mallow area had not been revalued he was in fact being asked to bear an unfair burden. Mr. Conroy's written submission was accepted by the Tribunal as being his evidence in chief given under oath. Mr. Conroy stated that in arriving at his opinion of net annual value he had relied upon the various comparisons contained in his submission. He agreed that his estimate of turnover for the year ending October, 1995 was not based on sight of accounts but on information obtained from Mr. Napier. He agreed that in fact the turnover for the year in question was £176,000 as stated in the accounts furnished by the appellants. Determination: According to Mr. Napier the premises enjoy a strong local custom and steady passing trade. The Tribunal notes that the turnover for the year ending 31st October 1994 was almost £200,000 and for the following year £176,744 giving an average for the two year period of say £188,000. An examination of Mr.Conroy's comparisons indicates that the percentage applied to turnover in order to arrive at net annual value varies from 8% to 10% with the higher figure being applied to the premises known as 'The Archers' with a turnover of £420,000. Having regard to the turnover of the subject premises and the fact that it has shown a substantial drop, the Tribunal is of the opinion that 9% would be more appropriate and upon this basis determines the rateable valuation to be £80 as set out hereunder:- Average Turnover £188,000 Adjust to 1988 £150,400 Say £67.00 |