|
Appeal No. VA95/1/095 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Armada Centre Limited t/a The Black Bush APPELLANT RE: Nightclub and licensed shop at Map Ref: 116,117,
Townland: Cork, Oliver Plunkett Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 25th day of April 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £365 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- "1) the valuation is excessive in comparison to similar properties The Property: Ground floor First floor Valuation History: Written Submissions: In the written submission the property was described and its accommodation set out. The property was described as being purchased in February 1990 for £425,000 after which a capital sum in the region of £140,000 was expended by the owners to renovate the property. The work carried out on the property included a new roof, new ceilings and floors and complete redecoration and fit out. In determining net annual value it was stated that a number of factors had to be considered:- 1) Turnover and nature of business 2) Location of the property 3) Physical Layout 4) Tone of the list a) Capital value basis b) Turnover basis Nett profit @ 15% £96,645.60 In conclusion, it was stated that, taking into account the location of the premises, its large capacity and costs of running this type of operation, the rateable valuation on the premises should be £252. Comparisons 1) Westimers Bar 2) The Angel Bar 3) Paddy the Farmers 4) Counihans 5) The Old Oak 6) Cubins A written submission was received on the 13th day of February 1996 from Mr. Tom Stapleton, a Valuer with over 30 years experience in the Valuation Office, on behalf of the respondent. In his written submission, Mr. Stapleton described the subject premises and its valuation history as set out above. He set out his calculation of rateable valuation on three bases as set out below. Valuation (b) Ground floor: Adjust to 1988 = £580,000 Mr. Stapleton said that the current rateable valuation of £365 had been valued only slightly above 8% of turnover (allowance made for honeymoon period) which having regard to comparisons, modern design, structure and location of premises was fair and reasonable. Mr. Stapleton offered five comparisons which are summarised below. 1) Clancy's Bar 2) Kay Star Limited 3) Kay Star Limited 4) Mardyke Tavern 5) Westimer Mr. McAuliffe gave evidence that the subject property is located in an area not well known for night-clubs, located as it is towards the far end of Oliver Plunkett Street and with its main frontage onto Caroline Street which he said is very definitely a tertiary street. In relation to the size of the property, Mr. McAuliffe said that the space is only necessary at peak times i.e. Friday and Saturday, but not during the rest of the week. Referring to Mr. Stapleton's calculations based on capital value, Mr. McAuliffe said that no licensed premises were bought on a square foot basis but that their market values were assessed on the basis of turnover and location. Mr. McAuliffe said that in his opinion the property known as Westimers, put forward as a comparison by Mr. Stapleton, was one of the top three premises of this nature in Cork, that the restaurant in this property was now trading exceptionally well and that he found it difficult to accept the turnover figures produced by Mr. Stapleton. While Mr. McAuliffe did produce turnover figures for the years subsequent to 1994 he submitted that evidence in relation to turnover figures relating to any period after the valuation date should not be taken into account and in support of his contention he cited the decision of the Valuation Tribunal in the case of VA95/2/002 - North Dublin Cold Stores v. Commissioner of Valuation. Mr. McAuliffe disputed Mr. Stapleton's estimate of expenditure and confirmed his own figure of £140,000 in respect of expenditure, which information, he said, had been supplied by his client, but was unsupported by documentary evidence. Mr. Stapleton in evidence said that he disagreed with Mr. McAuliffe when
he said that the subject property is in an inferior location. In his opinion
it is in a prominent location as evidenced by its original usage as an
ESB showroom. Referring to the turnover figures in relation to the subject property, Mr. Stapleton said that in applying a percentage of 10% to the average turnover figure he had been fair and reasonable and referred to a decision of the Tribunal VA95/1/066 - William & Kay Napier v. Commissioner of Valuation in which the Tribunal held that a figure of 9% might be applied to turnover. He explained that his adjustment by 20% to arrive at turnover figures for 1988 was based on indexed figures for the drinks industry. Mr. Stapleton said that his calculations based on turnover resulted in a figure of £436 for rateable valuation and that therefore in the circumstances his estimate of rateable valuation at £365 was extremely reasonable. Determination: It does seem that the subject property is located at the less favoured end of Oliver Plunkett Street but the turnover figures supplied indicate that the location is not an obvious deterrent to the customers. The Tribunal notes Mr. McAuliffe's objections to consideration of trading figures for the period after the valuation date. These figures are however, important if an overall picture of trading is to be obtained and if an equitable rateable valuation is to be assessed. It would seem from the figures furnished that if the subject property is indeed experiencing a "honeymoon period" of success as described by Mr. McAuliffe, the honeymoon is indeed a prolonged one. In the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot ignore the evidence in relation to turnover, and therefore affirms the decision of the respondent.
|