Appeal No. VA96/2/079
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Showelwater Limited t/a The Pod APPELLANT RE: Nite Club and Restaurant at Map Ref: 9b, Upper
Hatch Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 22nd April, 1996 the Appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £525 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive and inequitable having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on other grounds". The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place on the 7th day of February, 1997. The Appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn O'Kennedy B.Comm., MIAVI, Valuation and Rating Consultant. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Conroy, District Valuer in the Valuation Office. Having taken the oath each valuer adopted as their evidence in chief their respective written submissions which had previously been exchanged by them and submitted to the Tribunal. Agreed Facts: whereas the Respondent stated that the ground floor area was 548 sq.m (5,900 sq.ft) and the gallery 50.7 sq.m. (546 sq.ft.), total 598.7 sq.m. (6,446 sq.ft.). The premises was purchased in either 1992 or 1993 for £400,000 with the benefit of a full seven day licence and was converted to a nightclub and bar at a further expenditure of £150,000 to £200,000. A letter was submitted from Murphy & Company, Registered Auditors and Accountants confirming that the turnover of the premises for the year ended 31st March, 1994 was £461,757 and that the accounts for the year had not yet been finalised and also stating that the turnover for the year ending 31st March, 1995 according to the VAT returns of the Company amounted to £539,471. The title of the property is freehold. Issues: 3. Method Three He stated that the premises was removed from the main nightclub areas of Leeson Street and Temple Bar: He said in addition that nightclubs (1) tended to have a limited life span of popularity, and (2) were very dependent on the personalities involved in running them and public relations, and (3) operated in a grey area in relation to licensing. He stated that the Commissioner's valuation was based on public houses and although the subject premises has a seven day licence it was not comparing like with like to do so and it should be compared with other nightclubs. It had an advantage over Leeson Street because of its full seven day licence but no advantage over nightclubs attached to hotels. He set out comparisons under two headings namely, nightclubs and other licensed premises and noted Sachs nightclub valued as part of Sachs Hotel with a total area of 31,200 sq.ft. at £4.20 psf, Gigi's nightclub in the Russell Court Hotel on Harcourt Street similar size to The Pod valued at £8 psf and Leeson Street nightclubs valued on average at £5 psf. He also gave a long list of licensed premises setting out their turnover and rateable valuations. In cross examination Mr. O'Kennedy stated that in his opinion the capital value of the premises today was in the order of £1.2m but when it was put to him that this figure adjusted back to 1988 would give a figure of £800,000 he stated that this was not a correct method to adopt as values had increased enormously in 1996 and that a factor more in the order of 2½ to 3 would be more suitable for adjusting from 1988 to 1997 for public house values. In relation to his second method of valuation in which he utilised the NAV figures in relation to the adjoining Findlater's Wine Warehouse he stated that he had not seen the interior of Findlater's but as it was effectively in the same building he felt it was appropriate to use it. He accepted that the turnover information provided was inadequate. He also accepted that the comparison produced of Sachs Hotel reflected the rateable valuation of the entire premises and not of the nightclub on its own. Mr. Conroy NAV = £85,000 He provided four comparisons comprising two public houses and two nightclubs.
Mr. Conroy stated that the most appropriate method is to value the premises on a price per square foot but in comparison with other pubs assessed by the Commissioner. In his opinion the purchase price plus improvements falls short of the market value on completion. He noted that the Chocolate Bar opens for normal public house hours but that The Pod is too big to operate during the day as is the case with many lounges. In cross examination he stated that the Central Hotel nightclub was leased and could not be sold separately from the hotel and confirmed the devaluation of rent at £18.66 was a 1995 rent and that rental values had increased since 1988. In response to a question in relation to tax designation and double rent allowance he stated that he assumed that the hotel had taken the capital allowances and there was no double rent allowance available therefore to the nightclub. This point however was not confirmed. He concurred with Mr. O'Kennedy's opinion in that the present market value of The Pod was £1.2m and in response to a further question stated that in his view the increase in value from 1993 to 1995 would have been marginal. Determination: The information in relation to turnover is, to say the least, sparse and is of little assistance to the parties or to the Tribunal. Due to the nature of the premises it does not appear to the Tribunal that it can fairly be compared with licensed houses such as The Bleeding Horse and others mentioned in the submissions. It appears to the Tribunal more appropriate to compare the premises with licensed nightclubs of which a number of comparisons were provided including Gigi's in Harcourt Street, The River Club on Wellington Quay and the nightclub in the Central Hotel. Having regard to the foregoing and the evidence adduced by the parties
the Tribunal determines the rateable valuation at £370 calculated
as follows:- NAV = £58,588
|