|
Appeal No. VA96/3/071 - VA96/3/081 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Padraig Scanlon VA96/3/071 and Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT RE: Hereditaments at the Map References set out in
the First Schedule attached to this Judgment. Co. Sligo B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL 1. By the several Notices of Appeal, details of which are set forth in
the First Schedule hereto, each of the above named Appellants individually
appealed to this Tribunal against certain determinations made by the Commissioner,
the results of which were to place on their respective properties a Rateable
Valuation the amount of which was in each case considered by the Rate
Payer to be excessive. As the hereditaments in question were adjacent
or contiguous to or at least were located side by side with each other,
it was agreed at the instigation of the Appellants and with the consent
of the Respondent, that all of these Appeals should be heard and dealt
with simultaneously. Accordingly on the 16th May 1997 an Oral Hearing
took place in the Conference Centre, Market Yard, Sligo. Thereat the Appellants
were represented by Mr. Keenan Johnson of the firm Johnson & Johnson,
Solicitors, whilst Mr. Eamonn Marray, BL appeared on behalf of the Commissioner.
Valuation evidence was tendered by Mr. Eamonn Scanlon, of Scanlon &
Irwin, by Mr. Martin McGettrick of McGettrick & McGettrick and by
Mr. Cryan of the firm Cryan & Co. Individually and collectively these
Valuers supported the case being made on behalf of the Appellants. In
addition Mr. Keenan called a number of his clients including Mr. Michael
Rogers, Mr. Donagh Tighe as well as an Accountant, Mr. Duffy. On behalf
of the Commissioner the Appeal Valuer, Mr. Hicks gave valuation evidence.
In accordance with practice and prior to the hearing a written Précis
of the Evidence which each Professional Witness intended to give was exchanged
between the parties and submitted to us. 2. At the commencement of the Oral Hearing it was clear to this Tribunal
that certain portions of the evidence to be tendered on behalf of the
Appellants and certain 4. In addition we had evidence from Mr. Duffy, an Accountant and local
businessman who throughout the years has had a close relationship with
the Ballymote area. He produced before us a list of businesses which it
was claimed on behalf of the Appellants, were obliged to close in the
last ten years because of adverse trading 5. Whilst issue was taken with some of this evidence on behalf of the Commissioner, and whilst we accept in part some of the views advanced by Mr. Hicks, nevertheless we are satisfied, in an overall and general way, that for the reasons above mentioned the business activity within the area has declined and that in turn this has resulted in a reduction in economic activity. Whether, to what extent and for how long this decline will continue, is debatable. Efforts have already been commenced and are ongoing, by local people in order to try and redress this situation. Again, it is difficult to forecast with any precision what the results of these efforts will be. Whatever, it is clear to us that, as of the appropriate valuation date, the area in question was and continues to be in a depressed economic state. That being the situation the question then arises as to what relevance or significance, if any, that should have on one's approach to ascertaining the appropriate net annual value and hence of the rateable valuations of the hereditaments the subject matter of these appeals. 6. Though almost a century and a half old Section 11 of the Valuation
(Ireland) Act, 1852 remains the fundamental statutory basis upon which
one calculates what the "In every valuation hereinafter to be made, or to be carried on or completed under the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner of Valuation shall cause every tenement or rateable hereditament hereinafter specified to be separately valued....... and such valuation in regard to houses and buildings shall be made upon an estimate of the net annual value thereof: that is to say, the rent for which, one year with another, the same might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, the probable average annual cost of repairs, insurance and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the hereditament in its actual state, and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any, (except tithe rent charge), being paid by the tenant". As Mr. Justice Barron said of the Section, in the case of the Irish Management Institute -v- The Commissioner of Valuation 1990 2 I.R. 409, at 412. "The basic approach to the determination of valuations of Rateable hereditaments for the purposes of the valuation code is to be found in Section 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852. It requires a determination as a question of fact of the rent which a hypothetical tenant would pay for the hereditament taking one year with another. There is no one way in which this issue should be resolved. See Roadstone Ltd. -v- Commissioner of Valuation 1961 I.R. 239". 7. Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1986 was intended to effect the future
operation of the provisions of this said Section 11. In, the I.M.I. Case
at page 413 of the Report, Mr. Justice Barron explained the rationale
underlying this later Section: He said: Sub-Section 2 is not a provision standing on its own. What is being sought is an overall proportion between hypothetical rents and valuation. This must be borne in mind when applying its provisions. What must be considered are valuations which:- (a) are comparable; Where there is evidence under each of these headings sufficient to obtain the relevant proportions then the valuations can be determined by reference to the sub-section alone. Where the evidence is insufficient, then the overall proportions predicated by sub-s. 1 must be adopted. In each case, the sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the Tribunal". 8. In practice Section 5 has and is being operated by applying an agreed fraction to the net annual value and thus, in that way arriving at the appropriate rateable valuation. In the Appeals, the subject matter of this decision , the agreed fraction is .5 of one per cent. 9. The direct issue raised on behalf of the Appellants in the first part of their submission was considered by the Court in the case of R -v- North Aylesford Union 37 J.P. 148. In that case Blackburn J. said: "The Rateable value of the chalk pit is the value which a tenant
would be expected to give for it. That value involves two elements: First,
what would a tenant make by it; and what would he get equally good chalk
for in the neighbourhood? No tenant gives all that he can afford to give,
and a true test is not what he could afford to give but what a tenant
would be likely to give who took the pit from year to year. It is not
the profits a man makes that makes the difference, for, whether he gains
or loses in his trade, the rateable value in the same". 10. In Rosses Point Hotel -v- Commissioner of Valuation 1987 I.R. 143
the issue of a hereditament's profit earning capacity was directly in
focus. In that case the "The question of fact to be answered is, what is a prospective
tenant likely to offer by way of rent upon the basis laid down in this
Section. (Referring to section 11 of the 1852 Act). The profits actually
being made are not material, nor is the manner in which the actual tenant
uses the actual premises. So in the present case, the offer of a prospective
tenant would not necessarily be affected by the present profit record
nor by the fact that the present owner is using 21 potential guest bedrooms
for staff members nor by the fact that it cannot further retrench because
of difficulties with servicing, maintenance and insurance for the premises.
What the prospective tenant would be affected by would be his own view
of the likely profitability of the premises having regard to all material
factors including economic recession and political disturbance. Since
the Section refers to taking one year with another, for any of these matters
to be relevant it must be shown that they will be taken into consideration
on such a basis. Nor is it necessary to establish that the business which
had been carried on in the premises or any specific part of such business
had had to be terminated or drastically curtailed before any of these
matters can be considered as relevant. 11. It is clear from the aforegoing therefore that any activity within
a given area, which directly affects the profit earning ability or capacity
of the hereditaments in question, can and as a matter of Law must be taken
into account in ascertaining the correct net annual value and hence the
correct Rateable Valuation. Such a factor would undoubtedly influence
the mind of the hypothetical tenant when the latter is considering what
rent he might be prepared to offer for the subject property. In what way,
to what extent, and over what period this factor might influence the mind
of such a tenant are questions of fact to be determined in each individual
case by the Court or Tribunal having sesin of the Appeal. In some cases
the existence of such activities may be directly applicable to the subject
hereditament and may have an obvious and quantifiable consequence. The
example of the fish kill in a river adjacent to a hotel is simple but
yet quite striking. Other factors may not be as obvious and may not have
such a particular impact on the earning capacity of the hereditament in
question. 13. We now deal with each of these appeals on an individual basis. In so doing however we have considered in the first group the three licensed premises, we have then taken Mr. Roger's property and Mr. Davy's property separately as we have the premises of the Credit Union. Finally we have taken the other five properties all of which may in these terms be described as "small shops". VA96/3/078 Donagh Tighe 1. The hereditament the subject matter of this Appeal is a licensed premises
known as "The Old Strand" and is located at 56 Teeling Street,
Ballymote in the County of Sligo. It is a modern well maintained building
in excellent condition and state of repair throughout. It is situated
in the main shopping district of Ballymote and the 3. On behalf of the Commissioner, Mr. Hicks took the 1995 estimated turnover
figure of £80,000 and applied 10% thereof in order to arrive at
an NAV of £8,000. That 4. In addition to the above evidence we have also considered the other
two Licensed Premises forming the subject matter of Appeal Nos. VA96/3/071
being Padraig 5. Taking £120 per week as being the average of the figures given to us on behalf of the Appellant, that would suggest an NAV of £6,240 per annum. That includes the domestic element which has an RV of £11. Such an RV equates with a rent of £42 per week or £2,184 per annum. If one takes that weekly sum from the average figure of £120 it means that, on behalf of Mr. Tighe, it has been suggested that his Licensed Premises should command a weekly rent of £78 only and should on that figure have an RV of £20. Given the characteristics of the premises as above described and taking into account both the turnover and the gross profit which the business conducted therein has achieved, we believe that this submission on behalf of the Ratepayer is wholly unsustainable. 6. As stated above the Appeal Valuer has presented a calculation based
on an RV of £40 attaching to the Licensed Premises. That equates
with a weekly rental income of £154. He adds to that a sum of £42
per week to justify the RV attaching to the residential portion. There
is in our view no necessity for him to undertake this VA96/3/077 - Eileen Scully 1. The premises the subject matter of this Appeal includes the Licensed
Premises known as "The Horse Shoe Bar" and is located at 43
Teeling Street, Ballymote in the County of Sligo. It is a building which
is in a poor state of repair and in need of substantial renovation and
renewal. In particular its roof is flat and poor. Overall it is, from
a structural and decorative point of view, far less impressive than the
licensed premises known as "The Old Strand". It is however well
situated within the main shopping district of Ballymote. It has an agreed
area of 1260 sq.ft. which is used albeit infrequently as a function room/singing
lounge. It has a bar area of 431 sq.ft. 2. On behalf of the Appellant the three Valuers above identified gave
evidence as to what in their view the appropriate NAV should be as of
the valuation date. In 3. On behalf of the Commissioner Mr. Hicks applied 7.1% to the turnover figures which gave an NAV of £4,606 or a weekly sum of £88. That figure equates with a Rateable Valuation of £23 on the Licensed Premises. In support of these calculations we were referred to four comparisons being the same comparisons used in Appeal Nos. VA96/3/071 (being the property of Mr. Scanlon) and Appeal No VA96/3/078 (being the property of Mr. Tighe. 4. In addition to these comparisons we have also, in considering this case, taken into account the two licensed premises last mentioned. 5. Taking £85 as representing the average of the figures given
to us on behalf of the Appellant, that would equate with an annual Letting
Value of £4,420 or an RV of £22. Accepting a domestic element
of £12 R.V. would equate with a weekly rental income of £46
or £2,392 per annum. Deducting one from the other would leave a
sum of £39 per week as a rent for the Licensed Premises which when
converted equates with a Rateable Valuation of £10. Once again we
are of the opinion that these figures must be rejected. We are of the
view that notwithstanding the condition of this property it would in the
eyes of a hypothetical tenant by virtue of its location, its size, its
turnover and its potential for improvement and expansion have to command
a net annual value well in excess of that suggested by and on behalf of
the Appellant and that it would be quite wrong of us to reduce the RV
on the licensed premises to £10 per annum as sought. VA96/3/071 - Padraig Scanlon 1. The property the subject matter of this Appeal includes the Licensed Premises known as "Scanlons" or "The Corner House". It is located at 43 O'Connell Street, Ballymote in the County of Sligo. It is an attractive, well appointed Licensed Property in a prominent location. It is in reasonably good condition throughout. Its agreed bar/lounge area is 1028 sq.ft. During the years 1993,1994 and 1995 its turnover peaked at £134,000 but averaged out at £10,000 less than that. The figures as produced show a decline in turnover with the 1995 figure being £112,000. Prior to the 1995 revision the property had attached to it a historical valuation of £19 placed thereon in 1929. There is now attached to the licensed portion a Rateable Valuation of £39 with an additional £9 being attributable to the residential portion of the overall property. 2. On behalf of Mr. Scanlon we have had the benefit of the evidence of four Valuers whose estimates of the weekly rental value were respectively £80, £150, £90 and £95. No distinction was made by any of them as between the licensed portion and the residential portion. No comparisons were offered in support of their views. 3. On behalf of the Commissioner Mr. Hicks adopted the 1995 turnover figure and by taking 7½% thereof got an NAV of £8,400. That converts to an RV on the Licensed Premises of £42 with £9 attaching to the residential portion. As in the case of Mr. Donagh Tighe it is unnecessary for the Commissioner to justify more than a total Rateable Valuation of £48 which, when one deducts the domestic element, leaves a figure of £39 on the Licensed Premises. We are doubtful if any exercise, purporting to justify a higher figure than that placed on the subject property by the Commissioner, is either appropriate or helpful. In any event, the Appeal Valuer offered in support of his figures the same comparisons as were offered in the Appeals - VA96/3/077 (Eileen Scully) and (Appeal VA96/3/078 - Donagh Tighe). 4. In addition when considering this Appeal we have also taken into account the premises of both the said Mrs Scully and Mr Tighe. 5. In our opinion the Rateable Valuation of £39 is excessive for the licensed portion of Mr. Scanlon's property. This portion has an area of almost 300 sq.ft. less than Mr. Tighe's property and almost 700 sq.ft. less than Mrs. Scully's property. In addition its location whilst good, is not as advantageous as either of the other two licensed properties just mentioned. In both of those the Commissioner sought an RV of £31 in the case of Mr. Tighe and an RV of £23 in the case of Mrs. Scully. This Tribunal has reduced the former by £1 and the latter by £2. Disregarding that for a moment, however, it seems to us that apart from turnover there could be no justification for seeking a figure on Mr. Scanlon's property which was £8 more than that placed on Mr. Tighe's property. 6. When dealing with a licensed premises, or indeed any other building, what is being valued is the building or hereditament itself or more accurately "the unit of valuation". It is not the business or activity carried on or conducted therein. If it was then the unit of valuation would be the profits derived from such activity or business and not the premises itself. This is not the case. It must always be remembered that it is the building and building only that is being valued. 7. This is not to say however that profit earned from an activity conducted
within the building is not relevant. It almost always will be. It will
have an influence on the 8. In this context it is quite important to state that exceptional skill,
application or diligence shown by an operator should not be penalised
by increasing the Rateable 9. In this case there is no doubt but that the turnover figures achieved in this property are well in excess of those achieved by Mr. Tighe or by Mrs. Scully. That, of course, is a reflection in some way of the value of the property and must so be taken into account. As against that however the other distinguishing features above mentioned must also be accounted for. All factors both positive and negative must be considered and a conclusion arrived at. It is our view that, in respect of the Public House, the net annual value should be £7,000 giving an RV of £35. Added to that must be the £9 domestic making a total of £44. We so determine. VA96/3/081 - Ballymote & District Credit Union 1. The property the subject matter of this Appeal is a two storey building
situated at 17B Lord Edward Street, Ballymote in the County of Sligo.
It is, according to the 3. Taking the higher of the figures adduced on behalf of the Credit Union it appears to us that the NAV so calculated results in an annual figure of £2,080. This as against the £2,600 advanced by the Appeal Valuer. The resulting difference in Rateable Valuation is £2.50 approximately. 4. Whilst acknowledging the right of the Appellant Ratepayer to pursue
the Appeal process up to and including an Appeal to this Tribunal and
whilst acknowledging the right of the Commissioner to remain with and
adhere to the figure given as a result of the first Appeal Stage, nevertheless
it seems to us almost extraordinary that where the difference between
the Parties is so small the same cannot be dealt with otherwise than pursuing
an Appeal to this Tribunal. This issue was previously commented upon in
the case of E.S.B. Birr -v- Commissioner of Valuation VA95/6/003 Judgment
given on 5/7/96. 5. The views last mentioned are repeated and reaffirmed by us in and for the purposes of this judgment. 6. However lest there be any misunderstanding of what the Tribunal's
true intentions are we should make it quite clear that in our view there
is nothing in principle or in practice which would preclude the Commissioner
from entering in or continuing to negotiate with the Ratepayer even after
the results of his First Appeal decisions are issued. It would be quite
wrong to interpret the E.S.B. Judgment in any way which might suggest
that the Commissioner is inhibited or otherwise restricted from 7. Having considered the entirety of the evidence adduced in this case we are of the opinion that the appropriate NAV should be £2,080 giving a resulting RV of £10.40 say £10. We so determine. VA96/3/076 - Simon Davey T/A CH Kane Limited 1. The property, the subject matter of this appeal is situated in a good location at No. 23 Lord Edward Street, Ballymote, Co. Sligo and therein, under and by the use of the name "Londis", a general supermarket business is carried on. The premises is relatively large, is modern and regular in layout and is in good condition having been well maintained since its reconstruction and enlargement some years ago. It has a rear entrance used for goods and supplies. There is car parking available on street and also to the rear. 2. In addition to the above general description, the following should
be noted about these premises:- 3. In 1973 the property in question was listed for Revision and had a Rateable Valuation of £30 placed thereon. This, at a time when the residence was occupied by Mr. Kane and when the shop trading as a "VG Store", measured 860 sq.ft. In 1992 the adjoining house was purchased and a major rebuilding programme took place costing c. £200,000. The property was again listed in 1995 when a Rateable Valuation of £55 was placed thereon. It is against that determination that this appeal has been taken. It should be noted that only part of the entire supermarket property forms the subject matter of this appeal. 4. On behalf of the Appellant, we have had evidence from four Valuers who have given their views as to what should be the correct net annual value. Three would place a figure of £175 p.w. on the property and the fourth would place £170 p.w. No comparisons were offered in support of these figures. 5. On behalf of the Commissioner, Mr. Hicks has approached the question of Valuation by taking the entirety of the premises in question and by assigning 60% thereof to this appeal. On that basis he has placed a rate of £4.50 psf on the 3,787 sq.ft. above mentioned, a rate of £1.50 psf on the stores in yard and a rate £1.00 psf on the new first floor store of 693 sq.ft. That gives a total of £19,340 or £370 p.w. Having applied the agreed fraction of 0.5% and having taken 60% thereof the result is the Commissioner's suggested rateable valuation of £55 on this hereditament. 6. In support of his valuation, Mr. Hicks has referred us to two comparisons,
the first is known as Perry's at 49/51 Teeling Street and the second McKim's
at Collooney. 7. Taking into account all of the evidence so adduced, we are of the
view that the rate of £4.50 psf is too high and that on the shop,
stores, cold room and offices totalling 3,787 sq.ft. there should be placed
thereon a rate of £3.50 psf. Likewise we would reduce the £1.50
psf on the stores and yard to £1.00 psf. Subject to these VA96/3/075 - Michael Rogers 1. The property, the subject matter of this appeal is located at 22/23
O'Connell Street, Ballymote, Co. Sligo. It consists in part of a residence
which has a separate RV 2. This yard has a tarmac surface and is used primarily as an access route to the structure. The structure, which contains a shop and stores is used for the purposes of carrying on a builders suppliers business and/or hardware business. It has an agreed area of 12,379sq.ft. 3. Prior to 1995 there was placed on this property a historical valuation which is of no relevance. In that year the property was listed for revision and the existing two lots were amalgamated with a £75 R.V. placed thereon. At First Appeal the Commissioner reduced this by £3. It is against this determination that this appeal has been taken. 4. On behalf of Mr. Rogers the four Valuers whose evidence we have had in all of these appeals, suggested that the letting value of this property was somewhere between £100 and £150 p.w. On average say £125 p.w. No comparisons were offered in support. Mr. Rogers himself also gave evidence before us. He informed us that this business has been in his family for several generations, but that in recent years it has been exceedingly difficult for him and his family to make a living therefrom. The grocery business, as has already been said, has had to close. There is great competition now from a substantial number of large retailers, who because of location, modern buildings, and purchasing power, can stock and sell a large variety of goods at very keen prices. He said, and we accept that it is very difficult for him to make a living out of this business. 5. On behalf of the Commissioner, Mr. Hicks suggests that 0.80p psf should
be placed on the 12,379 sq.ft. area above mentioned. He adds a rateable
valuation of £5 for the yard which gives, to this hereditament,
excluding the front shop and residential portion, a rateable valuation
of £55. In support, he has referred us to three 6. Taking into account the evidence adduced before us, including the
competition faced by Mr. Rogers and the undoubted decline in the nature
of his business 1. The premises, the subject matter of this appeal is located at No. 44 Teeling Street, Ballymote, Co. Sligo. It consists in part of a retail area and in part of a residential area. The former is presently used for the purposes of a pharmacy business with the latter having a separate valuation of £10 placed thereon. The entire property is in reasonable decorative and structural condition throughout. The pharmacy has an agreed area of 363 sq.ft. In 1962, with a retail area of 138 sq.ft. the rateable valuation was fixed at £18. As a result of the 1995 revision, that was increased to £28 but on appeal the Commissioner reduced this by £3. It is against this determination of a £25 RV that this appeal has been taken. 2. On behalf of the occupier it was urged upon us that because of the extremely small nature of the premises as well as the very limited potential for development, it would be extremely difficult, if the premises was available for letting, to obtain any tenant who might take a lease thereof. Notwithstanding, and without prejudice to this view the four Valuers, whose evidence we heard on behalf of Mrs. Casey were of the opinion that the most that could be obtained for this property was a weekly sum of somewhere between £40 and £60, on an average say £50. No comparisons were offered by any of these Valuers in support of these figures. 3. Mr. Hicks sought to place £8.50 on the area of 360 sq.ft. which when converted gives a rateable valuation of £15 on the shop portion of the property. In support he referred us to comparisons in Lord Edward Street, in O'Connell Street, in Teeling Street and in locations outside of Ballymote. Attached to this judgment and forming the second schedule hereto is a copy of the information so supplied in respect of these comparisons. 4. As appears from an earlier part of this judgment there were in all,
arriving out of the Ballymote area, 11 appeals which were held sequentially
by us. Five of these were concerned with what might be described generally
as "small shops". Ms. Casey's is one. The others were: 5. From the above it will be seen that the Valuers called on behalf on Mrs. Casey placed on average £50 per week on the shop portion of this property. It is unclear as to whether or not this figure included the residential portion. If it did we would clearly reject it. If it did not we would be prepared to accept it. In our view considering the entirety of the evidence applicable to this case we feel that the correct NAV should be £2,600 per annum or £13 RV. We so determine. VA96/3/073 - Gerard Cassidy 1. This property is located at 1/2 Lord Edward Street, Ballymote, Co. Sligo and therein a newsagency and small grocery business is carried on. Its situation, within the main shopping area, is relatively good and though it could not be described as modern by present day standards nevertheless its structural and layout conditions can be described as moderate to good. In addition to an agreed retail area of 571 sq.ft. there is a small yard and store at the rear which has an area of 300 sq.ft. and there is also a three bedroomed residence which has a separate rateable valuation of £10. Prior to the latest revision it had an historical valuation of £12 placed on the premises in 1928. That was increased to £39 in the 1995 revision which the Commissioner reduced to £32 on first appeal. It is against that determination that this appeal has been taken by Mr. Cassidy. 2. On his behalf, the four Valuers identified and named elsewhere in
this judgment have given evidence of their respective views as to what
the net annual value should be. 3. On behalf of the Commissioner, Mr. Hicks places a rate of £7.50 psf on the shop and store and £1 psf on the 300 ft. of the yard/store. That gives an NAV on the trading and retail area of £4,283: and on the stores in yard of £300: In total £4,583. In support he has referred us to the comparisons above mentioned. Having considered the evidence so tendered and having applied, where possible, the comparisons albeit with adjustments, we are of the view that the appropriate NAV for the business portion of the premises should be £75 p.w. or £3,900 p.a. which results in an RV of £19.50, say £19. Added to that should be the domestic element of £10 making a total of £29. VA96/3/074 - Charles Hodgins 1. This property which in respect of the residential portion has a separate RV of £5, is located at 25/26, Lord Edward Street, Ballymote, Co. Sligo and as such is within the main shopping area of the town. It is a modern attractive premises, well maintained and in good condition. It has a net frontage of 17 ft. and an overall street frontage of 24 ft. It is used by Mr. Hodgins as a small family butchers. It has, prior to 1995 an historical valuation of no significance to this appeal. In that year the listing for revision resulted in a valuation of £25 placed thereon. That was reduced to £23 by the Commissioner on appeal. It is against that determination that this appeal is taking place. 2. On the Appellant's behalf it is suggested by these Valuers that a weekly rental income of not more than £65, on average could be obtained for this property. No comparisons are offered in support of this appeal. On behalf of the Commissioner, Mr. Hicks suggests a rate of £8 psf on the agreed retail area of 467 sq.ft. He has referred us to a number of comparisons which are also cited in this judgment. 3. Having considered the evidence so adduced and having applied the comparisons
in so far as the same are capable of application, we are of the view that
the correct NAV for the retail portion of this property should be £3,380
which gives an RV of £16.90, say £17. Added to that should
be the rateable valuation on the small residence of £5, VA96/3/079 - Martin McGettrick 1. The subject property is located at no 26/28 O'Connell Street, Ballymote.
This, by common consent, is the quiet end of the town. The condition of
the building is 2. On his behalf it is suggested that the weekly rental income which
could be derived from the retail portion of this property is not more
than on average say £65 p.w. 3. Having considered the evidence adduced and having applied the comparisons where possible, we are of the view that the net annual value of the business portion of this property should be £3,640 (£70 p.w.), thereby giving a rateable valuation of £18.20, say £18. Added to that should be the domestic RV of £7 making a total of £25 RV. 96/3/080 - Kathleen Doddy 1. This property is located at 40a, O'Connell Street, Ballymote. Its situation is not within the main business area of the town. Its condition is reasonable from a structural and decorative point of view. But its layout is quite unsatisfactory and quite irregular with a total depth of 81 ft. for a frontage of only 14½ ft.. It is used as a self service grocery business and trades under the name of "Eight to Eight". Its turnover figures are somewhat in dispute. Mr. Hicks suggested an annual figure of £300,000, whereas Mr. Scanlon felt it was closer to £3,500 p.w. It was held by Ms. Doddy on a two year and 11 month lease from February 1994 at a rent of either £250 p.w. or £200 p.w. In any event it is the views of the Valuers called on behalf of the Appellant that both figures are excessive and that the range of likely income is somewhere between £60 and £90 p.w. 2. On behalf of the Commissioner he has approached a valuation by suggesting
a rate of £5.50 on the agreed retail area of the shop and stores
on the ground floor of 4. Having considered the entirety of the evidence applicable to this appeal including the conflict on the turnover figures and including the £10 difference in the RV placed on this property by the Commissioner and in the figures suggested by the Appeal Valuer we are satisfied that this property could not sustain a weekly rent in excess of £90 p.w. Accordingly we determine that the correct NAV should be £4,680 which gives an RV of £23.40, say £23. FIRST SCHEDULE (1) VA96/3/071: (a) Appellant: Padraig Scanlon (2) VA96/3/072: (a) Appellant: Matilda Casey (3) VA96/3/073: (a) Appellant: Gerard Cassidy (4) VA96/3/074: (a) Appellant: Charles Hodgins (5) VA96/3/075 (a) Appellant: Michael Rogers (6) VA96/3/076 (a) Appellant: Simon Davey t/a C.H. Kane Ltd. (7) VA96/3/077 (a) Appellant: Eileen Scully (8) VA96/3/078 (a) Appellant: Donagh Tighe (9) VA96/3/079: (a) Appellant: Martin McGettrick (10) VA96/3/080: (a) Appellant: Kathleen Doddy (11) VA96/3/081: (a) Appellant: Ballymote & District Credit Union SECOND SCHEDULE Comparisons - Lord Edward Street 1. T. Lavin; Drapery Devalues:
R.V. £23 (Dom nil) Devalues: Shop: 296 ft2 @ £ 9.50
R.V. £18 (Dom £5) Devalues: Salon: 319 ft2 @ £ 8.15 Rented from 1994 at £70 p.w. 4. Scanlon & Irwin, Butchers R.V. £22 (Dom nil) Devalues: Comparisons - O'Connell Street
R.V. £6 Devalues: Shop: 178 ft2 @ £ 6.75 per ft2
R.V. £6 Devalues: 172 ft2 @ £ 7.00 per ft2 Comparisons - Teeling Street 1. 40.42 V. McDonagh Devalues: Shop/Office: 1,055 ft2 @ £ 5.50 2. 53.54.55. Catherine Perry Hardware shop. R.V. £55 (Dom nil)
Comparisons - Other Locations 1. Collooney Pharmacy R.V. £19 (Dom nil) 1995 Devalues: Shop: 454 ft2 @ £ 8.37 per ft2 Newsagent. R.V. £50 (Dom £15) 1996 Devalues: Shop: 979 ft2 @ £ 6.66 per ft2
Veterinary products Devalues: Shop & Store: 515 ft2 @ £ 7.30 ft2 THIRD SCHEDULE
(1) VA96/3/071: Padraig Scanlon (2) VA96/3/072: Matilda Casey (4) VA96/3/074: Charles Hodgins (5) VA96/3/075: Michael Rogers (6) VA96/3/076: Simon Davey t/a C.H. Kane Ltd. (7) VA96/3/077: Eileen Scully (8) VA96/3/078: Donagh Tighe (9) VA96/3/079: Martin McGettrick (10) VA96/3/080: Kathleen Doddy (11) VA96/3/081: Ballymote and District Credit Union
|