|
Appeal No. VA04/1/064 & VA04/1/065 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Electric Paper Ltd. & Nutricia Ireland Ltd. APPELLANTS RE: Offices at Lots No. 11F (Block 1)/4 & 11F (Block
1)/2 at B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notices of Appeal dated 30th day of March, 2004, the appellants appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing rateable valuations of €390.00 (VA04/1/064) and €486.00 (VA04/1/065) on the above described relevant properties. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notices of Appeal are: "On the basis that the R.V. is excessive inequitable and bad in law. On the basis that there was no clear revision request that would allow the Commissioner to identify my client's offices as those to be valued given that there are numerous other offices within the development." With the consent of the parties these appeals were heard contemporaneously and proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of the Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay, Dublin, on the 14th July 2004. At the hearing, the appellant was represented Mr Eamonn Halpin, B.Sc. (Surveying), A.S.C.S., M.R.I.C.S., M.I.A.V.I. and Mr Damien Curran, Grade 1 Valuer in the Valuation Office, MRICS, ASCS, BSc (Surv) appeared on behalf of the respondent. Both parties having taken the oath adopted their respective précis which had previously been received by the Tribunal as their evidence-in-chief. Location Description Tenure Services Valuation History Appellants' submissions • No dispute about the quality of the subject building. Accepts that offices are a very good quality. • Location at Deansgrange inferior to others in Dunlaoghaire / Rathdown- location is moderate • Site undergoing redevelopment and more an industrial site than an office development. • Block dissimilar to rest of buildings on site • Moderate location and industrial nature of site should be stressed. • Valuation on car space is excessive • Secondary location, as opposed to locations near the city centre. • Crucial factor is the comparative method of evidence, of actually comparing one property with another. • Respondent's valuations are in the list. Yet no evidence to show how the valuations were determined. No evidence to show how the tone or levels were set. Don't automatically have to accept them. One cannot say they are absolutely correct. Appellants' Comparisons (set out at Appendix 1 to this judgment) 1. Paradigm House, Dundrum Office Park. Best comparison. Modern office block in good location in the centre of Dundrum village. Building not to the same standard of fit out as subject properties. Profile of building is of moderate nature. 2. Irish International Sales, Rathdown Hall, Upper Glenageary Road. View of Dublin Bay. High profile. More of a shopping centre than an office block. 3. M2S Ireland Ltd., 62-63 Lr. Mounttown Road, Dun Laoghaire. 2 story offices. Profile poor. Did not stop it achieving a very high rent. 4. Softech Telecom, South County Business Park, 1H Carman Hall, Leopardstown. Building inferior to subject properties in fit out. No raised floors or air conditioning. 5. Lot 24-32 Temple Road, Blackrock. Fit out inferior to subject properties. No air conditioning or raised floors. Because of location has high rental capacity. 6. 7-8 Haddington Terrace, Dun Laoghaire. Older building and fit out inferior to subject properties. Mr Halpin contended for the following valuations: VA04/1/064 - Electric Paper Ltd VA04/1/065 - Nutricia Ireland Ltd Respondent's Submissions • Accepted by everyone that the offices are of the highest quality. • Six comparisons given and the most important are the first three. These units are in the same office development and have a high profile onto the main street. • None of Mr. Halpin's comparisons compare quality-wise with subject properties and also the subject properties are better fitted out. • Offices have high profile onto the street. • Building is of high quality with air conditioning, raised access floors and suspended ceilings. • Site of subject properties will be developed in the future. Nevertheless properties were valued "rebus sic stantibus". • Tone of the list is established with first 3 comparisons. These valuations have not been challenged. • Locations of appellant's comparisons more difficult to access than subject properties. • Location of subject properties is good as there is easy access to the Bray dual carriageway. • 5th comparison at Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock is identical with subject properties with raised access floors, suspended ceilings and air conditioning. • Cannot compare with primary locations in Dublin city centre as it is a different market. Moreover comparisons must be in the same rating authority area. Not only a question of different locations, but also different markets. • In comparison number 6 car spaces value lower because of shared
vehicle and pedestrian access with McCormacks pub. Quality of the comparison
generally inferior to subject properties with poor profile. Reduction
for car space. Mr Curran contended for the following valuations: VA04/1/065 - Nutricia Ireland Ltd Conclusion Values on the list appear to establish a mean or "tone" value
in the particular office development in Deansgrange. As regards the correctness
of values appearing on the List -section 63 of the Act states: Determination The Rateable Valuation of €390 is affirmed. (b) VA04/1/065 - Nutricia Ireland Ltd The Rateable Valuation of €486 is affirmed. And the Tribunal so determines.
|