|
Appeal No. VA96/2/013 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Goodbodys APPELLANT RE: Offices at Map Ref: 122.124/b Carrisbrook House,
Pembroke Road, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 3rd April, 1996 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £1,330 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". The property comprises a seven storey over basement level office building which is hexagonal in shape on a site of approximately 24,500 sq.ft.. A service core containing stairs, lifts and toilet facilities is located in the centre of the building on each floor. The subject matter of this appeal comprises the ground floor up to and
including the fourth floor. The accommodation and agreed floor areas are
as follows:- The appellant described the premises as having 41 car spaces while the respondent described the premises as having 44 car spaces. The relevant valuation history is that the subject of this appeal was included in the list of new rateable valuations published by the Commissioner of Valuation on the 9th November, 1995 at RV £1,330. An appeal was lodged by the appellant on 7th December, 1995. At First Appeal stage the RV of £1,330 was published unchanged. A written submission by Mr. Adrian Power-Kelly on behalf of the appellant was received by the Tribunal on 24th September, 1996. Mr. Power-Kelly is an Associate Partner in Harrington Bannon, Chartered Valuation Surveyors, a Fellow of the Society of Chartered Surveyors and has sixteen years experience. The written submission outlined a series of negative factors which the
appellant contended would reduce the rent that a hypothetical tenant would
be prepared to pay for the premises. These included:- Mr. Power-Kelly's written submission contained details of the rent payable by the appellant and contained a schedule of comparisons with respect to five buildings. Mr. Adrian Power-Kelly estimated the rateable valuation as follows:- Mr. Deegan's written submission of 25th September, 1996 contained a description of the property. He described the property as having 44 car spaces. The submission contained a schedule of comparisons which included fifteen specific properties. Mr. Deegan estimated the rateable valuation as follows:- Mr. Deegan's written submission of 4th October, 1996 contained a schedule of comparisons which included twenty specific properties. The oral hearing of the appeal took place in Dublin on the 4th day of October, 1996. In his sworn testimony Mr. Power-Kelly adopted his written submission as his evidence to the Tribunal. In his evidence he again dealt with the negative factors which related to the subject premises. He gave further evidence on his comparisons. Griffin House was located in the central business area and had a better aspect overlooking the canal. Car parking was at the rear of the building through an underground access point. Hume House was in the immediate vicinity of the subject premises. This premises had regularly shaped floors which gave more effective use of the office space. The building had been recently refurbished and was a better quality building than the subject premises. Hume House was of the same age as the subject and was Mr. Power-Kelly's preferred comparison. St. Martin's House was in the vicinity of the subject premises and being built in 1973 was slightly younger. The floor layout and design were better and more flexible. On the issue of car parking spaces in the subject Mr. Power-Kelly stated that the lease provided for 41 car spaces but by better use of the basement parking area three more cars could be parked there. In his sworn testimony Mr. Deegan adopted his written submissions as his evidence to the Tribunal. In his evidence Mr. Deegan stated that the subject premises occupied a prestigious area in Ballsbridge which developers of office property would be anxious to locate in, if only allowed to do so by the planning authorities. He said that the RV had been determined by the Valuation Office after taking into account all the issues raised by the appellant. Mr. Deegan considered that the Embassy of Israel was not a drawback in the premises, other offices had similar security systems. In connection with his comparisons Mr. Deegan stated that offices in Lower Mount Street were his preference. He did not prefer any specific premises but he stated that his comparisons showed a tone of the list for Lower Mount Street at £10.00 per sq.ft. By way of illustration Mr. Deegan referred to three properties in Lower
Mount Street: Under cross examination by Mr. Power-Kelly, it was put to Mr. Deegan that the office spaces in the General Accident Insurance Co. Limited had a regular layout. Mr. Deegan in reply admitted that not many offices in Dublin had a hexagonal shape. In connection with 25/27 Lower Mount Street, Mr. Power-Kelly put it to Mr. Deegan that the average RV in the building was £70 and that there were a number of such RV's in the building. Mr. Power-Kelly further put it that the average floor size in the building ranged from 1,000 sq.ft. to 1,100 sq.ft., and that therefore Mr. Deegan was using offices which were 1/20 the size of the subject premises as comparisons. Mr. Deegan did not disagree with these propositions. As to the Bord Bainne building Mr. Power-Kelly put it that these offices were regularly shaped as to their floor areas unlike the subject. Mr. Power-Kelly contended in his cross examination that other comparisons produced by Mr. Deegan were new buildings such as Cambridge Finance 1 - 11, Grand Canal Street Upper and purpose built such as 14 - 16, Haddington Road. Finally Mr. Frank Robinson, the Compliance Officer and Services Manager of Goodbody's gave evidence on behalf of the appellant. He stated that the car barriers on the property were unlike other barriers. If they were required to come down they did so no matter what was under them. The Embassy of Israel had located in the premises at Christmas 1995. Its presence there had created a very stressful environment on a number of occasions. Sometimes there is a presence of armed Special Branch and Israeli security personnel. There have been political protests outside the building and on one occasion the building was daubed with red paint. Mr. Deegan stated that these problems were temporary and the Valuation Office takes the long term view. Determination: Therefore the Tribunal determines the rateable valuation of the subject premises to be £1,274. |