Appeal No. VA92/6/101
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Eamonn Cosgrave APPELLANT RE: Filling Station and Workshop at Lot No. 11Aa, Townland
of Newcastle, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 4th day of November, 1992 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a Rateable Valuation of £105 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that: "the valuation is excessive and unfair". The Property The premises comprise a Maxol filling station with underground tanks with a capacity of 12,200 gallons. There is a two storey service building which accommodates a restaurant, shop and office on the ground floor with offices and a hairdressing salon on the first floor. There is a free standing workshop adjacent to the service building. The restaurant and shop are separately let and independently valued. Service pumps are covered by canopy with small cash office in the main service building. There is one large office and two smaller offices on the first floor of the main service building. The work shop which was newly erected in 1991 has recently had the front section converted into a video shop, but this work was carried out passed the valuation date of November, 1991. Valuation History In 1991 the valuation was increased to £290 following the extension of the restaurant, new rere store and new workshop/showroom. A new lot 11Aa2 was created to value the hairdressing salon independently on the first floor. At first appeal two further tenancies were valued independently as follows: The portion of the property which remained owner occupied and which is the subject of this appeal was assessed at £105. Written Submissions In the written submission Mr. Conroy set out details of the property
and the valuation history as set out above. Commenting on the appellant's
grounds of appeal, Mr. Conroy on behalf of the Respondent, stated that
it was the Commissioners contention that the Appellant is bound by the
terms of the agreement reached at first appeal stage and a copy of the
letter of agreement from the appellant's agent at first appeal was attached
to the written submission. He further stated that the agreement of Frank
O'Donnell & Company in writing as qualified and professional valuers
was compelling evidence of the correctness of the valuation. Mr. Conroy
stated without prejudice to the above that the valuation of £105
is fair and reasonable and is comparable with recently revised properties
which are of similar function. The property has exposure to heavy volumes
of traffic on this national primary route. There is exposure to local
traffic from surrounding residential areas, Limerick University Campus,
Plassey International Science Centre as well as longer distance travellers
associated with the national primary route. He set out his calculation
of the rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:- Method 2 Calculation of the N.A.V. of the fuel sales by the following formula:- 1988 Fuel Sales of Subject Property N.A.V. attributable to fuel = £945.162 X £26.176 = £20,405 Mr. Conroy also gave details of three comparisons of similar properties as follows:- 1. Artane Service Station Shop 159 sq.ft. @ £10 = 1,590 Mr. Conroy stated that this was an important comparison as real rental evidence was available as a check of estimates of N.A.V. 2. Shannon Self Service Shop 303ft2 @ £15 = 4,545 (1988 GTO £123,889p.a) 3. Lot No. 2A/8 Shop 362ft2 @ £12 = 4,344 Oral Hearing Prior notification of the date of the hearing of the appeals had been forwarded to the agent for the Appellant, Ms. Siobhan Fahy, Fahy & Company, John Street, Limerick by the Registrar by letter dated 12th March, 1993. Having considered the precis of evidence submitted by Mr. Conroy, the Tribunal determines that the appeals be dismissed and the valuation affirmed. The Respondent made no application in relation to costs.
|