Appeal No. VA01/3/050
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001
VALUATION ACT, 2001
Ballinrobe Race Committee APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Stadium, restaurant/cafe out office and land at
Map Reference:1aaB Rathcarreen, ED: Ballinrobe, RD: Ballinrobe,
County Mayo.
B E F O R E
Fred Devlin - FSCS.FRICS Deputy Chairperson
Maurice Ahern - Valuer Member
John Kerr - FIAVI Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2003
By Notice of Appeal dated 17 October 2001 the appellant
appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation
in fixing a rateable valuation of £135 (€171.41) on the property
concerned. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of Appeal
are that:
The valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law.
1. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held
in the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay
Upper, Dublin 7 on the 29th April 2002.
2. Prior to the hearing the parties exchanged and submitted précis
of evidence and valuations, which were subsequently received in evidence
by the Tribunal.
3. At the oral hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Martin P.
O'Donnell BA., MIAVI of Frank O'Donnell and Company. The respondent
was represented by Mr. Colman Forkin BSc (SURV) MRICS., ASCS., MIAVI.,
a district valuer in the Valuation Office.
4. The relevant property comprises a small rural racecourse just outside
the town of Ballinrobe on the N54 Castlebar Road. The course is run
by Ballinrobe Race Committee a locally based non-profit making organisation
and all profits made are reinvested into improvements and the general
maintenance of the course. Ballinrobe hosts on average six meetings
a year and is regarded as being an important tourist facility for the
area. The course is classified as category 3 establishment and hence
the races held attract low value prizes. The facilities at the course
have been improved over the last several years, financed mainly by grants
from the Irish Horse Racing Authority.
5. Following the construction of the new stand and other facilities
the property was listed for the 2000/4 revision as a result of which
the rateable valuation was increased from £85 to £135 (€171.41).
No change was made at first appeal stage and it is against this determination
that the appeal to the Tribunal now lies.
6. The accommodation measured on a gross external area basis was agreed
to be 1560m2 although there were minor differences in the areas attributed
to the various buildings. The main stand (with bar under) restaurant
and entrance turnstiles are newly built structures of good quality whilst
the stables and changing rooms are of older and more basic construction.
The Appellant's Evidence
7. Mr. O'Donnell having taken the oath adopted his written précis,
which had previously been received by the Tribunal as being his evidence
in chief. In evidence at hearing Mr. O'Donnell revised his opinion of
net annual value to €16,000 as against €13,251 in his précis
of evidence. The change arose from an amendment to the area of the bar
under stand from 59 sq.m. to 242 sq.m..
Appellant's Valuation
| Details |
Area(SM) |
Rate(€)/SM |
N.A.V. (€) |
| |
|
|
|
| Bar under Stand |
242 |
13.66 |
3,305.71 |
| Open Stand |
488 |
5.47 |
2,669.36 |
| Restaurant |
206 |
17.08 |
3,518.48 |
| Turnstiles |
65 |
13.66 |
887.90 |
| W.C. Block |
79 |
10.25 |
809.75 |
| Changing Room |
310 |
11.61 |
3,599.10 |
| Stables |
352 |
2.73 |
960.96 |
| |
|
|
------------ |
| |
|
|
15,751.27 |
| |
|
|
R.V. @ 0.5% €78.76 |
| |
|
|
Say €80.00 |
In support of his opinion of net annual value Mr. O'Donnell
introduced five comparisons, details of which are set out in the appendix
1 attached to this judgment.
8. In supplementary oral evidence Mr. O'Donnell said that he considered
Roscommon Race Course (comparison no.1) to be the most relevant. The
rateable valuation of this course (€152.37) was agreed prior to
the hearing of an appeal to this Tribunal. The devaluation of the assessment
was his and was not agreed with the respondent. In his opinion Roscommon
was a better course and had a Category 2 rating and hence attracted
more valuable races.
9. Mr. O'Donnell said that in arriving at his opinion of net annual
value he had examined the valuations of a number of other courses and
had regard to the square metre rates attributable to the constituent
buildings as set out in the details of his comparison.
10. Under cross-examination Mr. O'Donnell agreed that most rural racecourses
were managed by locally based committees on a non-profit making basis.
He also agreed that over £700,000 had been spent in carrying out
the recent improvements to Ballinrobe. Mr. O'Donnell pointed out however,
that this level of expenditure does not necessarily lead to a corresponding
increase in net annual value. In his opinion a rural racecourse such
as the subject would not let on the open market as it was a loss-making
venture and continued in operation solely on the basis of grants received
from the horse racing industry and the continuing support of racing
enthusiasts in the area.
Evidence for the Respondent
11. Mr. Forkin having taken the oath adopted his précis which
had previously been received by the Tribunal as being his evidence in
chief given under oath. In evidence Mr. Forkin contended for a rateable
valuation of £135 (€171.41) calculated as set out below:
Valuation
"BL1 Clubhouse 206m2 @ £26.91 = £5543
BL2 Turnstiles 59.73m2 @ £21.53 = £1286
BL3 Stand 486m2 @ £26.91* = £13078
BL 4 WCs 76.48m2 @ £21.53 = £1647
BL 5 Changing rms 310m2 @ £10.76 = £3336
BL6 Stables 353.40m2 @ £5.38 = £1901
Total: £26791
say £27,000@ .05% = £135 (€171.41)
*Takes into account bar under stand."
In support of his opinion of net annual value Mr. Forkin introduced
three comparisons as set out in the appendix attached to this judgment.
12. In supplementary oral evidence Mr. Forkin said that he had regard
to his comparisons when arriving at his opinion of net annual value.
In his opinion Killarney Race Course was the most relevant as it also
was a Category 3 racecourse and only hosts a small number of meetings
each year. The valuation of Killarney was agreed at first appeal stage
on the basis of accounts submitted by the appellant. In relation to
Roscommon the valuation was also agreed on the basis of accounts and
not on a comparative basis. The devaluation of the agreed figure contained
in his précis was his and was not the one agreed at the Tribunal
appeal stage. He agreed with Mr. O'Donnell that Roscommon was a better
location than the subject and that this was a factor to be taken into
account in arriving at an opinion of its net annual value. He further
agreed with Mr. O'Donnell that the stand in Roscommon was much larger
than the new stand in Ballinrobe. Mr. Forkin said that when examining
the details of his comparison he had come to the conclusion that the
agreed valuation of Roscommon was if anything on the low side and hence
not a very reliable comparison.
13. When asked about Killarney Race Course Mr. Forkin agreed that it
occupied a much better location than Ballinrobe and benefited substantially
from being situated in an established tourist area. Mr. Forkin said
that whilst the location was much better, the facilities in Killarney
were not as good as those in Ballinrobe.
Closing Remarks
14. Mr. O'Donnell in his closing remarks said Roscommon Race Course
was not agreed on an accounts basis. As far as he was concerned the
Rateable Valuation was agreed at £120 (€152.37) with no mutual
agreement as to how this figure was arrived at.
15. Mr. Forkin in his closing remarks reiterated his contention that
Roscommon was agreed on an accounts basis and in the absence of agreement
as to the method of valuation used it was, in his opinion, an unreliable
comparison.
Findings
1. It is common case that Ballinrobe is a non-profit making racecourse
in a rural location that would not continue to exist without the support
of the Irish Race Horse Industry.
2. The fact that an enterprise is non-profit making does not preclude
it from having a rental value. However in the absence of actual rents
being paid for racecourses it follows that the comparison and or accounts
method would be appropriate methods of arriving at the net annual value
of the relevant property. In this appeal neither valuer relied upon
accounts and their valuations were supported solely by the comparison
method.
3. Of the racecourses referred to at hearing Roscommon was the only
common comparison and this was discussed in great detail. Both valuers
considered it to be relevant but differed as to how the valuation was
agreed prior to a hearing of this Tribunal.
4. Mr. O'Donnell in his précis set out a useful analysis of his
comparisons, which produced an overall rate per square metre ranging
from a high of €22.13 (Punchestown) to a low of €9.64 for
Roscommon. A similar analysis of Mallow and Killarney racecourses produces
figures of €8.53 and €9.64 respectively.
5. Having regard to all the evidence adduced and bearing in mind that
Ballinrobe is a category 3 facility and the low level of horse racing
activity, the Tribunal has come to the view that an overall rate of
€10.50 per sq. m. is appropriate having regard to the nature and
scale of the buildings.
Accordingly therefore the Tribunal determines the net annual value of
the property concerned to be €18,400 calculated as follows:
Gross area of buildings 1742 m2@ €10.50 = €18,291
Net Annual Value Say €18,400
Rateable Valuation at 0.5% = €92.
6. The Tribunal therefore determines the rateable valuation of the property
concerned to be €92.