|
Appeal No. VA94/3/011 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Shelbourne Greyhound Stadium Limited APPELLANT RE: Stadium at Map Ref: 43a, South Lotts Road, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 21st October, 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £1,000.00 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:- The Property: Accommodation: Total stadium capacity is 15,000, and there is full closed circuit T.V. coverage throughout. A new development completed June, 1991 provided the following:- (2) Substantial upgrading to ground floor concourse including restaurant
facilities, new (3) Addition of conservatory to east of main stand. Valuation History: Following the completion of phases 2 & 3 (August, 1995) the property will be again the subject of a Revision request. Written Submissions: Under the heading of attendances, he said that, attendances had been
in rapid and incessant decline for the past 15 years. Specifically, he
said, the overall reduction from 1980 to 1993 is a drop of 64%. In relation
to tote, he said that, tote turnover had experienced a reduction from
£3.87m to £1.353m over the same period, that is, a 64% drop.
Mr. McMillan said that this contrasts with a pattern of consistent if modest profits for many years up to 1988. In relation to Revenue, Mr. McMillan said that the accounts showed a decline in real terms of 42% in revenue from 1980 to 1993. Viewed from these four perspectives, he said, it was evident that a substantive and material diminution in beneficial and rateable occupation, due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, resulted in the R.V. at issue being now and for some years past excessive and as such inequitable. Mr. McMillan therefore set out his valuation on a number of basis which
are summarised below:-
(2) Attendance and Tote Basis Attendance: RV £1,255 x 36% = £452 = RV £370 (3) Comparison with Cork and Limerick Tracks The 1993 attendance and tote figures for Cork and Limerick were almost
identical at approximately 58% of Shelbourne Park levels. On a pro rata
basis and taking the RV £190 x 100/50 = RV £327 Say, RV £330 (4) Analysis of Trading Accounts A written submission was received on the 19th April, 1995 from Mr. Peter
Conroy, District Valuer with 25 years experience in rating valuations
on behalf of the respondent. In his written submission, Mr. Conroy described
the property, its location and accommodation. He set out the valuation
history, summarised above. Mr. Conroy set out his valuation on the subject
premises as follows:- "Main Stand: 7,634 sq.ft. @ £4.00 = £ 30,536 N.A.V.: £158,000 @ .63% = £995.50
Estimated Capital Value: = £2.5m Estimated Capital Value @ £2.5m is indeed modest. Current replacement
cost of main stand, based broadly on cost of new extension, would be in
the region of £2 - £2.5m, excluding site costs and other ancillary
buildings." (2) Trustees of Punchestown Racecourse - VA93/3/035 Mr. Conroy said that the best comparison for Shelbourne Park was Harolds Cross but that Harolds Cross was currently under appeal. In conclusion, Mr. Conroy said that the rateable valuation determined by the Commissioner of Valuation was fair and reasonable. He said that while it is admitted that attendances have fallen considerably over the past number of years the accounts were of little assistance in assessing Net Annual Value as low profitability did not automatically result in low rental values. Oral Hearing: The respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Conroy of the Valuation Office. Referring to his written précis, Mr. McMillan seemed to rely heavily on the undeniable decline in attendance and tote figures between the years 1980 and 1993. Mr. McMillan gave comparative evidence in relation to the tracks at Cork and Limerick, valued at £220.00 and £160.00 respectively. He submitted that taking their attendance figures on a pro rata basis with the subject, a fair valuation for the latter would be in the region of £330.00. Mr. McMillan submitted that the attendance figures must be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate R.V. for the subject, and stated that economic reality must not be ignored. Mr. Hynes gave evidence that there was no cyclical element in the fortunes of greyhound racing generally, but that there had been a constant slide downwards since 1980 approximately. In reply to questions from Mr. Conroy, Mr. Hynes explained that one cannot increase prices where there is a limited and falling market and that an increase in admission prices was simply not feasible. Mr. Conroy referred to his written submission and went on to point out that the accounts as furnished by the appellant were of limited assistance in arriving at a valuation since they indicated that if the appellant were an independent commercial company, it would be insolvent. Mr. Conroy submitted that the non-profit element had already been accounted for in the valuation arrived at, and he further pointed out that the non-profit element was referred to as far back as 1970. Mr. Conroy accepted that the extension built in 1991 was largely unremunerative but submitted that the £1m grant, coming as it did directly from government sources, may have been expended in ways which were not entirely grounded on a commercial basis. Mr. Conroy submitted further that the 1991 investment had certainly not detracted from the letting value of the stadium. He further pointed out that neither this track nor the others in the State had been valued on the basis of profits or attendances. Determination: The Tribunal accepts fully the evidence proffered by the appellant in relation to attendance figures, tote figures and Profit and Loss Accounts. In light of the limited comparative evidence adduced by either party, the Tribunal must have regard to what the hypothetical tenant would be likely to pay for the subject hereditament, in its actual state. These are high quality buildings in a prime location. Their intrinsic value is indicated by the investment of £1m approximately in 1991 and the on going works the cost of which has been estimated at £2.5m. While the Tribunal does not accept fully Mr. Conroy's contention that the subject hereditament is not being managed to its full potential commercial capacity, it is nonetheless difficult to ignore the State's involvement and investment in the subject. The Tribunal accepts that the non-profit element has been taken into consideration by the respondent in arriving at the current rateable valuation. In the circumstances, and in the light of all the evidence adduced, the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||