|
Appeal No. VA09/3/035
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Connie Briody Ltd APPELLANT RE: Property No. 2198255, Retail Warehouse, Store, Yard at Lot No. 30a, Kilnaleck, Kilnaleck, Cavan, County Cavan B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 16th day of August, 2009, the appellant appealed against
the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a valuation of €330 The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are "The Valuation is excessive and inequitable - Quantum only". The oral hearing in relation to this appeal was held on the 8th day of December, 2009 at the offices of the Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7. At the oral hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Alan McMillan, ASCS, MRICS, FIAVI, ACIArb and the respondent, the Commissioner of Valuation, by Mr. Francis Twomey, Valuer, Grade 1 in the Valuation Office. Mr. Connie Briody, proprietor of the appellant company was also in attendance. Issue The Property Concerned Location: The property is located approx 350 metres from the village of Kilnaleck. The village is approx 10km from Ballyjamesduff and 16km from Cavan town. Description: The property is a new development incorporating a retail warehouse and builders providers premises – 2 separate buildings. The first building incorporates a retail area selling general hardware, with a store to the rear. There is a showroom and a separate storage area on the upper floor. There is car-parking with a concrete surface to the front of this building. The second building incorporates the main warehouse used for storage of building materials. To the rear of this building there is a covered racking system for the storage of timber. There is a storage yard to the front of this building with a concrete surface. Accommodation The agreed accommodation is as set out below: Rating History On the 23rd December, 2008, a valuation certificate pursuant to section 28(6) of the Valuation Act, 2001 was issued indicating a rateable valuation of €330. No change was made on foot of an appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation under section 30 of the Act. It is against this decision by the Commissioner that the appeal to this Tribunal lies. The Appellant’s Evidence Mr. McMillan, prior to the oral hearing, forwarded a précis of evidence and valuation to the Tribunal, which was received into evidence under oath at the oral hearing. In his evidence Mr. McMillan contended for a rateable valuation of €218 as set out below: Building No. 1 Building No. 2 In support of his opinion of rateable valuation, Mr. McMillan introduced two comparisons, details of which are set out in Appendix 1 attached to this judgment. These relate to J.P. Brady & Son Ltd’s premises in Virginia and Arvagh, Co. Cavan. Mr. McMillan, at the outset, brought the attention of the Tribunal to his supplementary submissions in relation to floor areas and confirmed that they had been agreed with the respondent subject to some minor adjustments. Mr. McMillan provided evidence in line with his précis as follows:
2002 Census 2006 Census
The Respondent’s Evidence Mr. Twomey, prior to the oral hearing, forwarded a précis of evidence and valuation to the Tribunal, which was received into evidence under oath at the oral hearing. In his evidence Mr. Twomey contended for a rateable valuation of €330 as set out below: Retail 624 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre = €25,584 Mr. Twomey in his evidence said that in arriving at his opinion of rateable valuation he had regard to the location of the property and the quality of construction. In his opinion the valuation put forward by him was fair and reasonable and well supported by the comparisons introduced by him. Under cross-examination, Mr. Twomey insisted that Airpacks Ltd., which was his first comparison and located across the road from the subject, was his top comparator. He described it in terms of a “tone of the list” comparison, being factory premises of similar construction and location to the subject. In particular Mr. Twomey contrasted the subject premises with Woodies of Lakeland Retail Park in Cavan which was at the higher end of the spectrum. Mr. Twomey also dealt in depth with the rates per sq. metre applicable to the various elements of all his comparisons. Challenged by Mr. McMillan that any comparison with Woodies was unfair, Mr. Twomey replied that the 20% discount which he applied to the rate per sq. metre for Woodies when valuing the subject property was a realistic reflection of the differential between the two premises. Disagreeing, Mr. McMillan stated that 20% was a substantial under-discount. Findings
Determination Retail 624 sq. metres @ €32.00 per sq. metre = €19,968 Total NAV = €58,729 And the Tribunal so determines. |