|
Appeal No. VA01/2/035 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Jordan Dexter Carpets APPELLANT RE: Shop at Map Reference 20a, Kilmacud
Road Lower, B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 8th day of August 2001,
the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of
Valuation in fixing a Rateable Valuation of £136 (€172.68),
on the above described hereditaments. The grounds of appeal were set out
in the Notice of Appeal as follows: 1. This appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the Offices of the Tribunal, at Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 28th November 2001. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin ASCS, MRICS, MIAVI of Eamonn Halpin and Company. The respondent was represented by Mr. Damien Curran ASCS, MRICS a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. 2. The property under appeal is a retail unit at ground
floor level in a two storey semi-detached building located on the south
side of lower Kilmacud Road directly opposite the Stillorgan Shopping
Centre. The premises are occupied by the appellant under a lease for a
term of 25 years on the 1st August 1999. The rent payable under the lease
is £60,000 per annum but for the first two years this was abated
to £50,000 and £55,000 respectively. The premises are used
for the sale of carpets. 4. Mr. Halpin in his evidence contended for a rateable
valuation of £90 calculated on the following basis. 5. At the hearing Mr. Halpin amended his evidence in relation
to comparisons 1 and 3 as set out below. Comparison 3 The above calculation would give a rateable valuation of £108 as against the rateable valuation of £100, which appears in the valuation list. 6. In evidence to the Tribunal Mr. Halpin said that the
properties on this side of Lower Kilmacud Road had been subject to revision
on a number of occasions over the past several years. As a consequence
the level of valuation was creeping upwards and this was borne out by
an examination of the comparisons. Mr. Halpin was also critical of Mr.
Curran's valuation approach and was of the opinion that he was unduly
influenced by the level of rent paid for the subject property and did
not have adequate regard to the established levels of rateable valuations
for similar properties in the vicinity. In his opinion the most relevant
comparison was that introduced by him at No. 24 Lower Kilmacud Road. On a zoning basis he put forward the following valuation. In his evidence to the Tribunal Mr. Curran said the premises occupied a good commercial location with excellent car parking facilities in the Stillorgan Shopping Centre on the opposite side of the road. 8. In relation to his valuation approach Mr. Curran said he had carried out an examination of a number of recent assessments in the area and found that the majority of these were valued on an overall basis and hence he had come to the conclusion that this was the most appropriate method in the circumstances of this appeal having regard to the size and location of the property. Nonetheless in regard to his comparisons number 1 and 3, he had carried out an exercise which indicated a rate of £37 and £38 per square foot effectively. In using the zoning method he considered two zones and the remainder to be the most appropriate having regard to the size and nature of the property and its location. The properties on this section of the south side of the Lower Kilmacud Road were he said formerly semi detached residences but due to the development of the Shopping Centre they had changed to a mixture of retail and office. 9. Findings 1. The Tribunal has noted that although there is evidence
of a passing rent neither valuer has relied upon this evidence and have
arrived at their opinions of value by reference to the assessments of
comparable properties. 10. Determination |