|
Appeal No. VA02/3/009 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Dairygold APPELLANT RE: Shop, Store and Yard at Map Reference
27P Kilmoney Road Lower, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 23rd May 2002, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €857 on the relevant property above described . The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the said Notice of
Appeal are that: This appeal came before the Tribunal by way of an oral hearing held in the Council Chamber, Cork County Council, Cork on the 11th October 2002. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Ms Sheelagh O'Buachalla BA., ASCS., a Director of GVA Donal O'Buachalla and Mr Patrick McMorrow B.Agr.Sc.(Economics) ASCS., MIAVI., a District Valuer in the Valuation Office, represented the respondent. Both parties to the appeal provided written précis of evidence to the Tribunal and exchanged them with each other in advance of the oral hearing. This evidence was supplemented by additional evidence obtained either directly or via the cross-examination process. From the evidence so tendered the following relevant facts either agreed or so found emerged as being material to this appeal. The Property A Co-op Superstore used for traditional agri-hardware, house furnishings, electrical white goods and garden centre sales. A large, newly constructed shop with garden centre stores and associated offices, situate upon an extensive surfaced yard and car parking facility, with two older store buildings at the rear of the site. The main shop is a modern warehouse type structure with a significant amount of glazing, clad in masonry brick, formal entry under glazed canopy, with an elevated metal clad roof to the rear section accommodating a mezzanine floor within. The garden centre located to the side of this new structure is primarily open and confined within a high profile palisade style metal fence. Both parties agreed that the interior fit-out, the level of natural and recessed fluorescent lighting and suspended ceiling are all to a high commercial / retail standard. The ceiling height in the main shop floor area exceeds 4 metres. The mezzanine or first floor designed for retail / showroom use has not yet been used for said purposes. Location The subject property is located to the west or rear of the various properties fronting the western side of Main Street, and north of Kilmoney Road Lower, on the fringe of Carrigaline's centre core commercial area. The subject property is also located south of the Carrigaline Shopping Centre with ingress and egress provided solely by means of an entrance and exit point at Kilmoney Road Lower. Carrigaline is a developing satellite town located approximately 10 kilometres south of Cork City in the west harbour area and has a population in the town and surrounding area of approximately 11,000 persons. Both parties to the Appeal agreed in advance to the areas of the property, summarized as follows; Use Sq. Metres However, immediately prior to commencement of the Hearing, Ms. O'Buachalla and Mr. McMorrow both agreed to a change in the measured area of the Yard / Parking to 3,527 m². The effect of this adjustment resulted in a mathematically agreed RV calculation of €659.00 as different from Ms. O'Buachalla's calculation of €651.00 and an apparent RV amount of €853.90 as compared to an RV calculation of €862.92 in the Respondent's Valuation. Tenure Interest in the subject property is held freehold. The site was acquired over 25 years ago by Ballyclough Co-op, which was subsequently taken over by Dairygold and no details of the purchase price were made available to the Tribunal. Valuation History Revision 2001 / 3 RV €857.00 (£675.00) The Appellant's Submission Having taken the oath, Ms. O'Buachalla summarized the basis of the Appeal as outlined in her written submission. In summary, she addressed herself to five specific issues which she felt had not been taken into account by the Respondent, as follows; • The property is on the outskirts of Carrigaline
town and therefore does not enjoy the profile or prominence of a town
centre property. She then addressed the four Comparisons provided by her in her submission, details of which are contained in Appendix 1, attached herewith. Ms. O'Buachalla indicated that her Comparison No. 3, i.e. Dairygold, 8D, Raheen, Limerick, was now in her view possibly not suitable and the figures not reliable. She then noted a correction to be made on the detail of her Comparison No. 4, being the Lidl Supermarket in Mallow, which she stated should correctly read as follows; Retail : 998m² x €68.31 In concluding her presentation, Ms. O'Buachalla strongly contended that the subject property should not be compared to supermarkets for the purpose herein. Mr. McMorrow commenced cross-examination of Ms. O'Buachalla by challenging the "warehouse" description in the Appellant's submission. Ms. O'Buachalla responded by acknowledging that the shop premises is fitted out to a very good retail standard. In response to further questioning by Mr. McMorrow, she advised that the building was erected in 2000 at a cost of €2.540 million (£2 million), including all works, but excluding the older stores at the rear and the site value. Mr. McMorrow expressed his opinion that the profile and access to the subject is similar in effect to the nearby Super-Valu. Ms. O'Buachalla challenged Mr. McMorrow on this point indicating that the latter supermarket is located in a Shopping Centre and the subject property of this Appeal has no direct street profile. She then provided the Tribunal with photographs to support her position on this. Mr. McMorrow questioned the nature of the Planning Permission and in particular asserted and Ms. O'Buachalla agreed, that Retail Hardware Planning Permission normally requires additional parking relative to supermarkets. He produced a photograph of the Dairygold premises located on the Dublin Road in Fermoy. Ms. O'Buachalla, having looked at the photograph, agreed that the structure in that photograph is a better representation of her understanding of a warehouse type building. In the case of Middleton, again having looked at photographs produced by Mr. McMorrow, she informed the Tribunal that though the structure there is older, that particular Dairygold premises is very well fitted out, though somewhat restricted in function due to its age. She confirmed in reply to Mr. McMorrow, that the Raheen premises being her Comparison No. 3, is not now one to rely upon. Mr. McMorrow provided a photograph of the Lidl premises in Mallow, which indicated a more standard form stand alone metal building and Ms. O'Buachalla agreed with Mr. McMorrow that the ceiling height or headroom in the latter is considerably lower than the subject. Respondents Case Having taken the oath and adopted his précis as his evidence-in-chief, Mr. McMorrow drew the Tribunal's attention to the following two changes on Page 7 of his submission; A. The old stores of 880 m² to now read €17.09
/ sq. m or £1.25 per sq. foot, correcting the NAV to read €15,037.67. Mr. McMorrow also brought the Tribunal's attention to typographical changes required on pages 9 and 10 wherein the headers typed € / sq. metre should be taken to read £ / sq. metre. At the request of the Chairman, Mr. McMorrow provided the Tribunal with an undertaking that he would arrange to have a Valuation Certificate re-issued and submitted to the Registrar's office with the currency symbols on the Rateable Valuation line to be clearly distinguished as Euro, as distinct from the £ symbols overwritten in pen as € and somewhat confusing on the Certificate included with his submission. Mr. McMorrow then summarised his précis and addressed the following matters; • The products sold within the premises He acknowledged that the subject does not have Main Street access. On the basis of the foregoing, he contended that the more common basic Agri-stores structures and finishes are not appropriate comparisons to be used for the purpose herein. Mr. McMorrow's submission incorporated five Comparisons, which are attached as Appendix 2, herein. On his Comparison A, he informed the Tribunal that the NAV on the retail area of nearby Collins' Super-Valu, on the northern bank of the Owenabue River, is calculated at €88.83 for the much larger retail area. Retail area in the subject premises has been calculated by the Valuation Office at €68.35 / sq. m. Mr. McMorrow guided the Tribunal through his Comparisons B, C, D, and E, advising that the Robert Acton Store is located in Kinsale, a town with a population of 2,237 persons showing an NAV of €75.12 / m² on an area approximately one third that of the subject. He confirmed that the NAV on his Comparison C is based on passing rent. He also confirmed that his Comparison D, being Dairygold in Mallow town, benefits from good street frontage, but suffers from the provision of inadequate parking and one-way access. He concluded his summary, and Ms. O'Buachalla commenced her cross-examination of Mr. McMorrow. In reply to her enquiry, Mr. McMorrow stated that he did not know if his Comparison A included an Off Licence. Ms. O'Buachalla confirmed that there is an Off Licence in Collins' Super-Valu. Mr. McMorrow stated that a supermarket is valued just as a supermarket, as it is, with or without an Off Licence. He acknowledged that Collins' Super-Valu is integrated with a Shopping Centre and benefits from good profile. He stated that the subject is approximately three times greater in retail floor area and that he would accept the principle and practice of the application of a quantum allowance on his Kinsale Comparison but concluded his statement by saying that this allowance is then countered by the relatively smaller population base in Kinsale. He accepted Ms. O'Buachalla's contention that the Aldi comparison is within a retail park and not a particularly suitable comparison. Mr. McMorrow stated that if the Valuation exercise were to be assessed on the basis of taking all the property as one, upon the subject, the RV would calculate to a higher level than the Revision figure. He affirmed that his Comparison D, Dairygold, Mallow, was calculated on an NAV basis and again acknowledged that it does enjoy good street profile. In conclusion he confirmed to Ms. O'Buachalla that he would nominate the nearby Collins' Super-Valu as his most relevant or suitable Comparison. Ms. O'Buachalla contended very strongly that the difference in Planning Permissions granted between the subject and Super-Valu should be recognized and taken into account in the Valuation of the subject. Findings The Tribunal has carefully considered the contents of the written submissions, the agreed amendments and adjustments thereto and the arguments proffered by both parties at the Hearing. In so doing it finds as follows :- 1. With the agreed adjustment on the calculation of area of the yard / parking facility, the areas for each of the listed uses of the subject property are agreed by the parties. 2. The general description of the various elements of the property are not in dispute. The parties reached an understanding at the Hearing in terms of the nature of the design and construction of the main store, including fit out and general finish specifications. 3. Both parties agreed that the Planning Permission granted to Dairygold for the property was specific to the stated purposes as per Copy of "Notification of Decision to Grant Permission S/98/3547 issued by Cork Co. Council and provided in the Appellant's submission. 4. Both parties agreed that sole ingress and egress to/from the property off Kilmoney Road Lower mitigates unfavourably with those retail properties enjoying Main Street access. 5. Both parties acknowledged and mutually agreed to the typographical corrections in their respective written submissions, as noted above. 6. The Appellant and Respondent acknowledged the difficulties of identifying suitable comparable properties, which would serve as more useful to the purpose. 7. Though differences remained between the parties on
the NAV's which they each contended as more indicative of market conditions
to each of the seven areas outlined in their Valuation summaries, it appeared
that the main difference between them was primarily based on : Determination. The Tribunal shares the view held by the Appellant that the nature of the Planning Permission and consequent use of the property should be considered for what it is. The Tribunal does not consider the Respondent's preferred Comparison A, i.e. Collins' Supermarket, being a major retail grocery and Off Licence outlet within the nearby Carrigaline Shopping Centre, as an appropriate or suitable property to compare. The Tribunal concludes that the nature and trade conducted at or through an Agri-business retail outlet, is different in many ways to a Supermarket viz. :- (i) Products being offered for sale With all of the foregoing considered, the Tribunal concludes that a fair and reasonable Valuation on the subject would be an assessment based on the following values :-
NAV €154,847.41 x 0.5% = €774.24 The Tribunal so determines an RV on the subject of €774
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||