Appeal No. VA02/4/036
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001
VALUATION ACT, 2001
Mrs. Geraldine Browne APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Shop at Map Reference: 58E/Shop1,
Rathfarnham Gate Mall, Rathfarnham Village, County Dublin
B E F O R E
Frank Malone - Solicitor Deputy Chairperson
Patrick Riney - FSCS FRICS MIAVI Member
Joseph Murray - Barrister Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2003
By Notice of Appeal dated 13 November 2002 the appellant
appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation
in fixing a rateable valuation of €69.84 on the above described
relevant property.
The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are:
"On the basis that the estimated RV is excessive, inequitable and
bad in law."
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which was
held on 29th January 2003 in the Valuation Tribunal Offices. The appellants
were represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin (BSC surveying) ASCS, ARCS, MIAVI
and the Respondent was represented by Mr. Denis Maher, District Valuer
with over 27 years experience in the Valuation Office, three years experience
in private practice and membership of the Royal Institute of Chartered
Surveyors. Both Valuers prepared written summaries of their evidence
which they exchanged with each other, gave copies to the Valuation Tribunal
and adopted same as their evidence in chief given under oath at the
oral hearing.
Property Description
The property comprises a ground floor shop unit, one of four similar
type units in the mixed development located on either side of a plaza/walkway
linking the Main Street with Rathfarnham Road. The premises is of concrete
block and brick construction with offset frontage finished with period
style timber façade. Stud partitioned internally to suit occupiers
requirements.
Valuation History
Property revised 10 November 2000 and no change made at First Appeal
on 17 October 2002.
Appellant's Case
Mr. Halpin stated that the premises comprises a modern ground floor
office/retail unit which formed part of the ground floor of a large
apartment development in the centre of Rathfarnham Village. The subject
property is one of four similar type units with two on either side of
an open courtyard which serves as one of the pedestrian entrances to
the scheme. He pointed out that the property was located in a small
courtyard set back from the main street in Rathfarnham which cannot
be seen from the main street and referred to one of the photographs
in his submission. In his opinion this was more an office than a retail
type location.
The premises currently operates as a beauty saloon with
a reception area, two small offices/consulting rooms, a kitchenette
and a WC. The agreed floor areas were (63.54 sq metres, 684 sq feet).
The premises is held under 25 year FRI (5 year reviews) lease from December
1999 at an initial rent of €21,585.55(£17,000.00) per annum.
In referring to his submission he emphasized the following points :
(1) Although the subject property was close to the street, it had no
frontage and was not visible from it.
(2) In his opinion, because of the location of the subject property
and the type, nature and layout of the development, this was not a prime
retail location, although close to the main shopping street.
(3) He stated the location was not comparable with the best retail units
in the village.
(4) He considered the NAV 1988 tone applied by the Commissioner to be
excessive in view of the comparables submitted by him.
(5) He stated that the Commissioner relied heavily on the other three
units in this development at the first appeal stage. However the appellants
feel that the unit must also be viewed against the overall established
level of valuations in the village itself.
(6) He also stated that in view of the fact that the other three units
in the development were currently subject to a Tribunal appeal and the
fact that the Tribunal Judgment for Sureslim - VA01/3/098 had primarily
dealt with the passing rent with the three adjoining units only used
as comparables, he was of the opinion that additional evidence was now
available to the Tribunal.
Mr. Halpin referred in some detail to his comparisons:
1. Numbers 45 and 46 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
2. 48 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
3. 49a Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
4. 40 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
5. Numbers 16 and 18 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
6. 50 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
7. 54 Main Street, Rathfarnham Village.
In view of the foregoing comparisons and the rental levels applied,
he considered a fair rateable valuation to be R.V. €50 calculated
as follows:
Floor Area 63.54m2 @ €125/m2 = €7938 x .63% = RV€50
The Respondent's Case
Mr. Denis Maher, presented the respondents case and referred in some
detail to his submission.
He described the property as situated within a mixed development
of apartments, shops and offices positioned to the rear of Main Street
and between it and Rathfarnham Road. He stated that the property comprised
a ground floor shop unit which is one of four similar type units in
the mixed development and located on either side of a plaza/walkway
linking the Main Street with Rathfarnham Road.
He stated this Unit was part of a development known as
Rathfarnham Gate that consisted mainly of new apartments together with
four office units, four shop units and both surface level and underground
parking.
He pointed out the subject unit was situated adjacent
to and was generally similar in size and layout to Unit 3 which was
the subject of a Tribunal appeal reference VA01/3/098 - Sureslim Wellness
Clinic. The judgment in this case affirmed the valuation of €69.84,
thereby setting a tone in respect of the four units here all of which
are similar and valued at €69.84.
He pointed out this was a retail unit and used as a beauty
salon trading as "The Pampered Bell Beauty Salon"
In his opinion the property was located very close to
the Main Street being immediately to the rear of the shops fronting
to the Main Street. The access was centrally positioned off the east
side of the street. There was no evidence to suggest that this is a
secondary location either in itself or relative to the Main Street.
There were no changes in circumstances between the time the lease/rent
was struck and the Valuation date which might adversely affect property
values here. Consequently the rent passing and the adjustment to 1988
allowance of approximately 49% off this has to be seen as fair and reasonable.
He also stated that both Tribunal judgments VA01/3/098 (Sureslim Wellness
Clinic) and VA02/2/052 (McInerney Construction Ltd.), have determined
the levels applicable to this development in themselves and provide
the best comparisons.
In view of the foregoing he considered a rateable valuation of €69.84
to be fair and reasonable. He referred to shop units 3 and 4 in the
Rathfarnham Gate Mall as suitable comparisons and also to the offices
which had been sublet by McInerney Construction Ltd. at €143.37
per square metre.
Valuation Office Valuation
Floor Area 63.76sq.m. @ €175psq.m. = €11,158
Say €11,000 @ 0.63% = €69.93
Say €69.84
Findings
The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence adduced and arguments
proffered and makes the following findings:
1. The subject property is located in a small courtyard set back from
the Main Street in Rathfarnham Village. It occupies the ground floor
of a modern apartment development and in view of its position and lack
of visibility from the Main Street it is considered to be a secondary
commercial location in comparison to the Main Street.
2. The Sureslim Wellness Clinic judgment was based on the evidence of
the passing rent on the three adjoining premises. In view of the fact
that a considerable amount of evidence has been submitted in regard
to rental levels on the Main Street, it is considered that the details
submitted in regard to numbers 16,18 and 54 Main Street, Rathfarnham
are of great assistance.
3. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Halpin's evidence that the location is not
comparable with the best retail units in the village and that although
close to Main street, the location itself is more suitable as an office
or quasi retail location.
Determination
In view of the foregoing the Tribunal determines the Rateable Valuation
of the subject property to be as follows:
Agreed Floor Area: 63.54sq. m @ €150psm = €9531.00
@ 0.63% = €60.04
Say RV = €60