|
Appeal No. VA05/1/026
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Murray Stores Ltd. APPELLANT RE: Shop Store at Lot No. 1Babc/2, Mullaghmore West,
Bellanode, County Monaghan. B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 25th day of February, 2005, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €123.00 on the above described relevant property. The Grounds of Appeal are set out in the Notice of Appeal a copy of which is contained in Appendix 1 to this judgment. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing that took place in the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 20th April, 2005. Mr. Gerry Murray represented the Appellant and Mr Tomás Cassidy, B.Sc. Property Management & Valuations, MIAVI, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office, represented the respondent. At the oral hearing, both parties, having taken the oath, adopted their respective précis which had previously been received by the Tribunal as being their evidence in chief. Description: The subject property, which consists of a grocery shop, hardware shop and Post Office, is located at Main Street, Bellanode, Co. Monaghan. Valuation History: Having taken the oath Mr. Gerry Murray confirmed to the Tribunal that
the submission received by the Tribunal office from him on the 6th April
2005 was a true copy of his submission and the basis of his appeal to
the Tribunal. He further confirmed to the Tribunal that he was not pursuing
one of the grounds of appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal namely that
"The property should be considered as a mixed hereditament and re-assessed."
With regard to the Tone of the List, he referred to a floor plan of the shop, offices and stores which he had supplied with his submissions and of which a copy is attached at Appendix 2 to this judgment. He said that the areas marked 2 and 3 on the ground floor were overvalued at €61.50 per sq. metre because they had no frontage or view and therefore should be valued the same as area no. 4 at €41.00 per sq. metre. With regard to area no.1, the grocery shop, he said this was the most valuable part of the property because it joined the road. With regard to the first floor, he said that the areas marked 8,9,10 on the floor plan were originally all part of area no. 6 on the plan but, because he needed office space, he had partitioned them off. He felt that the valuation of the shop, with its large floor area, was excessive when compared with other properties of a much smaller size. Mr. Murray also said that the subject property, given its rural location in a village with a population of 822 and with very little passing trade, could not be compared for valuation purposes with properties in Emyvale which is located on the Main Dublin/Derry road with a large passing trade and which was the location of two of the respondent's comparisons. Under cross-examination by Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Murray confirmed that the analysis of the RV of the two comparisons and of the subject property which Mr. Murray had set out in his submission to the Tribunal were his own and not a Valuation Office analysis. Respondent's case: Grocery Shop/Post Office 165.61sq. metres @ €61.50 per sq. metre=
€10,185.02 Mr. Cassidy's comparisons are set in Appendix 3 to this judgment. The subject property as revised in 2002/02 revision was his first comparison. At that time the shop was only 65 sq. metres, valued at €68.34 per sq. metre with a detached store 105 sq. metres at the rear valued at €20.50 per sq. metre. His second comparison, also located at Main Street, Bellanode was valued at €68.34 per sq. metre. on the shop (75.43 sq. metre) and at €34.17 per sq. metre on the store (6.00 sq. metres). This valuation was agreed at first appeal. Mr. Cassidy acknowledged that his third and fourth comparisons, both located in Emyvale had a better location than the subject and benefited from passing trade. In reply to the Tribunal Chairperson about the consistency of his approach in weighting Emyvale over Bellanode as a location, Mr. Cassidy agreed that there was a premium to be paid between Emyvale and the subject, reflected in the respective levels of €75.17 and €61.50 per sq. metre on the ground floor shops, and that a comparable premium between office first floor and retail first floor was probably not reflected in his valuation. Findings The Tribunal is grateful for the quality of the submissions and the arguments made by the parties and makes the following findings: • The Tribunal is bound by the provisions of the Valuation Act 2001
in terms of the manner in which the "tone of the list" is employed
and by the requirement to consider comparable properties having similar
functions. Determination: Having regard to the foregoing the Tribunal determines the RV of the subject property to be €115 calculated as set out below: [Floor Plan] Area/Level NAV Net Annual Value €23,085.30 And the Tribunal so determines.
|