|
Appeal No. VA06/3/017 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA New Look Retailers Limited APPELLANT RE: Shop at Lot No. Unit 49, Douglas Court Shopping
Centre, Douglas, Cork Lower, County Cork B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 24th day of July, 2006 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €680.00 on the above described relevant property. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are: "The Revision Officer has not had regard to the established tone of the list within this shopping centre. The Revision Officer is not entitled to have regard to comparisions valued at the same time as the subject property." The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, held at the offices of the Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 31st day of October, 2006. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Joseph Bardon, FSCS, FRICS. The respondent was represented by Mr. Terry Dineen, B.Agr.Sc., a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. Location and Description Services Title Area Appellant's Evidence 496 sq. metres @ €191.35 per sq. metre = NAV €94,909 He said that there were a total of 60 units in the Centre and car parking for about 900 cars around the Centre. There were three entrances into the Centre with a double entrance at the busiest area. The other two entrances are known as the South Entrance and the Market Entrance. The premises was previously a coffee shop which closed down and the appellants took it over with one or more other units so the property was now larger, at 496 sq. metres, than when trading as a coffee shop. He stated that Mr. Dineen had indicated that he had approached the rateable valuation by reference to the "Tone of the List" as set out in his Valuation Report. He had had no regard to the other kiosk unit (occupied by NEXT) in the Centre and no allowance was made by the Valuation Office for the larger area of the subject. There was, he said, a lack of consistency on the part of Mr. Dineen. The two comparisons quoted in his report, Unit 45 Jean Scene and Unit 2 Vera Moda were much smaller than the subject property. The subject property is similar in size to the premises used by NEXT, is 39% larger than Jean Scene and 5.5 times the size of Vero Moda. There are 15 kiosk type units in the Centre with the balance being conventional units located around the edge of the Centre. He submitted that it was more appropriate to value the subject premises by reference to other kiosk units rather than conventional units and that the only kiosk type unit comparable in size to the premises under appeal was the NEXT unit which was valued by Mr. Dineen in 2000. NEXT had an RV of €514.24, the retail portion being valued at €191.34 per sq metre and the stores at €54.59 per sq. metre. The subject premises were valued by Mr. Dineen at €275.00 per sq. metre for the entire unit. Mr. Bardon introduced one comparison, NEXT, in support of his estimate of net annual value. Cross-examined by Mr. Dineen, Mr. Bardon reiterated that it was preferable, though not an absolute requirement, that a kiosk unit should be compared with a kiosk unit - the subject property with the property occupier by NEXT. The only other kiosk unit of comparable size was NEXT. He said that both NEXT and the subject premises are similar in size, both in the middle of the centre, close to Dunnes Stores and each had two entrances. Mr. Dineen put it to him that the double entrance at Jean Scene premises was the least used of the three entrances. Mr. Bardon did not accept this. He also said that rents in Ireland for the purpose of valuation were irrelevant. The RV should be fixed by reference to the 'tone of the list' - Section 49 (1) of the Valuation Act, 2001. He then referred to the recent decision of the Valuation Tribunal in VA06/2/045 - Orange Tree Ltd., wherein it is stated at page 15 thereof that Section 49 (1) requires the value of property concerned to be determined by reference to the values appearing in the valuation list, not by reference to rents. Respondent's Evidence Initially the Centre traded poorly so that by the first gale day in June, 1990 rents were rebated to 50% of the negotiated figures - to continue until an acceptable level of customer numbers was reached. In 1990 and on the basis of this rent rebate he had made 32 unit valuations with a 60% reduction of the headline rents and at that time the reducing percentage in this area was 0.63%. He had advised the tenants that these valuations were interim only and would be reviewed when trading improved. At appeal stage in mid 1991 the situation was that the negotiated rents were to hand and the rent reductions turned out to be between minus 20% and minus 33.3% of the headline figures and not 50% as already stated. In 1996, by Tribunal decision the reducing percentage for Cork Lower was changed to 0.5% from 0.63% but no reviews took place in the valuations for Douglas Centre. Since 1990 mixed valuation methods had been employed, some based on areas
and some on rentals. He then quoted an extract from the Orange Tree case at page 11 therein,
wherein it is stated: Under cross examination by Mr. Bardon, Mr. Dineen said that he was involved in this Centre since 1990. He would not agree that the NEXT premises should be taken as a comparison just because it was a kiosk. There were flaws in the kiosk comparison as it was not a rental based comparison. He said that he was not inconsistent in his 5 comparisons [see the Appendix attached to this judgment] as set out in his précis. In his first comparison he valued the restaurant at €278 per sq. metre. In his second comparison he valued the entire at €288.90 per sq. metre and in the third he valued the entire at €220.90 per sq. metre. In the fourth comparison he valued at €272.72 per sq. metre and in his fifth, the NEXT premises, he valued the entire ground floor at €191.34 per sq. metre. None of these valuations were appealed to the Tribunal. In his third comparison Jean Scene, which was a 2000 revision, the rate was €220.90 for an entire area of 357 sq. metres. In the NEXT premises the revision was also in 2000 and the rate per sq. metre was €191.34 for the entire ground floor area of 458 sq. metres, a per sq. metre difference of €29.56. When asked to explain this differential in the two revisions in 2000 he said that he could not. Findings 1. That the basis of valuation is set out clearly in Section 49(1) of
the Valuation Act, 2001. To quote from the Orange Tree decision: Determination 496 sq. metres @ €205 per sq. metre = €101,680 The Tribunal considers this determination as fair and equitable in the circumstances. And the Tribunal so determines. |