Appeal No. VA07/2/046
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001
VALUATION ACT, 2001
Adrian Doyle APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Shop at Lot No. 20/Unit 1, Meakstown, Dublin, Dubber,
Airport, County Dublin
B E F O R E
John Kerr - BBS. ASCS. MRICS. FIAVI Chairperson
Aidan McNulty - Solicitor Member
Mairéad Hughes - Hotelier Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007
By Notice of Appeal received on the 21st day of June, 2007 the appellant
appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in
fixing a rateable valuation of €460 on the above described relevant
The grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are:
"On the basis that the valuation as assessed is excessive inequitable
and out of line with comparable property already contained within the
valuation list in Fingal. This is a very moderate commercial location
within a small neighbourhood centre and the Commissioners estimated NAV
is grossly excessive in view of the actual location and the relative worth
of the property."
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing at the Office of the Valuation
Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 5th day of
September, 2007. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn
Halpin, Eamonn Halpin & Co. Ltd, 5 Fitzwilliam Terrace, Bray, Co Wicklow.
The respondent was represented by Mr. Frank O'Connor, ASCS, MIAVI, a District
Valuer in the Valuation Office.
Adrian Doyle had a Valuation Certificate issued on 7th November, 2006
for an RV of €460. The Commissioner of Valuation received an appeal
against this valuation in December, 2006. Following consideration of the
appeal, no change was made, and the decision was issued on 25th May, 2007.
An Appeal to the Valuation Tribunal was lodged on 21st June, 2007.
The subject property is located off St Margaret's Road in Finglas, and
is just north of Finglas Village Centre, and south of the M50 motorway.
The surrounding area is densely populated, with many new houses and apartments
surrounding the subject and adjoining shops. The property comprises a
newly built Spar Supermarket that has a retail area, stores and office,
and is within a development that houses a bookmaker, a takeaway, a hairdresser
and a crèche. The building is of concrete block, with a brick façade
and a slate roof. All mains services are connected. The property is held
under a lease.
Floor areas are agreed as follows:
Retail 650 sq. metres
Store 52 sq. metres
1st Fl Offices/Kitchen/WC/Store 104 sq. metres
The Appellant's Case
Before he gave his evidence, Mr. Halpin made one change to Comparison
1 (Supervalu in Donabate) in his précis. He advised that the retail
area for Comparison 1 was 770 square metres, valued @ €61.48 per
square metre, while the ground floor stores were 250 square metres valued
@ €34.16 per square metre.
Having taken the oath, Mr. Halpin adopted his précis as his evidence-in-chief,
and provided the Tribunal with photographs of the subject property. He
described the location of the subject property as moderate, being on the
edge of the new Meakstown housing development. He said that the surrounding
areas are mainly industrial/residential in character. He said that this
unit serves the needs of the local residents, and that there was no potential
for passing trade. He also said that the subject property was close to
the new, as yet unfinished, Charlestown Shopping Centre which is due to
open in October 2007, and that this new Shopping Centre will have a Dunnes
Stores unit comprising 7,000 square metres approx. He further stated that
the subject had significant competition from the Superquinn, Aldi, Lidl
and Tesco stores that are located nearby. Mr. Halpin also said that the
subject property had suffered considerably from break-ins and vandalism,
and that its owners had almost turned it into a fortress in order to withstand
the ongoing troubles at the site. This situation invariably leads to difficulties
with insuring the premises. Mr. Halpin then proceeded to speak about the
6 Comparisons in his précis as follows:
Comparison 1: Supervalu, Donabate: Valued 2001/2 1st Appeal
This modern shop is part of a commercial development in the centre of
Donabate, which is a rapidly expanding residential area.
Shop 770 sq. metres @ €61.48 per sq. metre
Gr. fl Stores 250 sq. metres @ €34.16 per sq. metre
1st fl office etc 68 sq. metres @ €34.16 per sq. metre
Incomplete store 175 sq. metres @ € 7.40 per sq. metre
Comparison 2: Supervalu, Lusk: Valued 2006 1st Appeal
This modern shop is part of a similar small development in the centre
of Lusk which is a rapidly expanding residential area.
Shop 967.70 sq. metres @ €58.09 per sq. metre
Stores 193.24 sq. metres @ €34.17 per sq. metre
1st fl office etc 116.50 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre
Comparison 3: Supervalu, Skerries:
This modern shop is part of a commercial development in the centre of
Skerries, which is a rapidly expanding commuter town.
Shop 1,108 sq. metres @ €64.91 per sq. metre
Stores 207 sq. metres @ €34.17 per sq. metre
Office etc 16 sq. metres @ €54.68 per sq. metre
Cold stores 60 sq. metres @ €44.31 per sq. metre
1st fl office 78 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre
Comparison 4: Euro Spar, Rush: Valued 2004 1st Appeal
This modern shop is in the centre of Rush which has been rapidly expanding
over the last number of years.
Shop 1097.00 sq. metres @ €64.93 per sq. metre
Stores 263.23 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre
Office etc 204.48 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre
Comparison 5: Spar, Applewood Village, Swords: Valued 3-4 years ago.
Shop 646.36 sq. metres @ €74.48 per sq. metre
Stores 181.18 sq. metres @ €45.79 per sq. metre
Mr. Halpin said that this comparison is nearest to the subject property.
Applewood Village is a new concept built on the edge of Swords, and is
a 'self contained' village that has residential houses, apartments, a
pub, a gymnasium and a crèche, together with more than 20 retail
units and a significant number of offices. This Spar shop is part of a
new commercial street within a development that serves the large Applewood
local community and surrounding areas.
Mr. Halpin said that he tried, when putting a valuation on the subject,
to see where same fitted in to his view of the "Tone of the List"
in Fingal. He said that in order to do that he had to weigh up the size
of the unit, the size of the development the subject property was situated
in, the potential for business and the lack of passing trade as well as
the large amount of competition in the area.
Having taken all of these factors into consideration he put a valuation
on the subject property as follows:
Retail 649.69 sq. metres @ €61.48 per sq. metre = €39,943
Store 51.66 sq. metres @ €34.17 per sq. metre = €1,765
1st Floor offices etc 100.44 sq. metres @ €34.17 per sq. metre =
RV @ 0.63% = €284.38
Adopting the agreed areas set out at page 2 herein, Mr. Halpin amended
his RV to €285.
Summarising his evidence, Mr. Halpin said that the subject property was
part of a small neighbourhood commercial centre that serves the local
population, and has no passing trade. He also said that the new Charlestown
Shopping Centre, which is directly opposite the subject property, is due
to open very shortly, and that business in the subject property will suffer,
due mainly to the large Dunnes Stores outlet in this new shopping centre.
He also said that the subject was inferior to many of the comparisons
given here, and has suffered many burglaries and vandalism to its premises.
The Chairperson asked Mr. Halpin to explain what he meant by the subject
not having any potential for passing trade. Mr. Halpin referred the Tribunal
to a second map in his précis to explain that the subject has access
off St. Margaret's Road and that this access does not go anywhere beyond
the subject location, except on into the housing development in the area.
When asked by the Chairperson to state his primary comparison, if he
were to set aside the values per square metre, and look at the most suitable
comparator in terms of like for like store, Mr. Halpin said that he did
not have a comparator for this. However if he were to look partly at the
size, and partly at the location, then Applewood Village, his Comparison
No. 5 would be a good comparison. However, he said that this comparison
is a much more substantial development, while at the same time he had
reservations about the valuation, as it was the only one of his comparisons
that was not appealed.
Under cross examination by Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Halpin was asked to explain
what he meant when he stated under the "Grounds for Appeal"
that the subject was in a moderate location, while at the same time conceding
that the Applewood premises was also in a moderate location, given that
this latter premises has substantial competition from 5 other supermarkets
in the general area. Mr. Halpin replied that he accepted that there was
a good range of competition to the Applewood premises, with good footfall
in the development as a whole, however he stated that with the subject
property this was not the case, as the only people to visit the subject
property were those from the immediate area. He also said that the scale
of the subject development with only 4 units was quite different to the
Applewood situation which was part of a whole new street with 20+ units.
Mr. O'Connor then said that the subject property was within the city boundary
in a densely populated urban area and inside the M50, while the comparisons
used by Mr. Halpin were 8-9 miles from the GPO for the nearest one, while
the others were in largely agricultural areas. Mr. Halpin replied that
he believed that the subject property was situated in a difficult area
with its customers enjoying a vast choice of shopping destinations, which
none of the comparisons suffered from.
Mr. Frank O'Connor having taken the oath adopted his précis as
his evidence-in-chief. Mr. O'Connor stated that the differences between
himself and Mr. Halpin were about the term 'location of the property'
in that the location of the subject is indeed a neighbourhood centre serving
the local community about half a mile north of Finglas inside the M50,
and that all of his Comparisons are close to the M50 in densely populated
areas. He said that Mr. Halpin's comparisons are situated in Skerries,
Donabate, Lusk and Rush, with his prime comparison in the outskirts of
Swords. Mr. O'Connor contended for the following valuation:
Shop 650 sq. metres @ €100 per sq. metre = €65,000
Store 52 sq. metres @ €54.66 per sq. metre = € 2,842
1st Floor offices/ 104 sq. metres @ €54.66 per sq. metre = €
NAV €73,527 @ 0.63% = RV €463.00 Say €460
Mr. O'Connor then offered the following comparisons:
Comparison 1: Spar, Mulhuddart Village: Valued 2004 Revision. No appeal
Shop 283 sq. metres @ €164 per sq. metre
Comparison 2: Spar, Carpenterstown: Valued 2005 Revision. No appeal
Shop 322 sq. metres @ €120 per sq. metre €38,640
Store 63 sq. metres @ €54.66 per sq. metre € 3,433
Comparison 3: Lidl, Blanchardstown: Valued 2004 Revision. Agreed prior
Shop 1031 sq. metres @ €93.62 per sq. metre €96,522
Store 247 sq. metres @ €46.47 per sq. metre €11,478
Open Bay 65 sq. metres @ €68.33 per sq. metre € 435
Comparison 4: Lidl, Baldoyle: Valued 2002 Appeal
Shop 770 sq. metres @ €106.06 per sq. metre €81,666
Store 245 sq. metres @ €53.03 per sq. metre €12,992
Comparison 5: Lidl, Tyrellstown: Valued 2006 Appeal
Shop 1,406 sq. metres @ €102.51 per sq. metre €144,129
Office 36 sq. metres @ €95.67 per sq. metre € 3,444
Store 251 sq. metres @ €47.83 per sq. metre € 12,005
Comparison 6: Superquinn, Sutton Cross: Valued 1990. Extra o/head offices
added 1993, RV increased to €2533.
Shop 2437 sq. metres @ €105.91 per sq. metre €248,571
1st Floor Office 479 sq. metres @ €54.66 per sq. metre € 26,182
2nd Floor stores 17 sq. metres @ €27.33 per sq. metre € 464
External Store 134 sq. metres @ €41.00 per sq. metre € 5,494
Canopy 60 sq. metres @ €27.33 per sq. metre € 1,640
Mr. O'Connor finished his evidence by saying that he had given comparable
properties in similar locations to the subject, while Mr. Halpin's comparisons
were supermarkets that were not in a similar location to the subject,
but rather in locations 'out in the sticks' as he put it.
Mr. Halpin then asked Mr. O'Connor to state his primary comparison, and
he replied that it was Lidl in Baldoyle, because it was a similar size
to the subject property as well as being located in a neighbourhood centre.
Findings and Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence and arguments adduced
by the parties and finds as follows:
1. The Tribunal considers the Respondent's comparisons may be similarly
circumstanced in terms of location, access, local population, catchment
area and competing market forces to the subject property.
2. From the evidence provided it would appear that a supermarket in Skerries
or Rush may not be comparable to the subject relevant property at Meakstown
Finglas. Variables such as location with regards to centres of population,
access, and competing services should be considered when properties are
introduced as comparisons.
3. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to the Tribunal to
indicate that the Respondent had failed to consider Section 49 of the
Valuation Act 2001 and, accordingly, the Tribunal affirms the decision
of the Respondent and determines that no change should made to the rateable
And the Tribunal so determines.