|
Appeal No. VA09/3/021
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Chiara Trench APPELLANT RE: Property No. 1137124, Shop at Lot No. 24.25.26a to 40/Unit 11.12.13, Kennedy Avenue, Carlow Urban, Carlow UD, County Carlow. B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 23rd day of July, 2009 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a valuation of €76.00 on the above-described relevant property. The grounds of Appeal are on a separate sheet attached to Notice of Appeal, a copy which is attached at the Appendix to this Judgment. BACKGROUND At the opening, Mr. Ryan indicated that while the letter accompanying his appeal had indicated that they had sought to rely on the fact that they were in financial difficulties as an entity and that the recession had hit them particularly hard, he now recognised that these were not appropriate grounds for appeal. Accordingly, he indicated that he would be confining his appeal to: The unit itself: location of the unit, the impact of the recession on Carlow; and the impact of the recession on the bridal industry generally. The Appellant’s Evidence The Unit Mr. Ryan contended that although the report of the respondent suggested there were two parking spaces outside the shop, these only had 15 minutes’ permitted parking and in the circumstances, this time limit made it impractical for customers to use them. They are little or no use to retail customers and were used principally by delivery vans. He indicated that while there was no pay-and-display on Kennedy Avenue where the unit was located, traffic wardens did police the avenue with what he described as “over-enthusiastic vigour” and, therefore, made parking for customers less attractive. He accepted there was parking in town, though not on Kennedy Avenue. Mr. Ryan also indicated that because the unit had been sub-divided from a previous unit, there were no running water or toilet facilities on the premises. He indicated instead that in order to avail of such facilities, it was necessary for customers and staff to use toilets in the shopping centre across the road or to use other facilities available in other local shops. Location Mr. Ryan suggested that of the 14 units on the avenue a number are at present unoccupied and 2 more are expected to close. This will reduce the occupancy level in the location in question to 57%. He contended that this impacted on the unit as a shopping destination. He also indicated that his rent had been reduced by 30% since the appeal had been submitted. He gave evidence that rents in Carlow had been reduced by landlords who were anxious to ensure that tenants remained in occupation rather than leaving premises vacant. Carlow Mr. Ryan gave evidence that there was a number of unoccupied or abandoned units in the town of Carlow. He was aware from his own knowledge that rental income had fallen. Units where previously a rental of €50.00 to €60.00 per square foot had been sought now had had rent reduced to €35.00 per square foot, and he was aware in some smaller, older units of a rental being paid of €10.00 per square foot. In these circumstances, he was of the view that the rateable valuation of €76.00 did not properly reflect the reduced rental demand. The Bridal Industry Mr. Ryan gave evidence that the bridal industry generally was suffering because less people are getting married. He explained that a number of people who might previously have planned to marry were cancelling or delaying because of the financial implications of the cost of such an event. He gave evidence that hotels had also significantly reduced charges in an effort to get wedding business. He said a sign of the difficulties for the industry was that there was now a significant market in second hand wedding dresses. The Respondent’s Evidence He identified the various comparisons which he had listed in his report. The nearest comparable unit was Unit 9, a flower shop called “Buddies and Blooms” which was almost the same size as the subject property and had the same NAV. In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Gogu indicated that Unit 9 did have running water but that it was closer to the town centre and, therefore, in a better location. He indicated that all his comparisons had been taken from Kennedy Avenue which was where the subject property was located, but he did not know if any of them had been tested by the Valuation Tribunal. He accepted that there were 3 vacant units and that there may well be two more closing in due course. He also accepted that the market for rental was difficult but, again, contended that the appropriate manner to value premises was by the “tone of the list”. In response to questions from Mr. Ryan, he indicated that Unit 9 was, in fact, closer to the town centre but that Unit 12-13 (the subject property) is closer to the shopping centre. He accepted that Unit 12-13 was not directly opposite the shopping centre, but believed it was closer to the entrance than Unit 9. The Appellant’s Submissions The Respondent’s Submissions The Law The Issue - Valuation Mr. Gogu’s report is extremely helpful. It is noted that no alternative comparison properties were submitted by Mr. Ryan on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal accepts that the most appropriate comparator is probably Unit 9. However, the evidence suggests:
It seems to us that a combination of these three factors (with perhaps most emphasis being placed on the third factor), all of which are absent from the subject unit, make it appropriate to allow a modest reduction in relation to the subject unit. Determination Shop 111.36 sq. metres @ €123.00 per sq. metre = €13,697.28 And the Tribunal so determines. |