Appeal No. VA92/3/002
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Day's Bazaar Limited APPELLANT RE: House Shop & Yard at Lot No. 15.16 Oliver Plunkett
Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By notice of appeal dated the 4th day of May, 1992, Mr. Patrick J. Nerney,
Valuation Consultant appealed on behalf of the appellant against the determination
of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £100
on the above described hereditament. The Property Valuation History Written Submissions Mr. Nerney also set out the factors on which he based his calculations
of R.V. which included the following: 2. The improvements had been carried out with a view to holding onto existing business in the face of increased competition. This contention was supported by the fact that there were now 28 shops in the town selling newspapers compared to 8 when the appellant commenced trading. 3. Gross profit margin fell last year by 2% compared with a projected increase of 2%. 4. A further factor was the fact that books accounted for 50% of the business and took up a lot of space while turnover from books was slow. 5. Parking restrictions had also adversely affected trade. In the written submission Mr. Nerney supplied 7 comparisons summarised
below:- 2. Lot No. 32 Pearse Street. Shop, Stores & yard. 3. Lot No. 49a Oliver Plunkett Street. Shop & Stores. 4. Lot No. 49b Oliver Plunkett Street. Shop & Stores. 5. Lot No. 13 Pearse Street. Shop, Post Office, Stores & Yard. 6. Lot No. 23 Oliver Plunkett Street. House, Shop (gr fl) & Yard
(including 17b Dominick Street) A written submission was also received on the 16th September, 1992 from
Mr. Jim Gormley, District Valuer and Chartered Surveyor with the Valuation
Office on behalf of the respondent. In the written submission Mr. Gormley
described the property and the valuation history attaching to it. Commenting
on the appellants grounds of appeal Mr. Gormley stated that the valuation
was considered to be both fair and equitable for this modern premises
in a prime central location and that the rateable valuation compared favourably
with the rateable valuations of recently revised properties of similar
function and location. Mr. Gormley set out his calculation of the N.A.V.
on the subject premises as follows: Rateable Valuation = £16,310 X 0.5% = £81.56 This is a mens drapery shop in central location close to the subject
premises. The rate per ft² at £17 is higher than subject premises
which is valued at £16 per ft². 3. Kilroys. Lot NO. 20b.21 Pearse Street. 4. Poundsworth. Lot No. 49a Pearse Street. 5. Edmund King. Lot No. 41b Pearse Street. In summary, Mr. Gormley stated that the Net Annual Value of £16 per square foot adopted was fair and reasonable in view of the fact that prime retail units in the town are as high as £26 per square foot. He submitted that the valuation compared favourably with the rateable valuations of recently revised properties of similar function and location, in particular with Galvins shop (comparison 1) which was the main comparison cited by the agent at first appeal. Oral Hearing Mr. Nerney stated that most of Mr. Gormley's comparisons were owner occupied. Mr. Nerney felt that the previous valuation of £70 was a relatively recent assessment. He contended that any improvements carried out to the shop were done on the basis of holding onto the existing business because of the fact that more newsagents had opened in the town. Mr. Gormley, in his evidence, said that the £70 valuation was fixed in 1975. Referring to Mr. Nerney's first comparison he stated that the reason for the reduction in valuation was due to the condition of the roof. In Comparison No. 2 there was a request for revision on reconstruction in 1992, but work had not started so the 1984 valuation remained. In connection with Comparison No. 6 which is 23, Oliver Plunkett Street, he stated that the property was rebuilt in 1989 but the first and second floors were never finished, so only the ground floor shop was valued. Mr. Gormley went on to say that zoning is an agreed system drawn up by the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and this system is widely used and accepted throughout the country. The reason for this is to make more realistic comparisons, e.g. when there is a difference in street frontages. Mr. Gormley said that the subject valuation was a modest one. He stated that nearby similar properties had greater valuations. Commenting on Mr. Nerney's evidence that a 50% increase in rateable valuation was excessive, Mr. Gormley accepted that a physical change in the building may not warrant a 50% increase in the valuation, but he maintained that the revised valuation was much smaller than that of the neighbouring properties. Taking all the above into account the Tribunal determines that the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation be upheld and the rateable valuation of £100 be affirmed.
|