Appeal No. VA93/1/004
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
J P Brady & Son Limited APPELLANT
RE: Shop , Stores and Yard at Lot No. 10D,
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 11th of February, 1993 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a Rateable Valuation of £110 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the
valuation is excessive and inequitable and bad in law".
Mr. Leonard Brady, Managing Director of the Appellant Company also appeared and gave evidence.
At the oral hearing it emerged that the description of both parties of the premises coincided and the Tribunal got a picture of an up-to-date, state of the art hardware premises and store situated in an industrial estate about a half mile from the centre of the small Cavan town of Virginia. Both parties agreed that the premises had not traded successfully and it emerged that there were principally two reasons for this. The first was that the premises was somewhat overshadowed in trade terms by G & L Hardware in Bailieborough a few short miles away and by the pulling power of Cavan town taking retail business away from the lesser towns in Cavan such as Virginia. The second reason for the poorish trading performance of the premises was the fact that Cavan County Council did not facilitate the installation of an imposing entrance off the main road for the industrial estate such as would entice casual customers in to view and possibly purchase items for sale therein. Added to these local factors was the fact that recessionary times in terms of consumer demand for the hardware/building trade and high interest rates have made it difficult for a new business trying to set down roots in Virginia. Mr. Brady stated that he had been successful in his business near Cootehill but decided that he must move to a more central location and modernise or loose his position and decided to achieve this by the move to Virginia and the disposal of his premises in Cootehill. He stated that he had penal borrowings on the business at the moment which made it difficult to survive.
From the outset the parties clarified that G & L Hardware, Cavan town, a comparison used by the Appellant had not been revised in 1991 but rather in 1973 and the schedule of comparisons in the Appellant's summary of comparisons and comparison number four ought to be amended accordingly.
Mr. Rooney argued against Mr. Mc Millan's devaluation of the ground floor as set out in the second last vertical column of his summary and schedule of comparisons. Examples of Mr. Rooneys approach are that he took the shop part of G & L Hardware, Bailieborough as devaluing at £2.97 with the store at the back at £2.06. He took the Cole's Co-op as devaluing at £2.64 in relation to the new building and similarly had a value of £2.22 on the more valuable part of the Interparts building. He argued that the higher figures ought to be compared with the higher figures which he used in valuing the subject shop premises.
Accordingly, having regard to the foregoing, the Tribunal, fixes a rateable valuation on the premises of £110.