Appeal No. VA97/6/010
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Dr. Paul W. Murphy APPELLANT
RE: Showroom at Map Reference10, William Street South,
Royal Exchange B, County Borough of Dublin
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 7th day of October 1997 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £185 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive, inequitable, unwarranted and bad in law and that the Tribunal judgment on the 19th October 1995 VA93/3/078 - Fashion Traders may have been influenced by some inaccurate information.
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place on 30th March 1998 in the Tribunal offices in Dublin. Mr. John C.Elliott, F.S.V.A., A.R.I.C.S., A.S.C.S., A.C.I.Arb., of Elliott & FitzGerald, Auctioneers, Estate Agents, Valuation Surveyors and Property Consultants represented the appellant. The respondent was represented by Mr. Philip Colgan, valuer with 29 years experience in the Valuation Office.
The appellant submitted, by way of preliminary issue, that the decision of the Valuation Tribunal namely Appeal No: VA94/3/078 - Fashion Traders Limited -v- Commissioner of Valuation delivered on the 19th October 1995 -was flawed for the following reasons, as set out in his written submission to the Tribunal.
1. The comparisons put forward by the Commissioner may have been defective
The Tribunal indicated that the only method available to an appellant to set aside a decision of the Tribunal was by way of a case stated to the High Court, which course of action the appellant had not taken. The Tribunal, having heard the arguments, and having considered the submissions, refused to set aside its previous decision and the appellant was so advised at the hearing. Notwithstanding this preliminary ruling of the Valuation Tribunal, the appellant was not in any way disadvantaged because the Commissioner of Valuation did not seek to rely upon or otherwise use the October 1995 decision as a supporting basis for his suggested N.A.V. The appellant then requested the Tribunal to proceed with the second ground for the Appeal, namely that of quantum.
The property comprises the following agreed areas:
The shop portion of the premises has been renovated and has a glass frontage. There are stairs to the first floor and to the basement. The premises are used as a boutique trading under the name "EXACT". The premises are also situated near the junction of South William Street and Wicklow Street. There has been a general upgrading of all the buildings in South William Street, which has resulted in a general increase in its commercial activity. In addition, South William Street is generally regarded as a centre for both wholesale and retail fashion trade in Dublin. There is convenient off- street car parking.
Submissions of the parties
Showrooms (Ground Floor) 1,980 sq.ft. @ £4.85 p.s.f. = £9,603
The comparisons produced by Mr. Elliott are reproduced at appendix 1.
Mr. Colgan said that the NAV on the subject was calculated by reference to the comparisons, which he adduced in his precis. He said that in recent years the street, in addition to the fashion clothing wholesalers, had attracted up-market restaurants. In addition many premises previously used as wholesalers were now used as retail outlets. These factors had led to a general increase in the level of rents attainable in the street.
His estimate of NAV and RV. was as follows:
Ground Floor Showrooms 1980 sq.ft. @ £9.00 = £17,820
Mr. Colgan's comparisons are reproduced at appendix 2.
The Tribunal however is persuaded and is satisfied that there is an amount of restricted access to the different floor levels. Consequently it has been necessary in our view to reflect that restrictive access in the resulting N.A.V. We therefore propose to put £8.00 on the ground floor, £3.50 on the first floor and £3.00 on the basement which gives a resulting N.A.V. of £24,834 which when converted gives an R.V. of £156, say £155. Accordingly the determination of the Tribunal is that the correct R.V. on the subject premises should be £155, calculated as set out below:
Ground floor showrooms 1,980 sq.ft. @ £8.00 £15,840
N.A.V. £24,834 x 0.63% = £156.45
And the Tribunal so determines.