Appeal No. VA99/2/034
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Ciaran J. Kenny, t/a Wexford Country
RE: Shop at Map Reference 1a 2a 3a /Unit
2 Crescent Quay,
B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 29th day of April, 1999, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £60 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal were that "the valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law."
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place on the 22nd day of March 2000 in the Council Chamber County Hall Wexford. Mr. Eamonn Halpin B.Sc. (Surveying) A.S.C.S, A.R.I.C.S, M.I.A.V.I, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Desmond Feehan, a District Valuer with 38 years experience in the Valuation Office appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Valuation. In accordance with the Rules of the Tribunal, the valuers had prior to the commencement of the hearing exchanged their précis of evidence and submitted the same to this Tribunal. Both parties having taken the oath, adopted their précis as being their evidence in chief. Submissions were also made. From the evidence so tendered the following emerged as being the facts material to and for the purposes of the appeal.
Estimated rental value (1988) (ignoring tax breaks)
1. Kehoe & Assoc. 28b Commercial Quay RV£42
2. Part 5 Crescent Quay The Wexford Gallery RV£17
3. Part 5 Crescent Quay Eamon Roche Ltd. RV£38 1988
Rental comparisons in support of 1988 tone
(B) Carleys' Sports Shop Custom House Quay.
(C) Marino, Custom House Quay.
Under cross examination Mr. Halpin accepted that there was a retail mix in the Crescent Quay but said that the pedestrian flow from his own observations was not comparable to Main Street. He said that on street parking was controlled but accepted that there were 184 spaces available 170 metres from the subject.
Mr. Halpin submitted that the comparisons put forward by the respondent were the result of 1996 first appeals and that they set a new tone at a higher level than was supported by existing rental levels in the town. He said that Main Street was the prime retailing area in Wexford and properties on Main Street would command Zone A rents of £20 to £25 depending on the location on the Street. Locations such as the Crescent were tertiary retailing locations similar to King Street where rents would go no higher than £14 per sq. ft.
1. Unit 1 Adjoining Potato Market. Rent £19,500
2. Unit 3 Adjoining Pharmacy NAV 11,000 RV £55.
Mr. Feehan said that he had not valued the premises on a zoning basis as the depth was only 18 ft and the entire was therefore Zone A. He said that the valuation on the subject and comparisons represented the rent less 20%. He said that he has used the tone of the list represented by properties on the Quay and on South Main Street to establish the tone.
Findings and Determination
Firstly the valuation in relation to the premises should be based on an area of 969 sq. ft. since Mr. Feehan conceded that the 11 sq. ft. of toilet area could be deducted in calculating the NAV. The Tribunal considers that the approach of Mr. Feehan in valuing the premises on an overall rate per sq. ft is more appropriate to the subject premised given its dimensions. In the Tribunal's view the subject premises is a high quality premises, in a good location adjacent to the exit from Tesco. However the Tribunal accepts that it is not as well located as premises on the Main Street. In assessing the tone for the Crescent Quay, the Tribunal considers that the evidence of Mr. Halpin in relation to rental levels in 1988, in particular that of the premises known as the Union at South Main Street, is relevant.
Taking these factors into account the Tribunal determines that the premises should be valued at £11 per sq. ft. giving an NAV of £10,659, which devalues at £53.29 giving an RV of £53.
And the Tribunal so determine.