| Appeal No. VA06/2/006
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Tapison Ltd APPELLANT RE: Showroom Garage/Filling Station Yard at Lot No. 1,2,3 - Unit 4, Nevinstown East, Kinsaley, Malahide, County Dublin B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 6th day of April, 2006 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €940.00 on the above described relevant property. The grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are: 1. This appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 20th June, 2006. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Conor Ó Cléirigh, ASCS, MRICS, MIAVI and the respondent by Ms. Ciara Marron, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office. The Property Concerned 3. Airside Motor Park is part of a large mixed development which includes a retail warehouse complex, office park and hotel. The Motor Park element of the development contains a number of similar car showrooms occupied by several well known and long established motor dealerships. 4. The property concerned is a detached building constructed to a high standard of construction and finish throughout with extensive use of glass and metal finishes at the external elevations. The main form of construction is a steel portal frame with brick outer leaf in part with "Kingspan" cladding panels over. The roof is of insulated double steel construction. The building has a large basement storage area accessed by way of a ramp at the rear. The basement provides storage for some 70 - 80 cars in back to back parking format. 5. Internally the showroom area is fitted out to a high standard of specification and finish, with tiled floors and glass panel sales and customer service offices at the rear. At the mezzanine level there is additional office accommodation. 6. At the rear of the showroom there is a motor repair and service workshop and a separate car valeting building. Surface car parking for 72 cars is available at the front, side and rear of the building. Accommodation Ground Floor Tenure Planning Permission The Appellant's Evidence 11. In his evidence Mr. Ó Cléirigh contended for a rateable valuation of €735.00 calculated as below: Ground Floor car sales showroom area: 12. In support of his valuation Mr. Ó Cléirigh introduced two comparisons, details of which are set out in Appendix 1 to this judgment. 13. Mr. Ó Cléirigh in supplementary oral evidence said that there were three areas of disagreement in his valuation approach when compared to that of Ms. Marron. In his opinion the office accommodation and customer service area in the showroom should be valued at a lower rate per square metre than the showroom proper. Secondly, in his opinion the car storage area at basement level was assessed at an excessive rate per square metre having regard to its restricted use. Thirdly there was no justification for valuing car parking spaces at surface level. As far as he could ascertain from the analysis of his comparisons it was the practice to reflect the availability of car parking in the overall rate per square metre applicable to the showroom and garage space. Respondent's Evidence 15. In her evidence Ms. Marron contended for a rateable valuation of
€940.00 calculated as set out below: 16. In support of her opinion of net annual value, Ms. Marron introduced four comparisons, details of which are set out in Appendix 2 to this judgment. In addition to these comparisons Ms. Marron at appendix five of her précis included details of the DG Nissan car showroom premises at Liffey Valley. 17. Ms. Marron said in oral evidence that she agreed with Mr. Ó Cléirigh's statement that there were three areas of disagreement between them in the relation to the breakdown of the valuation of the subject property. However as far as she was concerned the valuation approach adopted by her in this case was consistent with that used when valuing other car showrooms at Airside. 18. When asked about the DG Nissan car showrooms at Liffey Valley, Ms. Marron said she had mainly introduced this comparison to support her valuation approach. She further agreed that none of her four direct comparisons had basement car parking facilities and said that she used her judgment in arriving at what she considered to be an appropriate rate per square metre for the basement storage in the subject property. Findings 2. In relation to the argument that the offices at ground floor level
and the showroom should be valued at a lower rate per square metre than
the showroom proper, the Tribunal finds against the appellant. It appears
that other showrooms in Airside are valued on a similar basis to that
used by Ms. Marron. Indeed having regard to the quality of the space available
at ground floor level it is purely a matter of choice by the individual
occupier as to how it is fitted out in order to best serve the business. 4. Ms. Marron in her valuation valued the yard area at €3,180.00. From the comparative evidence submitted there does not appear to be any consistent valuation approach to valuing surface car parking. The Tribunal notes that while €7,937.00 has been attributed to car parking at the Windsor Motors unit in Airside (Valuation Office comparison No. 3) there appears to be no value attached to the car parking at the Fangar Motors unit also in Airside (Valuation Office comparison No. 4). Similarly there appears to be no separate value attributed to the surface car parking at the Valuation Office comparisons No.1 & 2, which indeed are common comparisons. In the circumstances the Tribunal finds that there is no justifiable reason for attributing a separate figure to the surface car parking at the property concerned. Determination Showroom 708.39 sq. metres @ €95.67 per sq. metre = €67,771.67 And the Tribunal so determines. |