Appeal No. VA95/1/077
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Patricia McAllister APPELLANT RE: Showrooms at Map Ref: 16 Duke Street, Urban District
of Drogheda, Co. Louth B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 26th day of April, 1995 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £30 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are "I wish to be relisted for valuation due to change in circumstances - removal of parking at all on Duke Street - no loading or unloading bays provided - despite repeated requests for same - I would be unable to continue as an auction rooms without some loading facility". The Property: Duke Street is a narrow one way street connecting West Street to Fair Street. It has been recently re-paved and presents a pleasant aspect. The re-paving and upgrading of the street has restricted the width of the carriageway. Valuation History: Written Submissions: Ms. McAllister stated that in her opinion a nominal rateable valuation of £5 should be set on the property due to the absence of loading/unloading bays and the erection of steel bollards along each footpath to prevent parking. Ms. McAllister also stated that loading bays had been provided for Kalemount Furniture, 6 - 9, Duke Street, Drogheda but not for 16, Duke Street. Ms. McAllister said that the absence of any loading bays placed a huge burden, in financial terms, on the current use of the building and that it had made trading almost impossible. In conclusion, Ms. McAllister said that 16, Duke Street was a unique
property and, as such, had few if any comparables. Ms. McAllister proposed
that a nominal valuation should suffice. In his written submission, Mr. Oakes set out details of the property and its valuation history as set out above. Commenting on the appellant's grounds of appeal, Mr. Oakes said that he had had regard to the location and state of repair of the property and how the premises compared with recently revised properties of a similar nature. Mr. Oakes set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject
property as follows:- Mr. Oakes set out details of three comparisons as follows:- Shop (Front) 248 ft2 @ £18.00 4404 Better location on premier street in Drogheda. Shops devalue at £12.60 ft2 overall.
Furniture Stores 1075 ft2 @ £2.50 = 2687 Furniture store in old school building and no street frontage. First Floor showroom/workshop 1262 ft2 @ £2.50 = 3155 First floor showroom and workshop in old school building and no street frontage. Oral Hearing: Prior to the oral hearing the appellant made a written submission which was adopted by her as her evidence in chief given under oath. In further submission the appellant said that at the date of the revising valuer's inspection in late 1993, Duke Street was subject to a two hour parking restriction. However, following the re-paving of the street parking is now prohibited and this ban is reinforced by the erection of steel bollards along the edge of the pavement. The introduction of these restrictions she said has had an adverse affect on her business and loading and unloading was no longer possible outside her premises due to the risk of causing traffic congestion. Despite a number of requests the Corporation had refused to provide her with a key to remove the bollards outside her shop in order to solve this problem. Ms. McAllister referred to the comparisons contained in Mr. Oakes' submission and said that in her opinion they were not relevant or helpful. In response to questions from Mr. Oakes, Ms. McAllister said that the subject property, in its present state, was unlettable and local auctioneers had refused to "place them on their books". The property was in very poor repair and suitable only for their present use, that is, the sale of second hand furniture and this was now in jeopardy due to the parking restrictions. In this regard she has made a number of representations to officials of the Corporation but found their attitude to her problems to be unsympathetic. Mr. Oakes on taking the oath adopted his written submission as his evidence in chief. In a further oral submission he said that when he had inspected the subject property in November, 1994 the resurfacing works were at an early stage and he had valued the premises as it was at that time. When asked by the Tribunal if he would have arrived at a different valuation if the circumstances at that time were as now described by the appellant, Mr. Oakes requested a sort adjournment in order to consider his response and this was granted. On the resumption of the oral hearing Mr. Oakes said that having carefully considered the issues raised by Ms. McAllister he would consider a reduction of 25% to be appropriate and hence the answer to the question posed by the Tribunal was £23. Determination: Ms. McAllister put forward her arguments in a very cogent manner and very forcibly made her case. Mr. Oakes likewise acquitted himself very well and having heard Ms. McAllister's evidence he conceded that a substantial reduction was indeed warranted. His willingness to reconsider his valuation in the light of Ms. McAllister's representations was most helpful to the Tribunal and reflects well on his own professional integrity and that of the Valuation Office. The Tribunal notes that in her written submission Ms. McAllister considered the proper rateable valuation of the hereditament to be £23. However, in the light of the restrictions imposed on her ability to trade following the resurfacing works and more particularly the fact that the Corporation would not provide her with a key to remove the bollards outside her premises for loading and unloading purposes she considered a nominal valuation of £5 to be appropriate until such times as her grievances were addressed. Under the provisions of the Valuation Acts the Tribunal is charged with determining the net annual value subject to the rule of 'rebus sic stantibus'. Having regard to the above and all the evidence adduced the Tribunal finds that Ms. McAllister's contention for a rateable valuation of £5 cannot be supported by the evidence. The reduced assessment of £23 put forward by Mr. Oakes in the Tribunal's opinion is fair and reasonable and adequately takes into account the parking restrictions that now apply to Duke Street as they affect the subject property. Accordingly, therefore the Tribunal determines the rateable valuation to be £23. |