Appeal No. VA88/0/359
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Stillorgan Snooker Club APPELLANT RE: Snooker Hall, 1st floor Stillorgan Snooker Club
at B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By notice of appeal dated the 24th day of August, 1988, Mr. Desmond Holmes on behalf of the Snooker Club appealed against the respondents decision fixing the rateable valuation of the above described hereditaments at £175. In the course of his written submission dated 24th August, 1988 Mr Holmes said that the valuation was based on an inflated rating originally set in 1981/82. Snooker clubs or halls do not command the same high rental as retail premises. Retail premises have, in general, the highest rental obtainable for practically any commercial property. The rentals obtainable for snooker clubs are based on their possible turnover or usage and this is determined by the number of full size snooker tables that can be accommodated in the premises. With the possible exception of one or two locations all snooker halls are located in second or third rate positions and invariably in upper floor or rear sections of premises, which cannot support any other profitable businesses or enterprise. Mr Holmes set out a list of comparable snooker clubs in similar areas and locations and he said that they were assessed at much lower rates and gave the following examples:- (1) Monkstown Snooker Club No. of Tables = 16 R.V. £100 (2) Rathfarnham Snooker Club No. of Tables = 18 R.V. £100 (3) Cues Snooker Club No. of Tables = 21 R.V. £200 (4) Potters Snooker Club No. of Tables = 19 R.V. £150 (5) Breaks Snooker Club No. of Tables = 15 R.V. £ 65 He said that Stillorgan Snooker Club has 12 full size and 4 three quarter size tables. He said the premises are only suitable as an industrial premises and can only command rentals prevailing for such premises. Mr Noel Lyons who is a Bachelor of Commerce of the National University of Ireland with 14 years experience in the Valuation Office mad his written submission on the 29th November, 1988. In the course of that submission he said that he had inspected the property in January, 1988 and found that it comprised of the first floor of a factory type building erected in 1980/1981 as a hardware cum garden shop over a small shopping arcade with access via a concrete ramp. The premises has been refitted and opened as a snooker hall in March 1987 with accommodation for 12 full size and 4 three quarter size tables. The original floor area has been extended to provide ground floor entry, stairs and toilets, first floor coffee shop, electronic games room and office. The improvements cost in the region of £20,000. He said that the property is located on the Lower Kilmacud Road near the residential end of a busy and developing commercial area of which the Stillorgan Shopping Centre nearby is the focal point. The said that it is located opposite a group of shops and a thriving gymnasium and has tarmac car parking in front. He gave the recent valuation history of the premises as follows:- "Properties have been altered and there has been changes of occupiers - revise and value any additions or developments." Arising from this request for revision the hereditament was subdivided into two new hereditaments viz (1) Snooker Club R.V. £195.00 and (2) Store and yard R.V. £15.00. The immediate lessor was aggrieved at revision and appealed to the Commissioner of Valuation who deputed Mr Lyons to re-inspect these premises and report. This appeal refers to the snooker club. The respondent having considered Mr Lyon's report reduced the valuation to £175.00 He gave a number of comparables which the Tribunal does not think it necessary to reproduce in full because it finds that the most appropriate comparable to be Richard Dunne's Snooker Club at 280/284, Rathmines Road Lower with a rateable valuation of £200 which was valued at appeal in 1986. The area of that snooker hall was much the same as the subject premises and it, too, was situated on the first floor and had 12 championship tables.
At the end of the day the Tribunal was driven to think that the choice was between the Dunne Snooker Club valuation and the Rathfarnham Snooker Club valuation. Mr Lyons thought that this latter might have been undervalued if anything but, in any event, he contended that the location of the Rathfarnham Snooker Club was not nearly as good as the subject premises. Mr Holmes and Mr Mulcahy made the point that the Rathmines location was in the centre of "flatland" but Mr Lyons countered this by saying that there had been a differential allowed between the two. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Rathmines comparison is a valid one and can, in the circumstances, only allow some marginal relief below the valuation that has been fixed. The Tribunal will fix a valuation of £170 instead of £175.
|