Appeal No. VA01/1/022
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988
Quish's Supervalu APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Supermarket & Land at Map Reference
58 Main Street, Tramore West, UD: Waterford1, Co. Waterford.
B E F O R E
Tim Cotter - Valuer Deputy Chairman
Maurice Ahern - Valuer Member
Finian Brannigan - Solicitor Member
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002
By Notice of Appeal dated the 20th day of April 2001,
the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of
Valuation in fixing a Rateable Valuation of €431.71 (£340.00)
(Buildings), on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal
were set out in the Notice of Appeal as follows:
"(1) the valuation is excessive and inequitable.
(2) the valuation is bad in law."
The oral hearing took place on the 14 November 2001, in
Dublin. Ms Sheelagh O Buachalla ASCS, a Director of GVA Donal O Buachalla
appeared for the appellant and Mr Phil Colgan appeared for the Respondent.
Both valuers adopted their written submissions as their evidence in chief
to the Tribunal, which submissions had previously been exchanged between
The property comprises a supermarket premises located on a hill between
Main Street and Priest's Road in Tramore. It has an entrance onto Main
Street but its main entrance is at the rear of the premises from a public
car park, used by other units in the Shopping Centre. Access to the front
entrance of the supermarket is via a long corridor which is sloped to
take account of the different floor levels i.e. Main Street is at a lower
level than the rear of the premises which fronts onto the car park at
The appellant stated that the premises was revised in 1992 and an agreement
reached based on the NAVs determined on supermarkets in the area. She
said that the NAV was agreed as follows:
"NAV €67,938.6 (£53,506) @ .63% = RV €427.90 (£337)
(Say RV £340)."
Ms O Buachalla argued that there has been no material change to the premises
since 1990 to warrant a change in the NAV as agreed in 1990.
She cited the cases of AIB - VA92/3/007 and TSB - VA92/6/017
where the Tribunal determined that where an NAV has been agreed and an
incorrect fraction applied, the correct fraction must be applied to the
In the subject case, the ratio applied in the Tramore area is .5%, however
the subject had been valued at the ratio of .63% and the correct ratio
should now be applied to the agreed NAV.
A fair valuation was assessed as €67,930.99 (£53,500)
at .5% = RV €342.83 (£270)
Mr Colgan said in evidence that the market situation in Tramore had improved
and that other units in the Shopping Centre were now occupied and that
the Centre was trading very well. The NAV of the property had increased
in these circumstances. He said that he was also taking into account the
valuations on other supermarkets in similar locations.
On this basis he assessed the rateable valuation as follows:
"Supermarket /Lobbies: 1371.5 m2@ €54.65 (£43.04) = €74,950
399.4 m2 @ €26.40 (£20.79) = €10,546.44
105m2 @ €6.83 (£5.38) = €717.15
NAV say €86,342 (£68,000) @ .5% = RV €431.71 (£340)."
Having carefully considered all the evidence the Tribunal makes the following
No material changes have been made to the property since the 1990/92 Revision
and appeal. The car park is used by the other shop units and therefore
not exclusively by the subject property.
No comparisons in the immediate area were offered to the
Tribunal that would have assisted the Tribunal with its decision.
No comparisons on the other units in the shopping centre
were offered by either party.
It is accepted that access to the supermarket is via a
long corridor, which is sloped from the Main Street.
The NAV of this type of property is generally calculated on the rent a
hypothetical tenant would pay or on actual rent. It is not calculated
on the turnover of the particular business.
The Tribunal is grateful to both parties for their efforts
to respond by way of research in determining the NAV/RV of the subject
Having carefully considered all the evidence and arguments
adduced at this appeal the Tribunal is of the opinion that as the incorrect
fraction for the area was applied, the NAV of £53,500.00 as agreed
in the 1990/2 appeal should stand and applying the correct fraction of
0.5% the Tribunal determines an RV on the subject premises to be €342.83
say €343 (£270.00).
The Tribunal wishes to draw the attention of the parties
once again to the provisions in its Rules that all evidence in each case
should be presented in the précis of evidence prior to the hearing
and not on the day. The following Rule in particular should be noted:
Rule 7 (1) of (Appeals) Rules 1988 states that," the Commissioner
and any other party shall give a summary of evidence proposed to be adduced
to the Tribunal and there shall be an exchange of summaries between parties
(including any comparisons to be relied upon) in advance of the hearing.
(2) Any party to an appeal shall give to the Tribunal any document or
information in his possession or procurement which the Tribunal considers
necessary for the purpose of determining the appeal.
(3) Where a person neglects or refuses to give to the Tribunal any such
document or information within such a period as may at any time be specified
by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may determine the appeal without the document