Appeal No. VA94/1/006
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Frank Brogan, Frank Brogan Limited APPELLANT
RE: Shop at Map Ref.: 15f, Townland: Bangor,
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 26th day of April, 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a valuation of £80.00 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal were set out in a letter addressed to the Secretary, Mayo County Council and attached to the Notice of Appeal. In summary these grounds were that the valuation was relevant to the centre of a big town rather than the size of Bangor with a population of 600 people.
(1) the census of population for Bangor Erris and the surrounding towns
(a) VO Lot: 4Bi, Description: Shop, R.V. - £8, a small grocery
Having regard to the above Mr. Killen set out his calculation of the rateable valuation as follows:-
(A) (1) Grocery Shop with Store 1,860 sq. ft. @ £2.25 £4,185
(B) Estimated Capital Value
A written submission was received on the 22nd December, 1994 from Mr. Jim Gormley a District Valuer with twenty years experience in the Valuation Office. In his written submission Mr. Gormley set out the valuation history, grounds of appeal, location and description of the property.
He set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows:-
Net Area: 4,443 sq.ft. @ £3.50/sq.ft. =£15,550.00
Gross Area: 4,863 sq.ft. @ £3.30/sq.ft. =£16,048.00
In relation to the grounds of appeal Mr. Gormley said that although the premises was located in Bangor Erris it drew its customers from a wide catchment area and is trading very well. He said that the valuation was not considered excessive when turnover was taken into account and compared with similar premises in other small towns in the county. He said that the appellant comparisons of valuations as low as £8.00 referred to very small shops, for example 4Bi Bangor, revised in 1987 to £8.00 comprises a shop and store of total area 387 square feet. Mr. Gormley said that the Erris Farm Services Co-operative Society Limited, R.V. £110.00 was a co-operative founded in 1968 with the objective of the promotion of farming, fishing and forestry in the area. He said that its turnover had remained static for five years and the staff had been put on a four day week.. He also said the buildings were old and in very poor condition. Mr. Gormley gave details of three comparisons as follows:-
(1) Comhar Iorrais Teoranta
Supermarket: 3,533 sq.ft. (net) @ £3.20/sq.ft. = £11,305
x 0.5%= £117.00
Shop/Supermarket: 1,464 sq.ft. @ £4.00/sq.ft. = £5,856
x 0.5%= £35.85
(3) Val Cummins
Supermarket and first floor canteen:
x 0.5%= £200.00
R.V. £110.00 - 1990 first appeal.
Mr. Killen submitted that it seemed that the appellants' business acumen, experience and sheer hard work may have been taken into account by the respondent in estimating N.A.V. Mr. Killen pointed out that Mr. Brogan's personal input in the business was extraordinary, with the grocery shop and hardware business open at unsociable hours and for 6-7 days a week.
Referring to the comparison put forward by both parties, viz: Erris Co-op in Belmullet Mr. Killen stressed the fact that Belmullet was a considerably larger town than Bangor Erris and had a similar catchment area. He said too that taking into account the total floor area of the Erris Co-op its N.A.V. as assessed by the respondent did not logically relate to the valuation placed on the subject premises.
Mr. Brogan in evidence stressed the remote and under-populated nature of the region generally and said that any commercial success he had achieved was because of his hard work and commitment.
Mr. Gormley submitted that his assessment of N.A.V. was not based on the profits method and therefore that turnover figures and Mr. Brogans personal expertise were not relevant.
Mr. Gormley referred to the Erris Co-op in Belmullet and said that a considerable portion of these premises was very old, some of it in fact in disuse and that only the supermarket and meal store were of relatively recent construction. He further submitted that the co-op was in a secondary location off the main street in Belmullet and that there was very little through traffic unlike Bangor-Erris.
Mr. Gormley has stated that the appellant's volume of business was not taken into account in assessing N.A.V. and undoubtedly Mr. Brogan must not be penalised for operating the subject premises at their maximum potential.
Bearing in mind the location and size of Bangor-Erris together with the undisputed attractiveness of the appearance and physical layout of the subject premises the Tribunal has had regard fundamentally to the rent that the hypothetical tenant might be willing to pay.
In all the circumstances and in the light of all of the evidence adduced the Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct R.V. of the subject is £65 and so determines.