Appeal No. VA94/1/043
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA John Ball & Son Limited APPELLANT RE: Licensed Shop at Map Ref: 110 Main Street, B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 11th day of May, 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £90.00 on the above described hereditament. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that "the valuation is excessive and inequitable having regard to the provisions of the Valuation Acts and on other grounds only". The Property Accommodation comprises: Title Valuation History The property was listed for revision in 1992 by Cork County Council to value complete hereditament in accordance with use and values. Following inspection the R.V. was fixed at £95.00. At First Appeal the R.V. was reduced from £95.00 to £90.00. It is against this R.V. of £90.00 that an appeal lies to the Tribunal. Written Submissions Mr. Boland set out his calculation of the rateable valuation on the subject
premises as follows:- Mr. Boland offered the following comparative evidence:- (2) 128, Main Street Charleville, Co. Cork (3) Murray Son Ltd, 113 - 118, Main Street, Charleville, Co. Cork Mr. Boland said that this equated to £6.00 on ground floor retail
area and £3.50 for first floor retail area. On the first floor office
the rate per square foot was £3.00 and on second floor stockroom
and office £1.50 per square foot. The Net Annual Value devalues: The net annual value of £18,000 includes for the licence element." Mr. Cahill gave details of two comparisons in Charleville:- First Floor: Second Floor: (2) James Harmon, Stores 587 sq.ft. @ £1.50 psf First Floor: He said that the property was substantially larger than the subject however,
there was little difference in the frontage. Concluding, Mr. Cahill said
that the Net Annual Value is fair and reasonable having regard to:- Oral Hearing Mr. Boland said that a rate of £20 to £25 per square foot was applicable in Mallow and Limerick but that an appropriate rate per square foot on premises in Charleville such as the subject was about £6.00 p.s.f. He described Charleville as a rural town with one main trading area only. He said that the Golden Vale Co-op was not a strong financial influence in the town and that parking was a serious problem on the Main Street. He said that the subject premises had a six day trading licence but that this had been taken into account in his valuation of the subject premises. Mr. Cahill argued that Charleville had a substantial catchment area within a 10 mile radius of the town. He said the Golden Vale Co-op had brought in a lot of commercial activity and that the population in the town was in the region of 2,900 based on the most recent census. He agreed that parking in the Main Street was a problem and that the off-street parking provided by the County Council was not really used. He said that retailing was concentrated in a small segment of the town between the church and Smith's Lane and that the subject premises was located within this concentrated retail area. The parties then discussed the comparisons offered. Mr. Boland provided a comparison, (his No. 2 comparison), 128 Main Street, Charleville, Co. Cork, which Mr. Cahill argued was outside the main retail area and was therefore not comparable to the subject premises. Mr. Cahil sought to adduce further comparisons outside the main shopping area to support his valuation on the subject premises. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Boland's objection to the introduction of further comparisons on the basis that they had not been made available to Mr. Boland in advance of the hearing. Mr. Cahill also made the comment that his precis had been made available to Mr. Boland in advance of his exchange with the Valuation Office. Both Mr. Boland and Mr. Cahill cited the comparison of Murray Son Limited, 113 - 118, Main Street, Charleville, Co. Cork. However, they disagreed on the analysis of the rateable valuation on that premises of £165.00. Mr. Cahill said that the appropriate rate on the ground floor retail area was £7.50 per square foot whereas Mr. Boland argued that the rate was £6.00 per square foot with a higher valuation on the first floor space. Mr. Cahill argued that in country towns such as Charleville there was very little value attributed to first floor space. Mr. Boland said that the layout of the subject was not ideal and that access to the first floor was poor in that it was via a wooden staircase which would not meet the Fire Officers Regulations. Mr. Boland said that the stores at the rear had no access from the shop. He said that there was pedestrian access only down a laneway with no loading facilities. He said that the headroom was domestic type as was the doorway into the stores. He said that the stores were also at three levels. On this basis he felt the valuation attributed to these stores was excessive. Mr. Cahill argued that rear access was not generally available in country towns. Determination Therefore, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct Rateable Valuation is £85.00 and so determines.
|