Appeal No. VA96/5/008
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
John Pettitt Wexford Limited APPELLANT
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT
RE: Supermarket and Yard at Map Reference 22.214.171.124/5.7.8
(incl. 1ab, Duffry Hill), Duffrey Gate,
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 3rd October 1996, the Appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £340 on the above described hereditament. The ground of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are :
"the rateable valuation of £340 is excessive, inequitable and bad in law".
A written submission prepared by Mr. Joseph Bardon F.R.I.C.S., F.S.C.S. ,Diploma in Environmental Economics on behalf of the Appellant was received by the Tribunal on 28th November 1997. The written submission contained two comparisons.
The written submission contended that a fair rateable valuation of the subject premises would be £290.00.
A written submission prepared by Mr. Edward Hickey, a Chartered Surveyor with 26 years experience in the Valuation Office, was received by the Tribunal on 28th November 1997. The written submission contained four comparisons. The submission contended that a fair rateable valuation of the subject premises was £340.00.
The relevant valuation history is that in 1986 part of the supermarket was valued at £95.00. In 1987 the balance of the supermarket was valued giving a total R.V. of £190.00. In November 1995 an extension was valued giving a total rateable valuation for the subject premises of £360.00.
This was appealed in December 1995 and a decision of the Commissioner of Valuation was issued in September 1996 reducing the rateable valuation to £340.00.
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place in the Council Chamber, Wexford County Council on 12th day of December 1997. The Appellant was represented by Mr Joseph Bardon. The Respondent was represented by Mr Edward Hickey. Both Valuers adopted as their evidence in chief their respective written submissions which had previously been exchanged between them and submitted to the Tribunal.
Evidence and submissions of parties
Supermarket 10727 sq.ft. @ £4.00 = £42,908
Mr Bardon indicated that the principal difference between the Commissioner's
valuation and his was the car parking situation. Mr Bardon stated that
in his opinion the carparking should not be taken into account in the
valuation as it was not owned, rented or controlled by the appellant.
He referred the Tribunal to the Valuation Tribunal decision VA 89/131
Navan Shopping Centre Ltd wherein the Tribunal stated that
Mr Hickey assessed rateable valuation on the premises in a similar fashion to Mr Bardon but attributed a figure of £5.00 to the retail space. Mr Hickey referred the Tribunal to its decisions in VA 95/6/006 and VA95/6/013 wherein the Tribunal indicated that comparisons in the vicinity of an appealed premises were of most assistance. Mr Hickey produced two comparisons in Enniscorthy.
1. L&N Supermarket, Abbey Quay. RV £250
2. Dunnes Stores, Rafter Street. RV £190
Mr Hickey also gave two comparisons outside Enniscorthy;
2. Quinnsworth, Gorey. RV £680
Findings and Determination
Therefore the Tribunal has decided that an appropriate rate for the retailing area in the subject premises, which in fact is the only area in dispute, is £4.75.
The valuation of the premises is as follows:
Retail 10,727 sq.ft. @ £4.75 = £50,953
N.A.V. = £65,599
Therefore the Tribunal determines the rateable valuation of the subject
premises to be £328.