Appeal No. VA97/6/038
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Musgrave Ltd. t/a SuperValu APPELLANT
RE: Supermarket and yard at Map Reference 90.92.94a,
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 17th day of October 1997 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £125.00 on the above described hereditament.
The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:
The relevant valuation history is that the subject premises was part of a larger hereditament incorporating the adjoining licensed house. In 1995/4 revision following a request from the local authority to "revalue" a further revision took place. The supermarket now formed a separate hereditament and extended to further valuation lots. The description was changed to "supermarket and yard" and the R.V. was increased to R.V. £125 (Lot 90,92,94a West Street).
This rateable valuation was appealed but the Commissioner of Valuation issued his decision making no change.
A written submission on behalf of the appellant prepared by Mr. Alan McMillan ASCS ARICS MIAVI of Donal O'Buachalla & Company Limited was received by the Tribunal on 23rd March 1998. Mr. McMillan's written statement stated that the property comprised a supermarket in the centre of Castleblayney with customer carpark to the rear. Access from West Street (the main street) is via an alleyway with additional access from a small rear car park. It does not have street frontage to the main street. The subject comprises a basic industrial style building of unrendered concrete block walls under pitched uninsulated asbestos sheeted roof providing an eaves height of approximately 3.8 metres. Mr. McMillan's written submission described the areas of the subject premises as follows;
Supermarket : 4,745 sq.ft.
Mr. McMillan assessed the rateable valuation on the basis of;
Retail area : 4,745 sq.ft. @ £3.00 = £14,235
Mr. McMillan produced in his written submission three comparisons to the Tribunal:
(a) Supervalu Supermarket, Ardee /R.V. £130
Ground floor : Retail 4785 sq.ft. @ £5.00
(b) Maxworth Limited, Boyne Shopping Centre, Drogheda
Lots : 6 & 7 Bolton Street, Drogheda
Lot 6 : Retail 5,100 sq.ft. @ £3.50
Lot 7 : Retail 1,194 sq.ft. @ £4.00
(c) Supervalu, Longford / R.V. £130
Ground floor Shop 4,181 sq.ft. @ £4.00
Described as having direct street frontage and a prime retail pitch.
A written submission prepared by Mr. Patrick McMorrow B.Ag.Sc. (Econ) G.Dip. P and D Economics on behalf of the Respondent was received by the Tribunal on 27th March 1998. Mr. McMorrow is a valuer with 17 years experience in the Valuation Office. Mr. McMorrow assessed rateable valuation on the subject premises as follows;
Say R.V. = £125.00
Annexed to his written submission Mr. McMorrow produced in tabular form three comparisons and this portion of the written submission is appended to this judgment as Appendix One.
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing which took place on the 3rd day of April 1998 in the Circuit Court Offices, The Courthouse, Co. Monaghan. Mr. Alan McMillan appeared on behalf of the appellant Mr. McConnon, who was himself in attendance. Mr. Patrick McMorrow appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Valuation. In accordance with practice and as required by the rules of this Tribunal the parties had prior to commencement of the hearing exchanged précis of evidence and submitted same to us. Having taken the oath each Valuer adopted as his evidence in chief his precis.
As a preliminary point there was a discrepancy in the area described as stores and offices and Mr. McMillan agreed that the area of 702 sq.ft. should be taken as the area of the stores and offices. This figure was submitted by the Valuation Office.
In his evidence Mr. McMillan dealt in greater detail with his comparisons. He stated that the three towns in which his comparisons were situated were superior locations.
Mr. McConnon, the owner of the subject premises gave sworn testimony. He described the premises as having an off street location. This meant that it lost out on the passing trade on the street. This trade included convenience items like bread, milk and confectionery which had a high profit margin. Mr. McConnon stated that the subject premises was badly insulated. This meant that higher expenditure on heating fuel was required to properly heat the premises.
In his sworn testimony Mr. McMorrow dealt in greater detail with his comparisons. He stated that there were no suitable comparisons available in Castleblayney.
The Tribunal has considered the written submission and the evidence of Mr. McMillan and of Mr. McConnon and also the written submission and the evidence of Mr. McMorrow on behalf of the Respondent. The Tribunal has looked at the comparisons presented by both sides and has concluded that the subject premises is an inferior premises compared to the comparisons presented. In particular the Tribunal has decided that the subject property suffers from a number of disadvantages namely;
1. Difficulties of access prevent the subject premises from gaining the passing convenience shopping which is high margin shopping and this is a detrimental aspect of the business.
2. The building itself is not properly insulated and this means that the owner has to incur additional costs in heating the building.
The Tribunal has decided that as to the retailing area which amounts to 4,745 sq.ft., that the value of £4.00 p.s.f. should be placed on this giving a total value of £18,980. The Tribunal also considers that the stores and offices in a building like this, because they do not join in the retailing aspect of the business, should be treated as the same for the purposes of valuation and taking the agreed figure of 702 sq.ft., the Tribunal places a value of £2.50 p.s.f. on this giving a total value of £1,755. This produces a total N.A.V. of £20,735 and applying the usual 0.5% fraction this produces an R.V. of £103.67 say £104. The Tribunal therefore determines the rateable valuation of the subject premises to be £104.