AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001
VALUATION ACT, 2001

Coolmine Leisure Ltd.    APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation     RESPONDENT

RE:  Property No. 2170891,  Equestrian Centre at Coolmine, Saggart,  County Dublin.    

B E F O R E
Michael P.M. Connellan - Solicitor   Deputy Chairperson
Michael F. Lyng - Valuer Member
Mairéad Hughes - Hotelier   Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
 ISSUED ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

By Notice of Appeal dated the 22nd day of June, 2008 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a valuation of €91,700 on the above described relevant property.

The grounds of Appeal are set out in the Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 1 to this Judgment.

This appeal has been the subject of a hearing dealing with a preliminary issue namely, the alleged non-compliance of the respondent with section 23 of the Valuation Act, 2001.  The Tribunal heard evidence/submissions on this issue on 12th September, 2008 and issued its written judgment on 25th September, 2008.

The appeal in relation to quantum proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place in the offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin, 7 on the 24th November, 2008. Mr. Eamonn Halpin, BSc (Surveying), ASCS, MRICS, MIAVI, represented the appellant and Mr. Liam Diskin, BSc (Hons) Property Management & Investment, BSc (Ord) Property Valuation & Estate Agency, a District Valuer in the Valuation Office,  represented the respondent. At the oral hearing, both parties, having taken the oath, adopted their précis as being their evidence-in-chief.

Location
This property is located in Coolmine, Saggart, Co. Dublin approximately 1 kilometre south of Rathcoole and 14 kilometres from Dublin City centre.

Description
The subject property is a purpose-built equestrian centre, in a large single industrial style building with 26 stables, an indoor arena and public viewing area. The building is of steel frame construction with single skin cladded walls and roof and concrete floors throughout with the exception of the indoor arena which has an earthen floor. The building has an eaves height of 6.5 metres.

Area
The gross external area of the property is: 
3,141.74 sq. metres

Valuation History
The proposed Valuation Certificate was issued on 5th June, 2007 indicating an RV of €99,200. Representations to the Revision Officer were received on 27th June, 2007 and the NAV was reduced to €91,700 after the outdoor arena was removed from the valuation. An appeal was lodged to the Commissioner on 8th February, 2008 and the valuation remained unchanged at €91,700. The appellant then appealed this decision to the Valuation Tribunal on 26th June, 2008.

Appellant’s case
Mr. Eamonn Halpin, having taken the oath, outlined to the Tribunal that the agreed area of the subject property is 3,141.84 sq. metres. He said that the valuation should be reduced in line with its relative value. The type and size of the building together with the nature of the accommodation as well as its actual location should be taken into account. Its location is high up on a hillside in an agricultural area where commercial development would not be permitted by the Planning Authority. 

(1) Square metre basis
Offices & WC =          89.68 sq. metres
Equestrian Centre         =     1,570.00 sq. metres
Stables                         =       789.16 sq. metres
Open Store Area          =       246.00 sq. metres
Viewing Areas =       447.00 sq. metres
Total area                   =      3,141.84 sq. metres
3,141.84 sq. metres @ €10.25 per sq. metre = €32,203 
Say €32,000

(2) Contractors method
3,141.84 sq. metres @ €205 per sq. metre = €644,077
Site Value                                                    =   €50,000
Total                                                         =   €694,077
€694,077   @ 0.5% =     €34,704    
Say €34,000

(3) Turnover method
Average turnover for years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 = €71,061
Rent @ 25% = €17,765

Mr. Halpin stated that the property is located in a poor rural location at an elevation of 800 feet. He felt that the Valuation Office, in carrying out this valuation, did not look for market evidence but decided that the property should be valued as an industrial building. Mr. Halpin stated that this building because of its location and construction (steel frame with single skin finish) could not be used as an industrial building, as it was more of an agricultural building. He said the property was purpose-built in 1998. The construction cost was £200,000 for which there was a capital grant of £120,000 from EU Structural Funds and without this grant the development would have been much smaller.

Mr. Halpin stated that there were three methods of valuing this property and all three should be looked at. He felt that no ratepayer should have to pay more in rates than his total turnover. Mr. Halpin referred the Tribunal to the profit and loss accounts of the subject property, which showed that the turnover for the years 2004 to 2007 was less than the NAV suggested by the Valuation Office.

Cross Examination
Mr. Halpin in reply to Mr. Diskin as to why he changed his estimation of net annual value from representation stage, which he estimated on a 2005 basis to be €50,000 and again at first appeal when he estimated the NAV to be €30,000, stated that he did not have the accounts available at the time of first estimation. In regard to Mr. Diskin’s comparisons, Mr. Halpin felt that Calliagstown Riding Centre which is 2,179.38 sq. metres in size and has 16 stables was a converted agricultural building and not comparable to the subject. He also felt that the second comparison, Rathfarnham Equestrian Centre, was superior to the subject as it had a more modern arena. In regard to comparisons 3 and 4, Mr. Halpin stated that both properties were located within a half mile of the Naas Road which is a much better location and both are much smaller than the subject. In reply to Mr. Diskin, Mr. Halpin said that he had no comparable evidence to sustain his valuation of €10.25 per sq. metre on the subject property.

In regard to Mr. Halpin’s Contractors Method of valuation, he said that the construction cost of the subject property in 1998 was €250,000. The site value was based on agricultural land values at that time. Mr. Diskin stated that a site of 0.5 acres in 2005 at Newtown Upper, Rathcoole, with no planning permission was sold for €350,000. Mr. Halpin agreed with Mr. Diskin that no equestrian centre in South County Dublin has been valued using the Contractors Method or Turnover Method.

Respondent’s Case
Mr. Liam Diskin assessed the rateable valuation of the subject property as follows:

Block 1 Equestrian Centre              246 sq. metres               @ €30 per sq. metre =   €7,380.00
Block 2 Office                                 89.68 sq. metres        @ €30 per sq. metre =   €2,690.40
Block 3 Stables                                789.16 sq. metres      @ €30 per sq. metre = €23,674.80
Block 4 Arena                                   1,570.10 sq. metres   @ €30 per sq. metre = €47,103.00
Block 5 Viewing area Level 0         15.90 sq. metres        @ €30 per sq. metre =      €477.00
Block 5 Viewing area Level 1         15.90 sq. metres        @ €30 per sq. metre =       €477.00
Block 6 Viewing area Level 0         160 sq. metres           @ €30 per sq. metre =    €4,800.00
Block 6 Viewing area Level 1          255 sq. metres          @ €20 per sq. metre =    €5,100.00

Total NAV €91,702.20
Say €91,700

Mr. Diskin said that in the revaluation of this Rating Authority area, valuation levels were derived from an analysis of available market information of comparable properties and applied to the subject property. The valuation of this property on appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation was determined by reference to the values of comparable properties stated in the Valuation List in which the property appears.

In reference to his comparisons, Mr. Diskin stated that his Comparison 1, Calliagstown Riding Centre, was very basic in construction and had only 16 stables. His Comparison 2, Rathfarnham Equestrian Centre, was not as good a quality as the subject and had an eaves height of only 3.5 & 4.5 metres. He referred to his Comparisons 3 & 4, which he said were very basic workshops and yards. He said the workshops were valued at €50 per sq. metre and the yards were valued at €10 per sq. metre. He said rental evidence sustained this value on poor quality buildings in this area. 

Mr. Diskin’s comparisons are at Appendix 2 hereto.

Cross Examination
Mr. Diskin, in reply to Mr. Halpin, stated that he did see Rathfarnham Equestrian Centre but he did not carry out a survey on it. It has, he said, an eaves height of only 3.5 & 4.5 metres and the stables are housed in a separate block. In regard to Calliagstown Riding Centre, he said it is an agricultural style building converted into an equestrian centre.

Findings
The Tribunal having considered carefully all the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties makes the following findings:

1. The subject property was purpose-built in 1998. The construction cost was £200,000 for which there was a capital grant of £120,000 from EU Structural Funds.
2. The respondent’s comparisons are all converted farm buildings.
3. The subject property is in a poor, rural location at an elevation of 800 feet.
4. The building quality is very basic, of steel portal frame with single skin cladding.
5. The arena has an earthen floor.
6. The subject property has more stables than Calliagstown Riding Centre.
7. Of the subject property’s 26 stables, only 10 were in use at the valuation date.
8. The level of €30 per sq. metre on the stables of the subject is excessive in comparison to levels of €15 and €13.66 per sq. metre on the stables in Calliagstown Riding Centre and Rathfarnham Equestrian Centre respectively.
9. The respondent’s “industrial-style” comparisons 3 and 4 are not comparable to the subject and the Tribunal therefore disregards them.

 
Determination
Having regard to the above findings, the Tribunal determines the valuation of the subject property to be €68,866, calculated as set out below:

Block 1 – Equestrian Centre:    246.00 sq. metres         @ €25 per sq. metre =     €6,150.00
Block 2 – Office:                      89.68 sq. metres           @ €30 per sq. metre =     €2,690.40
Block 3 – Stables:                   789.16 sq. metres          @ €15 per sq. metre =   €11,837.40
Block 4 – Arena:                     1,570.10 sq. metres       @ €25 per sq. metre =   €39,252.50

Block 5
Viewing Area Level 0:  15.90 sq. metres           @ €20 per sq. metre =       €318.00
Viewing Area Level 1:              15.90 sq. metres           @ €20 per sq. metre =       €318.00
Block 6
Viewing area Level 0:               160.00 sq. metres         @ €20 per sq. metre =    €3,200.00
Viewing area Level 1:               255.00 sq. metres         @ €20 per sq. metre =    €5,100.00
NAV                                                                                                                   €68,866.30
Say €68,866

And the Tribunal so determines.