|
Appeal No. VA10/5/095
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Rush Credit Union Ltd. APPELLANT RE: Property No. 432125, Office at Credit Union House, Station Road, Lusk, County Dublin. B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 1st day of September, 2010 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a valuation of €31,200 on the above described relevant property. The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are: "On the basis that the NAV as assessed is excessive & inequitable. It fails to take into account the relative values in Lusk on a one year with another basis. Lusk is a poor office location with relatively low demand. It is unfair to assess the subject at the same level as superior located properties in Swords, Skerries, etc." The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of the Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7 on the 15th day of November, 2010. At the hearing the appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn S Halpin, BSc (Surveying), ASCS, MRICS, MIAVI, Eamon S Halpin & Co Ltd. and the respondent by Mr. Alan Sweeney, BSc (Property Valuation and Management), a Valuer in the Valuation Office. Mr. Liam Cahill of the Valuation Office was also in attendance. Each representative having taken the oath, adopted his précis and valuation, which had previously been received by the Tribunal and exchanged with the other party, as his evidence-in-chief. Issue Location Description Accommodation Valuation History & Relevant Dates Appellant’s Case “The unit, although new and well finished, does not compare in our view with the better located similar type credit union units elsewhere in Fingal as assessed by the Commissioner. The 1st floor meeting room has relatively poor natural light and is thus inferior due to the condition that the small window be maintained to blend in with the adjoining property and reflect the appearance of the original building. Many of the comparisons also have there (sic) own designated car parks which made these units more attractive & valuable. The hypothetical tenant would not pay more per metre squared for this unit than for comparison nos 1 or 2, which are close by in Rush and Balbriggan, both much larger towns. Both properties also have the advantage of a car park. The levels applied by the Commissioner are excessive in view of the actual position within the village and do not take account of the relatively poorer location and lack of profile both of which would be significant factors here. It is accepted that with this type of property as with all other there is a range of values, however, this unit is not comparable with the best units and the premium applied by the Commissioner is totally inappropriate and unsustainable given the established tone in the area for comparable property and the actual location of the premises. It is inequitable to value the subject by reference exclusively to market conditions & rents at 30/9/2005 as this represented an extraordinary high point in the property cycle. To do so is thus contrary to the method of valuation as set out in 48 (3) of the 2001 Act i.e the long established concept of one year with another, which clearly avoids such high and low points in the cycle in the process of arriving at fair annual values for rating purposes (even when carrying out valuations by reference to a single valuation date).” In his oral evidence, Mr. Halpin stressed the poor location of the building in Lusk and stated that the footfall passing the building was poor He also stated that the potential for business at this location is moderate due to the village’s proximity to larger centres such as Swords, Skerries, Rush and Balbriggan. He stated that there is a moderate amount of passing trade at this location. Mr. Halpin stated his opinion that these factors would greatly reduce the attractiveness of the subject property to retailers or other commercial users. Mr. Halpin contended for a valuation of €22,000, calculated as follows: Ground Floor entrance lobby 5.75 sq. metres @ Nil In support of his estimate of NAV, Mr. Halpin introduced 5 comparisons as follows: Comparisons Property No. 434475. Occupier: Rush Credit Union. Valuation €67,700 (Agreed on appeal). Property No. 274374. Occupier: Balbriggan Credit Union. Valuation €109,500. Property No. 436370. Occupier: Skerries Credit Union. Valuation €59,400. Property No. 1141145. Occupier: Donabate Credit Union. Valuation €57,400. Property No. 2197796. Occupier: Swords Credit Union. Valuation €139,300. Mr. Halpin stressed that his primary comparison was the Rush Credit Union property in Rush, stating that it was in a far better location, and a better town. He also pointed out that the same tenant occupies this comparison as occupies the subject. Mr. Halpin claimed that when the Commissioner went out to Lusk he got an overly bullish view, but that on reflection, based on representations and appeals, he had discounted properties in Lusk by an average of 20%. Mr. Halpin asserted that his clients were also entitled to this discount. Respondent’s Evidence As a result of an adjustment to areas agreed between parties prior to hearing, Mr. Sweeney contended for a rateable valuation of €31,000, calculated as follows: Blocks 2-4: 8 Ground Floor Office 69.18 sq. metres @ €300 per sq. metre = €20,754 In support of his opinion of rateable valuation Mr. Sweeney put forward four comparisons as follows: Property No. 2199096. Dr. Pavlina Fagan, Second Floor, Lusk Town Centre, Market Square, Station Road, Lusk, Co. Dublin. Property No. 2197841. Lusk Fitness, Dun Emer, Kilhedge Lane, Lusk, Co. Dublin. Property No. 432165. John & Ursula McDonald, Fingal House, The Square, Lusk, Co. Dublin. Property No. 2162689. Lusk Chinese and Thai Takeway, Station Road, Lusk, Co. Dublin In his evidence Mr. Sweeney stated that the subject property is a new building, purpose-built and opened in 2006. The Credit Union has car parking for 3 cars. Mr. Sweeney also contended that the property was well located in Lusk being adjacent to the new Supermarket. Mr Sweeney submitted CSO population figures for Lusk as at June 2006, stating that Lusk is a rapidly growing commuter town. Mr. Sweeney took issue with all of Mr. Halpin’s comparisons and stressed that his own comparisons were much more relevant as they are all in Lusk. He said that Mr. Halpin had failed to compare the values in Lusk and that there is no need to look outside of Lusk. Mr. Sweeney concluded that a valuation of €31,000 is fair and reasonable. Findings The appellant’s comparisons are all Credit Unions from the adjoining towns such as Rush, Balbriggan, Skerries, Donabate and Swords, whereas the respondent’s comparisons are all comparisons within Lusk itself. The Tribunal is of the opinion that in arriving at a true valuation both sets of comparisons need to be taken into consideration. The subject property is a sub-office of Rush Credit Union, which comparison, submitted by the appellant, the Tribunal found to be of particular assistance. The subject property is purpose-built and in excellent condition with 3 parking spaces. There has been a significant increase in the population in Lusk since the 2002 census; indeed all the towns mentioned in the comparisons have had significant increases in population. However, Lusk is still the smallest of these towns population-wise. The Tribunal accepts that there is not a huge amount of commercial activity in that Lusk and Lusk has a poor main street from retail point of view. The Tribunal accepts that the ring road around Lusk has reduced passing trade. Determination Blocks 2-4 & 8 And the Tribunal so determines.
|