VA14.5.669 – Finnegan Menton Ltd

• Appeal Number: VA14.5.669
• Year: 2019
• Date: 31 July 2019
• Court: Valuation Tribunal
• Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION
• Appellant: Finnegan Menton Ltd

1

Appeal No: VA14/5/669

AN BINSE LUACHÁLA

VALUATION TRIBUNAL

AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001

VALUATION ACT, 2001

FINNEGAN MENTON LTD APPELLANT

AND

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION RESPONDENT

In relation to the valuation of

Property No. 840743, Retail (Shops) at 17 Merrion Row, County Borough of Dublin.

B E F O R E

John Stewart - FSCSI FRICS MCI Arb Deputy Chairperson

Dairine Mac Fadden - Solicitor Member

Caroline Murphy -BL Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

ISSUED ON THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019.

1. THE APPEAL

1.1 By Notice of Appeal received on the 4th day of September 2014 the Appellant appealed

against the determination of the Respondent pursuant to which the net annual value ‘(the

NAV’) of the above relevant Property was fixed in the sum of €60,700.

1.2 The Grounds of Appeal are fully set out in the Notice of Appeal. They are as follows:

The property is incorrectly listed in the Category of ‘Retail (Shops)’. The property should be

valued under the category ‘Offices’ and the Use should be listed as ‘Offices (Georgian

Victorian)’.

2

The property is (and has for the last number of decades) been in Office use. The office is a firm

of Chartered Surveyors and Estate Agents but unlike many Estate Agents does not even display

properties in the window or reception area. The Ground Floor has been valued by the

Valuation Office on a Retail Zone A, B and C basis while it should be valued as Offices

(Georgian / Victorian).

The property could not be put to retail use without planning permission for the change of use.

The window frontage does not lend itself to retail use and as a Protected Structure it would

most likely not be permitted to replace the ground floor windows with a shop front.

Section 48(3) of the Valuation Act 2011 states that the Basis of Valuation of a property it[sic]

the net annual value in relation to the property “in its actual state”. Therefore, the valuation

should be valued in its current state and not valued on an assumption of another alternative

use for which planning permission would be required and material alterations would be

required.

In arriving at their opinion of NAV the Valuation Office should have regard to valuations

assessed on properties in the same use (Estate Agents & Auctioneers and similar office uses

with public ground floor access) including properties that are under different categories ie[sic]

Offices (2nd gen),Office(Georgian[sic]/Victorian) and Offices (3rd Generation) which are being

put to the same use and are in the same locality.

The valuation is considered excessive and inequitable.

1.3 The Appellant considers that the valuation of the Property ought to have been determined

in the sum of €37,500.

2. REVALUATION HISTORY

2.1 A copy of a valuation certificate proposed to be issued under section 24(1) of the Valuation

Act 2001 (“the Act”) in relation to the Property was sent to the Appellant indicating a valuation

of €60,700.

2.2 Being dissatisfied with the valuation proposed, representations were made to the valuation

manager in relation to the valuation. Following consideration of those representations, the

valuation manager did not consider it appropriate to provide for a lower valuation.

3

2.3 A Final Valuation Certificate issued on the 8th day of August 2014 stating a valuation of

€60,700.

2.4 The date by reference to which the value of the property, the subject of this appeal, was

determined is the 07 day of April 2011.

3. THE HEARING

3.1 The Appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing held in the offices of the Valuation

Tribunal at Holbrook House, Holles Street, Dublin 2, on the 9th day of April 2019. At the

hearing Mr. Owen Hickey SC and Mr. Barry O’Donoghue BL, instructed by Ferrys Solicitors,

represented the Appellant and the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Nicholas Corson, Director

Finnegan Menton, Mr David McHugh Conservation Architect, and Mr Donal O’Donoghue,

Valuer OMK Property Advisors, on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent was represented

by Mr. David Dodd BL, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor, and Ms Mary Conway, Deputy

City Planner, Dublin City Council, Mr Pat Nestor Head of Building Control Division, Dublin

City Council and Ms. Claire Callan Valuer BCS (Surv), gave evidence on behalf of the

Valuation Office.

3.2 In accordance with the Rules of the Tribunal, the parties had exchanged their respective

reports and précis of evidence prior to the commencement of the hearing and submitted them

to the Tribunal. At the oral hearing, each witness, having taken the oath, adopted his précis as

his evidence-in-chief in addition to giving oral evidence.

4. FACTS

4.1 From the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal finds the following:

4.2 The Property is a four storey over basement mid terrace property situated at 17 Merrion

Row, Dublin 2, with a single storey flat roof link building over a former yard, connecting

through to the original two storey mews/coach house. It is located in a parade of

retail/restaurant premises. The ground floor consists of an open plan area with a side entrance

door and includes two timber framed display windows. The basement comprises storage

accommodation and upper levels on first, second and third floors are used as offices. There is

one door at the front through which the entire property is accessed. It is not in dispute that the