THE Shelbourne Park greyhound racing stadium is disputing the rateable valuation of the complex, it was stated in the High Court yesterday.
Mrs Justice McGuinness was giving judgment on points of law relating to an appeal by Sbelbourne Greyhound Stadium
Ltd, South Lotts Road, Ringsend, Dublin, to the Valuation Tribunal. The stadium was dissatisfied with the tribuanal's determination.
The judge said the company was a wholly owned subsidiary of Bord na gCon under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture.
The Commissioner of Valuation determined the rateable valuation of the greyhound racing stadium, the floodlit running track, viewing stand, ancillary service building and car park, as of November 1993, to be £1,000. The company appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Mr Alan McMillan ARICS, director of Donal O'Buachalla and Company Ltd, on behalf of Shelbourne Park, said at the tribunal attendances and tote turnover had declined by 64 per cent from 1980 to 1993. During the same period the company's financial position had declined from a profit of £61,788 in 1980 to a loss of £115,141 in 1993.
The State had invested some £1 million in improvements, but this had proved unremunerative and the decline had continued. He suggested £350 was a fair valuation.
For the Commissioner, Mr Peter Conroy, district valuer of the Valuation Office, said no greyhound track had ever been valued on the basis of profits or attendances.
He drew attention to the £1 million already invested by the State in Shelbourne Park and to the proposed further £2.5 million to be invested in Shelbourne Park.
The judge said the tribunal had ruled that the buildings were of high quality and it could not ignore the State's involvement. It accepted that the nonprofit element had been taken into consideration by the Commissioner.
The questions referred to the High Court were was the tribunal correct in law in having regard to the current investment, said to amount to £2.5 million and was it correct in accepting the claim made on behalf of the Commissioner that the non profit element had been taken into consideration by him in arriving at the valuation?
The judge said planned investment in a future development should not be taken into account in deciding the current net annual value as of November 1993. The effect of this development would fall to be decided at the post 1995 revision.
Regarding the second question, it was correct in accepting the claim made on behalf of the Commissionerf.