Case Study Flashcards
When was the valuation date?
Date of inspection, 7th January 2022
Why did you adopt the RICS Valuation - Global Standards 2022, if this came into force in 2/02/2022?
Early adoption was allowed, so I decided to comply with the new Red Book
What borough does the subject sits in?
Castle Point District
What were the loading doors sizes?
3.5 W x 4 H
Why do you think the subject is highly individual property?
Because I established that users/companies in that area are mainly SMEs manufacturers who require floor space between 5,000 to 15,000 sq.ft.
Therefore demand for larger space is lower
Additionally, a large size of amenity land which the subject provides may perhaps be seen as an unnecessary surplus which does not add significant value to the property.
How did you determine whether the lease was inside or outside the Act?
I read the lease which stated that it was Contracted out of 1954 Act
Why did you choose to select the units in Carnival Park and Pembroke Business Centre as you key comps?
Because I assessed the properties based
different parameters, such as location, condition, size and other facilities and established that on balance the two units could offer a similar level of rent
Why didn’t you give more weight to Thamesview?
Mainly because this comparable had a much smaller floor space and therefore based on grounds of quantum, would be able to achieve achieve a significant higher rent than the subject
How much did the vacant site sell for?
£166,000 (£77,000 per acre)
Why didn’t you adopt the Investment method of Valuation instead of the Capital Value rate?
- I felt I had quality vacant possession sales evidence for both uses which I was quite familiar with and comfortable in adjusting to reflect the differences with the subject
- The client was very keen in testing the value in alternative way if possible and I also wanted do it a way I could avoid making an assumption for void periods.
- For the purposes the actual report, I did value the property using an investment method and similar void assumption which actually reflected a lower price
In you MVVP, why did you choose 1-3 Moss road and Unit 4, Airbone Close and not others that are arguably nearer?
- I was aware that these weren’t perfect matches to my subject, however, I gave greater weight to these comparables as there some key similarities with the subject, I had full information of the physical and transactional details which therefore give me greater confidence in implementing various adjustments accurately to reflect the differences between properties.
Why do you think Moss road which is in a arguably better location had a lower rate to the one you’ve adopted?
- With Moss Road there were many specification elements which matched with the subject and made it comparable, such as size, site coverage, similar industrial estate context, however, Moss has significant lower eaves height and consist of an older property. These two latter elements had great weight in determining an overall upward adjustment.
Why did Airbone Close, which is older and worse property, had a higher figure than your subject?
- Yes, Airbone was a poorer building and lacked of private yard but the similar location and smaller size counter balanced the adjustments and generate a similar price.
In your MVVP, why didn’t you apply a similar rate to Thamesview given that it was in a such a close proximity to your subject?
- Firstly Thameseview comaprable was under offer which meant that it would sit lower down the list of my hierarchy of evidence,
- Secondly, I would have applied a material discount on it based on ground of quantum
When comparing the subject to comparables, how did you account for the trade counter area?
Any unit that did not have a counter area I would apply a discount on it, but the downward adjustment % would be different and assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the overall range of factors.