Scene 1

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

A picture containing sky, outdoor, road, street

Description automatically generated

BUQS 7032/5024 2021 Prepared By: Khama Sibusisiwe 2404429 Manamela Nthabiseng 2389841 Mothoa Karabo 2353520 Gamede Lungile 704700 Sello Charlotte 0409814d

VALUATION REPORT   VALUATION REPORT TWO ERVEN ZONED “RESIDENTIAL”, BOOYSENS, PRETORIA Prepared for Coca Cola Beverages (CCB) a client based in Pretoria, South Africa

Scene 2

Date of Inspection The onsite inspection of the Property by our Surveyors was carried out on the 22 nd    of  May 2021 . Purpose of Valuation Our instruction in this matter is to determine an opinion on the market value of the subject properties for the use of Coca Cola Beverages (CCB) for a possible extension of their parking space.

Scene 3

Updated Title Deed Information 290  Slabbert  Avenue:  Title deed: T41475/1991 .  Erf Number: 98, Portion Number: 4 294  Slabbert  Avenue:  Title deed:  T50225/2012 .  Erf Number: 98, Portion Number: 3   Location of the Property The subject properties are described as 690 & 694 Theo  Slabbert  Avenue   situated in  Booysens  which are located between  Boukenhoutkloof  and Market Street in Pretoria under the City of Tshwane Municipality located in  Gauteng, South Africa.

Scene 4

Description of the Property 690 Theo  Slabbert  avenue property is a tarmac surfaced residential a single dwelling-unit, comprising one story main building measuring a total area of 1163 square meter footage. 694 Theo  Slabbert  avenue is adjacent to 690 has a total site area of 1163 square meter footage, this property is a dilapidated improvement, unoccupied comprising of an incomplete residential structure. Access for both erven is from Theo  Slabbert  Street with the erven closely located to Coca Cola Beverages parking lot. The subject properties are in a suburban location in a major metropolitan area with significant community retail and regional retail in proximity. Both subject properties have municipal services connection, electrical, water and sewage. Tenure, the land of both subject properties is held freehold.

Scene 5

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Scene 6

A picture containing device, old, lathe, miller

Description automatically generated

Scene 7

A picture containing text, grass, outdoor, tree

Description automatically generated

Scene 8

Untitled Map
Write a description for your map.
friGlS (Pty) td.
2/ Technologié
0690 theo Stabbert
Legend
690 Theo SlabbertAve
..'60Crn¯

Scene 9

A picture containing toy

Description automatically generated

Scene 10

A picture containing text, outdoor, sky, tree

Description automatically generated

Scene 11

Valuation Methodology  These properties will be valued using the comparative competitive approach that is based on comparing the property with similar properties in the vicinity that have been recently sold.

Scene 12

The property was valued at a price of R 929 000.00 using the competitive differential technique as a comparable methods approach. The valuation amount was not discounted for comparable price risk because the comparable prices used where actual purchase prices for the properties. The only discount applied was the inflation that considered time lapsed after transactions, that resulted in increased purchase prices due to inflation and increasing property prices.

SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 690 Theo  Slabbert  Avenue

Scene 13

The valuation of the property has resulted in a value of R 586 000.00. when using a comparable approach via the Competitive Differential Technique. The property is valued based on its current use and zoning which is residential 1. This valuation will result in a good negotiating position for Coca Cola as the seller might value the property using the HBU zoning and there will be room to negotiate. The approach considers comparable properties that have been sold in the area in determining our property value. The valuation for the subject was valued as vacant property because it had a dilapidated building on the  There will be no discounting of valuation prices to cater for rezoning time, cost and delays and the risk of rezoning uncertainty. The only discount applied will be the 8% discount for comparable price risk, because the comparable prices used are asking prices, which are usually 8-9% more than the purchase prices. So the value for the property is R 539 000 after an 8% discount

SUBJECT PROPERTY 2 (Old Buildings) 694 Theo  Slabbert  Avenue (1163 m²)

Scene 14

Highest and Best Use (HBU)  According to The Appraisal Institute, the highest and best use of a property is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value. The analysis is as follows:

Scene 15

Physically possible: The site is zoned as “Residential use 1”, purposes for which land may use- dwelling houses. The coverage allowed is 60% with a maximum of 70% allowed for relaxation at a maximum of 3 storeys.1163 x 60% = 697,8m2. The total area permissible on the site is 697,8 x 3 =2093,4m2. According to clause 26 of the Town planning scheme the maximum building height that can be applied for this property is 13 meters. If the requirements cannot be met by the current municipal by laws, CCB or its authorized agent shall apply for consent for the erection of a building to a height greater than that permitted in Table D or Annexure T of the Tshwane Town Planning Scheme 2008.

Scene 16

Financial feasibility: An area of land may be considered to be at its highest and best use when it provides the optimum return to its owner or user, which may be as measured in monetary terms, or in intangible and social values, or a combination of such values.   Maximum productivity: Demand sources of property users for the subject properties are residential property buyers and special buyers such as CCB. Users (customers) are moderate-income residents and businesses within kilometres of the subject site. The most probable buyer of the land assumed vacant is a developer or owner-operator. The intended land use could also be considered highest best use for CCB as it will derive higher value for the company by meeting its immediate requirement and increasing an overall value of the business.

Bar graph with upward trend with solid fill

Scene 17

Maximum productivity: Demand sources of property users for the subject properties are residential property buyers and special buyers such as CCB. Users (customers) are moderate-income residents and businesses within  kilometres  of the subject site. The most probable buyer of the land assumed vacant is a developer or owner-operator. The intended land use could also be considered highest best use for CCB as it will derive higher value for the company by meeting its immediate requirement and increasing an overall value of the business.

Scene 18

Spe cial value and Special purchaser  According to RICS (2017), the case of IRC v Clay (1914) if there is a known purchaser in the market willing to purchase an asset at a considerably higher value than other buyers due to its particular importance to the purchaser it may command a special value. CCB would be a special purchaser as they have a vested interest in the subject properties that other buyers will not have. Special value is applicable when the subject property has attributes resulting in it being more attractive to the specific buyers as opposed to other buyers in the market. It is specified as the amount the buyer is willing to pay over and above the market value. The special value is excluded from the Market value however it is reflected in the Fair Value (IVS, 2014). In the case of CCB the special value is the value that they are willing to pay over and above the market value for the subject properties due to its importance in relation to their parking lot and offices.

Scene 19

Options at CCB disposal with their existing site It is evident that additional parking space is required by CCB due to the proposal to acquire the two subject properties in study for the expansion of their parking lot. In an event that such proposal fails, and the limitation of parking space still exists, we propose the construction of a multi story car park in the CCB existing site, providing facilities which are accessible and cost effective. As part of the municipality approval process, CCB will have to publish notice in the Provincial Gazette of its intention further to that they will have to place a placard on both the Theo  Slabbert  Avenue and Market street frontage in accordance with the requirements of the municipal by-laws.

Scene 20

Long-term projected feasibility of owning parking lots.  Long term investment in parking space ownership allows for opportunities to monetarize mothball or vacant spaces, with an added benefit of the low maintenance requirements. Parking spaces used as income drivers open opportunities to off-street parking and allow for secured parking of vehicles. Not only can parking lots function for personal use, but also attract a wider user spectrum such as public facilities. They can be used for to serve people, commuters, as well as function as delivery arears, bus stops, drop/pick up of zones, overnight parking, park and ride.  Income from parking space ownership may also be supplemented with other options such as ownership of air rights, recreational facilities and business facilities such as drive-in theatres to name but a few, depending on the design, construction and facility features. Parking spaces always allow for investment opportunities of being incorporated into future economic growth and development opportunities for its immediate vicinity.

Scene 21

CONCLUSION  Demand for limited parking is the single most common problem companies face which is also faced by our client CCB. Constructing a new parking structure or extending on the current structure will depend on the most feasible option from a cost –benefit standpoint and being legally permissible.  Based on the property’s locations and revenue generating attributes as outlined above the market values for Subject Property 1 and 2 are R 929 000.00 and 539 000.00 respectively. It is proposed that the client should not acquire the two subject properties for anything above  the appraised values.

PowerPoint Presentation

Page 1 (0s)

Page 2 (27s)

Page 3 (51s)

Page 4 (1m 20s)

Page 5 (2m 2s)

Page 6 (2m 11s)

Page 7 (2m 21s)

Page 8 (2m 31s)

Page 9 (2m 49s)

Page 10 (2m 58s)

Page 11 (3m 9s)

Page 12 (3m 25s)

Page 13 (3m 53s)

Page 14 (4m 46s)

Page 15 (5m 9s)

Page 16 (6m 3s)

Page 17 (6m 59s)

Page 18 (7m 37s)

Page 19 (8m 30s)

Page 20 (9m 10s)

Page 21 (10m 20s)

Page 22 (10m 53s)