Adey v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 48

[1998] QLC 48

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

6 May 1998

Re:                 Determination of Unimproved Value -
  Local Authority:  Caboolture.
  (AV97-101).

HS and MB Adey
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

Falling for determination is the unimproved value of a 600 square metre parcel of land situated at 130 Bancroft Terrace, Deception Bay, and which is more particularly described as Lot 166 on RP 856661, Parish of Burpengary.  The land is zoned "Residential A" under the provisions of the Shire of Caboolture Town Planning Scheme gazetted on 12 March 1988.  The respondent Chief Executive has valued the land as at a relevant date of 1 October 1996, in the sum of $31,500.
           This is an unusual case in that the appellants contend within their notice of appeal for a value of $38,250 which is higher than the Chief Executive's valuation.  Ms Helen Seton Adey outlined the history of recent valuations of the land, which has been owned by the appellants for about four years.  The valuation of the subject parcel as at a relevant date of 1 January 1995, was $41,500, and the valuation of it as at the relevant date of 1 January 1996, was $35,000.  The appellants come before the Court in an endeavour to have the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuation increased because of their concern that the property asset value is being eroded by the valuation decreases.  They believe that real estate agents are maintaining their price levels for property in the area but at reduced interest rates and the property sales are flat.  Ms Adey is particularly concerned about the position ("an uphill battle", she called it) for first home buyers and retirees.
           The valuation under appeal was made by Departmental Registered Valuer Clay Jason Edward Eaton who describes the nature of the land in its unimproved state as being level at the street frontage and throughout.  Mr Eaton has made the valuation of it in relation to the analyses of three sales of vacant sites in Deception Bay.  Details of the sales evidence are:

Sale No 1 - Lot 198 on RP 856662 - 600 square metres - Gemini Nominees to Bouckaert, Rycroft on 1 February 1996 for $35,000 - analysed unimproved value $34,000 - applied unimproved value $33,500 - situation Trinidad Terrace, Deception Bay.

Mr Eaton describes the sale land as being in a slightly superior location to that of the subject property, with comparable access, zoning, topography, shape and size.  He regards the sale land to be slightly superior to the subject land.

Sale No 2 - Lot 182 on RP 868922 - 602 square metres - Redcliffe Seaside Estates to Hall on 10 March 1997 for $35,500 - analysed unimproved value $34,100 - applied unimproved value $33,500 - situation Trinidad Terrace, Deception Bay.

Mr Eaton says this sale land also has a slightly superior location but is otherwise comparable with the subject land.  Again, he considers the sale land to be slightly superior to the subject land.

Sale No 3 - Lot 65 on RP 850597 - 637 square metres - Redcliffe Seaside Estates to Logan on 30 August 1996 for $37,000 - analysed unimproved value $35,700 - applied unimproved value $34,000 - situation Clerke Street, Deception Bay.

Mr Eaton says this sale land is also in a slightly superior location but otherwise comparable with the subject land.  Mr Eaton is of the view that the sale land is again slightly superior to the subject land.
           I can understand that the appellants are not concerned if the determination of this Court is for an increase in the subsisting unimproved value, as Mr Eaton explained that the general rate struck by the Local Authority of Caboolture is set at a minimum sum for any residential value below $50,000.
           Now it is well established that the best basis of valuation when the task at hand is to determine unimproved value is the use of analysed sales evidence.  The only such evidence before the Court is that provided by Mr Eaton, and unfortunate as it may be for the appellants, it supports the level of value written by the Chief Executive for the subject land as at the relevant date, notwithstanding that it is quite considerably lower than the value applied in previous years.  But the value in previous years is not of concern to the Court as the value has to be determined as at 1 October 1996.  In these circumstances, I cannot come to a conclusion that the unimproved value under appeal should be increased.
           It follows, then, that the appeal must be dismissed, and that the unimproved value of $31,500 for Lot 166 on RP 856661, Parish of Burpengary, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive be affirmed.

CH Carter
  Member of the Land Court