Bilungra Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Alan Webster Family Trust v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 74

[1998] QLC 74

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

2 July 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Values -
  City of Brisbane - Division of Windsor
  (AV97-296 and AV97-297).

Bilungra Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Alan Webster Family Trust (AV97-296)
  and
  Alan K and Joan Webster (AV97-297)
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

Appeals have been filed against the determinations of the unimproved value of two adjoining "Residential B-3" zoned sites situated in Bush Street, Windsor.  Details are:

AV97-296 -An unimproved value of $180,000 ($242 per square metre) for Lot 13 on RP 65374, Parish of Enoggera, County of Stanley, containing an area of 744 square metres - situation 43 Bush Street.

AV97-297 -An unimproved value of $225,000 ($280 per square metre) for Lot 14 on RP 65374, Parish of Enoggera, County of Stanley, containing an area of 804 square metres - situation 40 Bush Street.

The relevant date for the determination of the respective unimproved values is 1 October 1996, and the appellants contend within the notices of appeal for unimproved values of $120,000 ($161 per square metre) - AV97-296 and $140,000 ($174 per square metre) - AV97-297.
           Alan Keith Webster furnished evidence in support of both appeals which are based on the ground of incorrect valuation relativity.  Mr Webster told us that in all there are twelve "Residential B-3" zoned properties fronting Bush Street, all of which, except for Lot 16 at 32 Bush Street, are improved with single unit dwelling houses and which have been valued at such by the respondent Chief Executive.  Lot 16, which is also owned by Bilungra Pty Ltd as Trustee, is improved with a multiple unit residential building (2 flats). 

The principal comparison made by Mr Webster is between the valuation of each of the subject sites and that of Lot 15 on RP 65374 containing an area of 870 square metres and which has been valued at $150,000 ($172 per square metre).  Mr Webster says that while the subject sites and Lot 15 are generally comparable in disposition and area, the values applied are substantially different, with the subject lots being valued at a much higher value per square metre than Lot 15.
           Mr Webster describes the subject blocks as being generally having an east-west aspect with long frontages and boundaries and with views towards the City and the Story Bridge.  Mr Webster says that especially Lot 13 is a difficult site to build on due to its shape and a substantial slope.  By comparison, Mr Webster says Lot 15 has a narrower frontage and is dimensionally a more useable site with no major difficulties of construction and it has equal views to the City and superior views to the north and east and an easterly aspect.  Mr Webster points out that Lot 15 is also larger than each of the subject sites. 
           Another site in Bush Street which was referred to by Mr Webster is Lot 11 on RP 65374 containing an area of 1057 square metres which is valued at $139,500 ($132 per square metre).  He says Lot 11 is inferior in elevation and overall value in comparison with the subject parcels, but he claims it has superior topography as it is a fairly level block.
Mr Webster also claims the subject lands are over-valued when compared with a valuation of $138,600 ($105 per square metre) for a site situated in Constitution Road, Windsor, and which is described as Lot 7 on RP 133839 containing an area of 1315 square metres. He sees Lot 7 as being superior in all respects in comparison with the subject sites as it is situated on the southern side of Constitution Road at the highest point in the road with an equal or superior view to those available from the subject sites.
           Mr Webster placed in evidence a schedule showing his idea of the comparison between each of the subject sites and Lot 15 based on a Weighted Assessment Criteria Principle taking into account such factors as elevation, aspect, views, topography, lot configuration and size, but I find this schedule not to be of assistance in my task of determining the unimproved values of the subject lands.  A single direct comparison on a site to site basis is to be preferred.
           Departmental Registered Valuer James Thomas Houghton presented evidence in support of both appeals.  Mr Houghton was not the original valuer but he has looked at the subject sites and considers the valuations are well supported by the available sales evidence. 
           Mr Houghton describes the nature of the subject sites within his tendered valuation reports as follows:

AV97-296.The land is irregular in shape.  It has a wide frontage (28.8 metres) widening to 47.6 metres along the rear boundary and comprises an easy fall to the rear with good drainage.  The land is well elevated in one of the highest locations in the Windsor Division enjoying a southerly City outlook.

AV97-297.The land is irregular in shape.  It has a wide frontage (31.2 metres) widening to 47.6 metres along the rear boundary and comprises an easy to moderate fall to the rear with good drainage.  The subject land is well elevated in one of the highest locations in the Windsor Division and enjoys extensive City views to the south.

Mr Houghton relies for his opinion as to the correctness of the valuations under appeal upon the following sales evidence:

Sale No 1 - Lot 235 on RP 18914 - 405 square metres - Parlour and Turner to Russo on 1 July 1996 for $145,000 - zoning "Residential A" - situation 97A Fifth Avenue, Windsor - analysed unimproved value $143,000 - applied unimproved value $140,000.

Mr Houghton comments that Lot 235 is a narrow frontage lot below road level and with a moderate fall to the rear.  The parcel affords good views to the City skyline.  Mr Houghton considers this sale parcel to be inferior to the subject lands due to size, shape, frontage, elevation and inferior views to those available from the subject sites.

Sale No 2 - Lot 2 on RP 101622 - 559 square metres - Jamieson to Bates on 24 February 1996 for $150,000 - situation 39 Sixth Avenue, Windsor - zoning "Special Uses" - analysed unimproved value $145,000 - applied unimproved value $135,000.

Mr Houghton says this sale parcel once formed part of the Boothville Hospital.  Further cost is necessary to rezone or obtain consent to erect a dwelling on the sale parcel.  Mr Houghton says the sale parcel is below road frontage and falls moderately to the rear.  The sale site has a good outlook to the south but is considered inferior to each of the subject sites due to its size, frontage, elevation, inferior outlook and the cost requirement to rezone.

Sale No 3 - Lots 108-110 on RP 19870 - 1214 square metres - Tomlinson to Winders on 5 October 1996 for $382,000 - situation 43 Dalrymple Street, Wilston - zoning "Residential A" - analysed unimproved value $347,000 - applied unimproved value $303,750.

Mr Houghton comments that Dalrymple Street is in an elevated location affording extensive views to the south.  In its natural state, he says the sale parcel falls sharply below road level.  It has been retained and filled.  Mr Houghton says the sale parcel is superior to the subject parcels due to its size, location and outlook. 

Sale No 4 - Lots 32-33 on RP 19275 - 809 square metres - Nally to Boots on 1 July 1996 for $168,000 - situation 26 Cumberland Street, Windsor - zoning "Residential A" - analysed unimproved value $155,000 - applied unimproved value $130,000.

Mr Houghton says this sale property contained an old dwelling which has since been removed from the site.  A new dwelling has been erected.  He says the sale parcel is an above-road block in a good residential area but without views.  Mr Houghton considers the subject lands are superior to the sale site due to frontage, elevation and outlook.
Now Mr Houghton is somewhat at a loss to explain the discrepancy between the subject valuations and that of Lot 15. He says his enquiries reveal that for some reason Lot 15 valuation relativity appears to have been changed but he cannot offer a reason. He says there is something inconsistent with the valuation of Lot 15 which appears to be at odds with other valuations in the street, particularly with that of the subject sites. Mr Houghton considers the valuations of the subject parcels are supported by the valuation of Lot 7 in Constitution Road. He says Lot 7 is in a far inferior location when compared with the subject lands and has good, but inferior views.
Now it is well established that the best basis of valuation when the task at hand is to assess unimproved values is the use of analysed sale evidence, and the only sales evidence before the Court is that provided by Mr Houghton. But there is also merit in basing appeals against the determinations of the respondent Chief Executive on the ground of relativity. But the difficulty here for Mr Webster is that, based on Mr Houghton's evidence, there does appear to be a relativity problem between the value applied to Lot 15 and to the other sites in Bush Street. Now, if it is to be assumed that the value of Lot 15 is too low, then to reduce the value of the subject sites on a relativity basis with the value of Lot 15, then such a decision would extend a valuation error, and this is certainly undesirable. But in any event it is the market value of the subject sites which have to be determined as at the relevant date (vide Section 3(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944) and I simply cannot cast aside the sales evidence in favour of aligning the valuation of the subject sites with that of Lot 15.
In these circumstances I cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellants under the provision of section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act has been discharged. Both appeals must fail. But before proceeding to formal determinations, I should comment that this Court has no power to accede to a request made by Mr Webster in his tendered documents to reprimand the General Manager, Valuations, of the Department of Natural Resources, because of the Department's failure to arrange a conference subsequent upon the lodgment of objections against the valuations. This Court's only function is to consider and determine the outcome of the appeals. The following determinations are made:

Re: AV97-296 -The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 13 on RP 65374, Parish of Enoggera, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $180,000 is affirmed.

Re: AV97-297 -The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 14 on RP 65374, Parish of Enoggera, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $225,000 is affirmed.

(CH Carter)         
  Member of the Land Court