Body Corporate for .Central Brunswick Convenience Centre. v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[2000] QLC 52

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

20 SEPTEMBER 2000

Re:  AV99-511

An Appeal against an Unimproved Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944

Local Government: BCC-Brisbane

Body Corporate for "Central Brunswick Convenience Centre"
v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

J U D G M E N T

1. The dispute between the parties to this matter arises out of the valuation by the Chief Executive placed on land owned by the appellant pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The Chief Executive valued the land at a relevant date of 1 October 1998 at a figure of $1,600,000, whilst the appellant contends for a value of $1,250,000. The grounds of appeal in support of the appellant's case are expressed in rather obtuse language, however, no objection was raised by the respondent to the evidence adduced in support of the appeal.

2. Valuation evidence from the appellant's side was provided by Geoffrey Donald Trivett, a registered valuer, whilst Alan Ross Kirby, also a registered valuer, provided valuation evidence in support of the Chief Executive's valuation figure. Each of the valuers provided brief oral evidence, however, it was their written valuation reports which provided the bulk of the evidence said by each to support their respective values. In the hearing of Appeal AV99-514, IOOF Australia Trustee (NSW) ATF Abacus CUB Office Trust v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, substantial oral evidence was provided with respect to the same sales which each of the valuers in the present case rely upon. The parties have agreed that that oral evidence be admitted as evidence in the present case. I have at today's date published my reasons for judgment in the IOOF matter. My discussion of the sales evidence and the conclusions that I draw with respect to each of the sales should be treated as part of my reasons in the present case.

3. The subject land is described as Lots 1 to 18 on BUP106504 (Lot 9 on Registered Plan 904190), County of Stanley, Parish of North Brisbane, containing an area of 4,497 m². The land is situated at 421 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley and is bounded by that street as well as Ivory Street to one side, Martin Street to the other and Harrison Lane to the rear. The land is approximately 1.1 km north-east of the Brisbane GPO in a highly improved area, with bitumen sealed roads having concrete kerbing and channelling. Satisfactory vehicular access is available to the subject land from Martin Street and Harrison Lane. The land is well elevated and is an irregular shaped block, thought might be said to be largely rectangular. It is slightly below the level of Martin Street and slopes gently from the corner of Harrison Lane and Martin Street to the intersection of Ivory and Brunswick Streets. All services are available to the land.

4. The property is zoned "Special Development" within the Town Plan for the City of Brisbane, gazetted in 1987 and effected at the date of valuation. The land is designated as part of "Parcel 3, Carlton United Brewery Key Site - Precinct 2: Valley Heart" within the Fortitude Valley Development Control Plan, gazetted 20 December 1996. The land is used for commercial purposes having retail outlets, office accommodation, a medical centre, a school and on-site parking. The zoning of the land permits such uses as shops, restaurant, fast-food store, hotel, business premises, child-care centre, apartment building, attached house, tenement building, home occupation, indoor sport and recreation, amongst others.

5. Mr Trivett valued the land as having a highest and best use for commercial purposes, whilst Mr Kirby said that whereas commercial usages were clearly possible on the land, it had a potential for development as residential apartments, perhaps with commercial uses at the ground-floor level and that such optional development ought not to be discounted. Mr Kirby had placed a value on the land of $355 per m², whilst Mr Trivett's valuation was $278 per m² for the land area.

6. Mr Kirby noted that the plot ratio of the subject land is 1.5, which would therefore yield a maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,745 m², though observed that the actual GFA built on the site was probably about 2,816 m². He decided in his valuation approach not to be guided so much by the mathematical GFA potential, but rather to take into account the actual GFA as an indication of the development potential of the land. He said that under the Development Control Plan there were two particular constraints placed on the site that would impact upon the achievement of the maximum GFA. These constraints comprise the requirement to construct a town square and a height restriction to RL50. He was unsure as to whether the achieved development was the maximum taking into account those constraints, however, thought it appropriate to lean in favour of the land owner in assuming that to be the case. Mr Trivett maintained his view that reference to GFA might lead one into error, however, given Mr Kirby's approach that does not arise as an issue of any significance in this case.

7. Mr Trivett did not provide a detailed comparison between his sale properties and the subject, excepting to say that his Sale 1 at 50 James Street was considered by him to be superior to the subject land, whilst his Sale 2 at 168 Robertson Street was similar. Given that I have indicated in my judgment in AV99-514 that 168 Robertson Street was probably sold at a lower than market level, logic suggests that Mr Trivett would, properly informed, have placed a higher value on the subject land than $278 per m².

8. In reference to his Sale 1 at 34 and 36 Moray Street, New Farm, Mr Kirby wrote that the sale is superior to the subject land per m² of GFA, similar in access, inferior in elevation, location, prominence and total GFA and is overall inferior. He analysed that sale to an unimproved figure of $740 per m², which is greater than double the value of $355 per m² that he placed on the subject land in this case. His Sale 2 at 650 to 652 Brunswick Street, New Farm, was said by him to be superior to the subject property per m² of GFA, similar in elevation and access, inferior in location, prominence and total GFA. Overall he said the sale is inferior to the subject property. Mr Kirby analysed that sale to a price of $670 per m² unimproved, which again is substantially higher than the value that he has placed on the subject property. His Sale 3 at 8 Gardiner Close, Milton, was said by him to be superior per m² GFA and superior in total GFA to the subject land. He said that the sale and the subject property were similar in access, whilst the sale land was inferior in elevation, location and prominence to the subject property, being overall superior. His analysis of the Sale 3 property was to a figure of $540 per m² unimproved, or $362 per m² for the potential GFA of that site.

9. Mr Kirby was not asked by either side to provide an opinion as to how Mr Trivett's Sale 1 at 50 James Street would compare with the subject property, nor was he cross-examined at to the comparisons that he provided between his sales properties and the subject. In the circumstances, I can only conclude that the sales referred to by Mr Kirby support the Chief Executive's valuation and in that regard the valuation appears to have resulted from a conservative application of the sale evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT