Cali v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 79
•30 May 1997
|
BRISBANE
30 MAY 1997
Re: Determination of unimproved value -
City of Brisbane - Division of Balmoral
AV97-15
Giovanni and Josephene Cali
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
D E C I S I O N
Giovanni and Josephene Cali are proceeding with an appeal filed by their predecessor in title Lea Ann Hoppe against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $220,000 for a “Residential BR3" zoned site which is more particularly described as Lot 186 on RP 12826, Parish of Bulimba, County of Stanley, containing an area of 693 m². The land is situated at 18 Bede Street, Balmoral, in what is described by the Chief Executive as an established ridge top residential locality comprised of older style good quality homes. The right for G and J Cali to carry on the appeal is conveyed upon them under the provision of s.46(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The valuation contended for within the Notice of Appeal is $124,000, and the relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 January 1996. A valuation of $124,000 represents an increase of 5% over the 1 January 1995 relevant date valuation of $118,000.
There is presently an appeal before the Court against the determination of the unimproved value of the adjoining parcel of land (AV97-14) by Peter H Brown, who is the father of the original appellant in this case (LA Hoppe). Mr Brown formulated the grounds of appeal in this case, which are almost identical with those relied upon by him in his appeal. A statement of evidence was attested to by Josephene Cali and this document is virtually identical with that relied upon by Mr Brown in his case. Clearly it was prepared by Mr Brown. I do not propose to outline in this decision such of the submissions which are duplicated in this case, but only, where appropriate, to refer to additional material placed before the Court in this appeal. I suggest that the decision in Re: PH Brown v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV97-14) be read in conjunction with this decision.
The valuation appealed against ($220,000) represents an increase over the 1 January 1995 relevant date valuation of 91% as opposed to the increase in the PH Brown appeal of 96%, and it is also claimed in this case that this increase in value is excessive and not in line with other valuation increases in Bede Street.
Josephene Cali was called in support of the appeal. Mrs Cali says that the outlook from the subject land is restricted by large trees on other adjacent properties and points out that No. 27 Bede Street (1 January 1996 valuation $190,000) has superior and unrestricted views and is higher in elevation, and the 1 January 1996 valuation of that land increased by a factor of only 22.5%.
The valuation of the subject land is supported by the evidence of registered departmental valuer Jennifer Robyn Manners, who describes the nature of the subject land as being an elevated allotment falling below Bede Street with a westerly aspect. Miss Manners says it enjoys views of the Story Bridge and city buildings, Mount Coot-tha and suburbs.
Miss Manners relies upon the same sale and the same relativity schedule for the subject valuation as that relied upon in PH Brown v. Chief Executive (AV97-14).
For the reasons outlined in the decision in PH Brown v. Chief Executive (AV97-14), the Court cannot be influenced by the evidence of the highly improved sales referred to by Mrs Cali in her statement, nor by the evidence of the relative or percentage increase in valuations. What has to be determined is the unimproved value of the subject land as at the relevant date and the best basis of valuation is vacant or lightly improved sales evidence. In this respect, the only relevant sale is that of Lot 73 on RP 12825 containing 405 m² in Dilkera Street (corner Main Street) on 7 October 1994 for $170,000. Further, that change can be made to existing valuation relativity, where deemed desirable, is supported by the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in Re: Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1990-1) 13 QLCR 13, p.17 when the Land Appeal Court had this to say
“It has been well recognised over the years that previously established relativity in unimproved values can and does change from valuation to valuation. If there was no justification for a change in relativity, the valuer’s task would be very simple in that all that would be required to establish value would be accomplished by the use of an adjusting formula. This, of course, is undesirable.”
In all the circumstances, and in accordance with, and for reasons outlined in my decision in Re: PH Brown v. Chief Executive (AV97-14) the appeal is dismissed, and the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $220,000 for Lot 186 on RP 12826, Parish of Bulimba, is affirmed.
CH CARTER
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0