Corbett Property Trust v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 151
•6 November 1996
|
BRISBANE
6 NOVEMBER 1996
In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll No.: 17616/47200
Local Government: GCCC-Albert (V95-276)
Corbett Property Trust
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Coolangatta)
D E C I S I O N
The landholder in this matter has appealed against the valuation placed on the subject land by the Chief Executive in the amount of $74,000 as at a relevant date of 30 June 1993 pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944. In the Notice of Appeal the appellant recorded that the valuation ought to be $55,000, however, during the hearing led evidence to a figure of $63,000. Peter Gerard Corbett, a registered valuer, appeared for and gave evidence on behalf of the appellant, whilst Gregory Patrick Crowley, a registered valuer in the employment of the Department of Natural Resources, which includes the former Department of Lands, gave valuation evidence on behalf of the Chief Executive.
The subject land comprises Lot 123 on Registered Plan 868084, has an area of 996 m² and is located at 8 Elanda Place in a recently developed estate known as “The Shores”, situated, according to Mr Corbett’s valuation, on the “eastern fringe of Helensvale between the Beenleigh-Robina rail line and Coombabah Lake”. Elanda Place is a concrete paved stub-end cul-de-sac with layback concrete kerbing and channelling, providing good access onto the subject land. Telephone, underground power, sewerage and town water are available. The land is located, with other lots, on the crest of a low forest ridge. The topography of the land and the aspect and view that this affords was a matter of issue between the parties, however, the following general description will serve to introduce the matter: the land rises from the road frontage to a near level site which then falls gently to the rear boundary. It is a rectangular block whose frontage faces west, providing an outlook towards Mt Tamborine. An easterly view is possible towards the lake, however, this has been eroded somewhat by the erection of two-storey dwellings on the lake frontage blocks. A vacant allotment exists at the rear of the subject and, according to Mr Corbett, if a two-storey dwelling was erected on this block no view would then be available of the lake. I proceed on the footing that at the relevant date a limited view to the east was available, but was at risk of being impeded.
The land was zoned “Residential A” in the town planning scheme for Albert Shire Council effective at the date of valuation. Each valuer valued the subject land as a single unit residential site, as used.
Elanda Place is a cul-de-sac which comes off the eastern side of Cootharaba Drive with Corringle Close next to the south of the land and Boreen Court further south again, also coming off Cootharaba Drive. Eli Place, which is also a stub-end cul-de-sac, comes off Boreen Court on its western side.
According to Mr Corbett, and there was no disagreement from Mr Crowley on this point, the properties directly opposite the subject land will be developed with lesser quality dwellings than would be located in Boreen Court and Corringle Close.
Mr Corbett said that a house has been constructed on the subject land, using slab construction rather than resorting to substantial cut and fill, however, the driveway to the house and associated services needed to be constructed over a length of 12 metres from the roadway alignment rather than the average 6 to 8 metres in other cases. Whilst acknowledging the extra distance setback, Mr Crowley pointed out that the natural place to build a house on the subject land was at the top of the crest where the outlook to the mountains could be best taken advantage of.
It is useful at this stage to make reference to some matters of general principle and law which guide certain important aspects of my considerations.
Section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act provides with respect to a notice of appeal:
"Such notice shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner." (emphasis added)
Section 3(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act provides a definition of “unimproved value” which is applicable in the subject case:
“in relation to improved land - the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.”
The manner in which improvements are to be treated on a piece of land to be valued for the purposes of the then New South Wales Legislation which included provisions similar to s.3(1)(b) mentioned above is expressed in Toohey’s Ltd v. Valuer-General (1925) AC 439. At page 443 of this case the Privy Council said:
“Now, what he (that is, the valuer) has to consider is what the land would fetch as at the date of the valuation if the improvements made had not been made. Words could scarcely be clearer to show that the improvements were to be left entirely out of view. They are to be taken, not only as non-existent, but as if they had never existed.”
Having regard to the law that I have outlined above, I am to proceed as if the subject house was not there and in fact had never been there and to consider the appeal and the value of the notionally vacant or unimproved land on that basis. I must, however, consider the environment in which the subject land is located, both in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of that environment.
In support of his valuation, Mr Corbett referred to a number of lakefront properties in Boreen Court:-Address : Lot 57 Boreen Court
Sale Date : May 1993
Sale Price : $81,000
Area : 1059 m²
Unimproved Value : $74,000 effective June 1993
Address : Lot 65 Boreen Court
Sale Date : June 1993
Sale Price : $82,000
Area : 839 m²
Unimproved Value : $76,000 effective June 1993.
Address: : Lot 55 Boreen Court
Sale Date : November 1993
Sale Price : $80,000
Area : 910 m²
Unimproved Value : $70,000 effective June 1993
Address : Lot 58 Boreen Court
Sale Date : October 1993
Sale Price : $82,000
Area: : 1053 m²
Unimproved Value : $74,000 effective June 1993
Address : Lot 60 Boreen Court
Sale Date : September 1993
Sale Price : $81,000
Area : 920 m²
Unimproved Value : $75,000 effective June 1993
Having regard to this evidence, Mr Corbett said that blocks adjoining the lake attracted a price premium of between 10% and 45% over blocks away from the lake, though no evidence was produced to me showing up to a 45% difference in value. He noted that whilst there was such a sale price differential, allotments backing onto the lake in Boreen Court had similar unimproved land values to blocks without a lake frontage. He also noted that, in looking at the sales mentioned above which occurred after June 1993, these show various unimproved values yet the market has paid a relatively constant price consistent with the pre-June 1993 sales.
In addition to these sales in Boreen Court, Mr Corbett referred to a sale in May 1993 of Lot 43, Eli Place, for $76,000 and with an unimproved value of $68,000. The sale has an area of 964 m² and was described by Mr Corbett as being “adjacent to” the lake and with an easterly aspect. I will discuss this sale later in this decision as it is a common sale with Mr Crowley.
In addition to sales at “The Shores”, Mr Corbett referred to sales which took place in Helensvale, and which he included in a schedule:
Address Sale Sale Land Comments
Date Price Area
Lot 667 Dalby Court 4/93 $68,000 1172 m² Elevated with views.
Lot 639 Edgeworth Plc 2/93 $70,000 960 m² Views of golf course.
Lot 647 Edgeworth Plc 4/93 $77,000 1040 m² Golf course frontage.
Lot 53 Lismore Drive 3/93 $76,000 866 m² Golf course frontage.
In his valuation Mr Corbett made particular reference to Lot 639 Edgeworth Place which he considered almost comparable to the subject in area, aspect and outlook, and having a westerly aspect, rising gradually from the road to the rear boundary. He said that the sale block did not have as high an elevation as the subject, however, benefited from better quality dwellings erected on the golf course front allotments to its west over which views were afforded. He noted that the unimproved value of the sale block at June 1993 was assessed at $63,000 and expressed the view that because of the additional site costs which would apply on the subject land because of the further setback, the subject should attract a lesser unimproved value. Notwithstanding this, he said that the subject land ought to be valued at $63,000. In his written valuation he then said, “The subject property would have had a value as at June 1993 of $70,000 and a corresponding unimproved value of $63,000.” He explained this statement during cross-examination by saying that, given that the sale at Lot 639 Edgeworth Place had been at $70,000 yet the Chief Executive had placed an unimproved value of $63,000 on the land, the subject land ought to be treated similarly.
During cross-examination, Mr Corbett agreed that the sale at Lot 639 Edgeworth Place was on the side of a hill, not on the crest as in the case of the subject land. Mr Crowley confirmed this and expressed the view that the sale block would require considerably more cut and fill than would the subject in the construction of a house, though he did agree that the setback from the roadway would only be 6 to 8 metres in the case of the sale land compared with a longer distance, said by Mr Corbett to be 12 metres, in the case of the subject. Mr Crowley expressed the view that the frontage of the sale block is steeper than the subject and whilst the sale land does have a view to the west, its views to the mountains would not be comparable with those of the subject because of the sale’s lower elevation. Perhaps the more important comment from Mr Crowley is, however, that the sale land is to the west of the railway line whilst the subject is to the east; the sale is in a different area from the subject, it being preferable in my view to seek basic properties in close proximity to the subject land.
I turn now to the sales in Boreen Court. Mr Corbett said that these properties have unrestricted views of the tidal lake, limited only by existing vegetation remaining on the reserve between the properties and the lake itself. He said that the quality of development that has taken place in Boreen Court is of a higher standard than that in the subject locality and that, in short, the Boreen Court lands are superior to the subject land, yet have similar unimproved values placed on them. One explanation for this may be that the unimproved values placed on the Boreen Court properties took into account site improvements carried out or the necessity for such improvements to allow the construction of a slab house. The state of the evidence overall is unclear, however, it does seem to be the case that 57 Boreen Court is a block which falls away from the road somewhat steeply, whilst 55 Boreen Court has been filled to a depth ranging between 900 and 1,200 mm. There are examples of houses being constructed on the 10 to 20 metres of flat land available on the road frontage of some of the Boreen Court lots, however, there is at least one pole house constructed there. Mr Crowley was not the original valuer in the instant case, nor was he the valuer who placed the valuations on the Boreen Court properties, so was unable to assist the Court by clarifying the extent to which the topography of the Boreen Court allotments featured in the valuations. Mr Crowley did produce evidence which supported a view that sale prices of the Boreen Court properties were at a slightly higher level to that of the subject land and its immediate environs, evidence which tends to support a conclusion that some special allowance, presumably for topography, was made in striking the valuations on the Boreen Court lots.
Even if evidence was available with regard to the valuation approach employed on the
Boreen Court properties, this may not take the matter much further as it seems to me that the better evidence of valuation from Mr Corbett is that of the sale of Lot 43, Eli Place. This is because this sale property is not a lakefront site and is otherwise more directly comparable with the subject land than the Boreen Court allotments. This is also one of Mr Crowley’s basic properties. Mr Crowley referred to three sales in his valuation, Sale 2 being Lot 43 Eli Place. He confirmed the sale price of $76,000 and said that improvements in the form of clearing at $500 should be deducted from this price to arrive at an unimproved figure. An unimproved value of $68,000 has been placed on the sale land by the Chief Executive as at June 1993. Whilst Mr Corbett saw Lot 43 as being superior to the subject land because of its squarer shape compared with the elongated subject, its easterly aspect and because it is a more level block than the subject, it was Mr Crowley’s view that the subject land was superior to Lot 43. Mr Corbett suggested that Lot 43 would have a view down Eli Place towards the lake, however, Mr Crowley’s evidence was that houses constructed between Lot 43 and the lake would limit, if not totally exclude, such a view. Mr Corbett said that whilst Lot 43 had an easterly aspect, the subject land’s aspect was to the west, however, Mr Crowley suggested that the sale land’s easterly aspect was really limited to the road frontage. Both valuers agreed that the quality of housing in Boreen Court is superior to that near the subject land. Mr Corbett emphasised that because of the flatter topography of Lot 43, a 6 to 8 metre setback only would be necessary compared with the 12 metre setback in the case of the subject land. Whilst the subject is a longer block therefore having a similar opportunity for a usable back yard, Mr Corbett’s concern was with the extra cost associated with construction. The most significant factor in the comparison from Mr Crowley’s point of view is that of the comparative outlook of each of the lots. In this regard he said that the subject land has the distinct advantage of the outlook to the west in the direction of Tamborine Mountain, whilst Lot 43 had no outlook at all.
Mr Crowley included the sale of Lot 42 in Eli Place in his schedule of sales, Lot 42 having sold in May 1993 for the same price as Lot 43 and having an unimproved value of $68,000 applied to it as well. Mr Crowley’s third sale is of Lot 46 located at 16 Boreen Court, an 808 m² block which sold in July 1993 for $75,000 and which has an unimproved value of $73,000 placed on it. He said that the land rises moderately from the road to the building alignment, then has an easy rise to the rear and whilst this sale land has limited views to the lake to its east through the houses constructed on the lakefront, he expressed the view that the outlook from the subject land was superior though the sale block and the subject were similar in all other respects.
When I consider that the appellant purchased the subject land in July 1994 for $85,000, and I note that there is no evidence suggesting an increase in the market to the date of sale, it seems quite clear to me that, having regard to this and to the evidence from the valuers, the subject land is superior to Lots 42 and 43 Eli Place. I would also accept that the subject land has a marginal superiority over Mr Crowley’s third sale at 16 Boreen Court, Helensvale. It is these sale properties which constitute the best evidence of valuation in this case. The other sales referred to by Mr Corbett suffer in being in a different location, as in the case of the Helensvale properties, or having different features, as in the case of the Boreen Court sales. Whilst I accept that in the case of the subject land there is the need to construct a longer driveway and to lay services over a longer distance than in the case of the sale properties to which I was referred, this is simply a cost associated with utilising the particular advantage that the subject land has in the form of its outlook. The appellant has not convinced me that the Chief Executive is wrong in his valuation and, accordingly, I affirm that valuation in the amount of Seventy-four Thousand Dollars ($74,000) and dismiss the appeal.
RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0