Crawford v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1999] QLC 130
•21 December 1999
|
LAND COURT
BRISBANE
21 December 1999
Re: Appeal against an annual valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll No. 7379
Local Government: BCC – Windsor
(AV98-663)
Peter R and Ute Crawford
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
DECISION
Background:
This matter relates to land at 65 Lansdowne Street, Newmarket and described as Lot 2 on RP 72351, parish of Enoggera. The subject land is an area of 1,029 m², and is zoned as Residential A under the Town Plan of the Brisbane City Council of 1987 and current at the relevant date of valuation 1 October 1997. The land is located in an older suburban area which is currently experiencing active redevelopment. Lansdowne Street is a divided road at the subject land, is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. All normal services are available. The key issues are the nature of the land, the comparison of sales, relativity and the method of valuation.
On 9 March 1998 the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $210,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that figure on 8 September 1998. The appellants appealed that value claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $160,000. Following a court supervised preliminary conference on 18 May 1999, a hearing of the appeal was undertaken on 16 September 1999. At the hearing the appellants revised their estimate of the unimproved value to $180,000, noting that some former information about an earlier valuation of the subject land, upon which they had relied, had been shown to have been inappropriate.
Mr Peter Richard Crawford appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr James Thomas Houghton, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation appeared and gave evidence for the respondent.
The evidence:(1) History of the appeal –
The appellants acquired the subject land at auction in 1993 for $220,000, after an extensive investigation of property sales in the area. The appellants had sought to relocate in that locality since 1985, having formerly lived in Gracemere Street, Grange, about 0.8 kilometres to the north-west. The feature which attracted the appellants was the good views of the Taylor Range to the west. It had been their preferred choice to acquire property to the east in the Wilston area, with easterly views and breezes, but they argue those properties had sold for prices beyond their expectation. At the time of acquiring the subject property, it was already developed with a 350 m² dwelling, a multi-vehicle garage, and a swimming pool.
The appellants argue that prior to their acquiring the property, previous valuations of the subject land had been $110,000 (1992), rising to $145,000 (1993), and then to $220,000 (1994). Following an objection the Chief Executive reduced that valuation to $185,000. At the subsequent valuation at 1 October 1994 (effective July 1995), the Chief Executive further reduced the valuation to $162,000. The appellants further argue that the succeeding valuations of 1 October 1995 and 1 October 1996 had both remained stationery at $162,000. With the current valuation at $210,000 at 1 October 1997, the unimproved value had increased by 29.6%, which they argue is not reflective of the marketplace in their locality, where inflation was rising at only 2% to 3% per year.
Mr Crawford further argues that, while not relevant to the current appeal, he notes that the following valuation of 1 October 1998 is still $210,000. Mr Crawford accepts that the market has tended to increase as redevelopment occurs in the area, but argues those increases were not as relevant in the subject area at the relevant date in 1997. The appellants did not appeal the subsequent value in 1998, as they assumed that an error had occurred, which would be rectified as a result of the current appeal.
Mr Crawford also questions the practice of providing “unsigned valuation statements” on an annual basis, where there is insufficient sales evidence to support any increase, and where the valuation figure has not changed. He argues that such statements must be afforded a corresponding weight to any subsequent valuation statement, where an increase is claimed to be supported by the evidence of comparable sales. On that basis he argues that it is illogical to assume that the marketplace remains steady, and then surges 30% to, in effect, catch up with a market, which in reality appears to be changing steadily.(2) The nature of the land -
The subject land is basically a regular shaped parcel of frontage 30.2 metres, and a mean depth of 31.1 metres. There is a small rectangular area of 100 m² at the south eastern corner, which is the highest part of the subject land, and which is difficult to access. The land is very steep, falling about 7 to 8 metres from east to west to Lansdowne Street along the northern boundary, and 10 to 11 metres from east to west along the southern boundary. There is a small crossfall of about 1 metre from north to south. The subject land is elevated, but is located on the western slope of a north-south ridge line, which tends to define generally the western catchment area of Wilston, Grange and Windsor. The land to the west of the ridge line is more correctly defined as falling in the Newmarket geographic location. The subject land is on the highest slopes of Wilston Hill, but its aspect is westerly with good views to the Taylor Range.
Both parties agree that the preferred locality in that area is from Watson Street easterly, where elevated properties command easterly views and breezes, and often excellent views of the City. Watson Street is agreed to be an area of intense competition for sites for redevelopment, with correspondingly high prices. Watson Street is the next street east of Lansdowne Street, and is to the east of the north-south ridge line which defines the catchment area. Mr Crawford argues that this is fundamental to his case, claiming that evidence of sales in that easterly catchment, do not reflect the demand for lands in Lansdowne Street. Mr Houghton agrees that Watson Street is a superior area, but seeks to compare sales with restricted views, to allow for the better locality to the east of Lansdowne Street. The specific nature of the sales compared is discussed later.
In defining the selective market area of Wilston, Grange and Windsor, Mr Crawford defines an area which, he claims, is determined by geographical constraints, rather than any formal locality determined by the Place Names Board. Pivotal to that locality is the area around Kedron Brook Road, which passes through the now quite trendy local shopping and village area, in close proximity to the Wilston Railway Station. Mr Crawford argues that while close by to the railway line, because of the geographical shape of that ampitheatre locality, the local residents are not subjected to similar noise impacts as experienced at the subject land.
The Kedron Brook Road village area has also been improved with the installation of traffic calming techniques, in order to restrict through traffic movements. Major traffic flows are redirected around the area, either easterly along Grange Road to Lutwyche Road, or to the west via Wilston Road, Newmarket Road and to Kelvin Grove Road.
Mr Crawford further argues that a major disability of the western aspect of the subject land, and its nearness to the top of the north-south ridge line, is the excessive afternoon heat and strong westerly winds during periods of the year. Mr Crawford argues that the topographic nature of the site creates a vortex effect in strong westerly winds, not generally encountered by residents in other less exposed localities. While he agrees that the views from the subject land are very good, Mr Crawford argues that they must be balanced against the physical disabilities of such an exposed location. He notes that several of his neighbours have foregone the views, by growing trees along the western side in order to gain shade in the afternoon, and thus cool their homes.
Because of the steepness of the subject land in that locality, various approaches have been used to maximise the use of the land. However in all different approaches to building upon those lands, the problems of many steps, either at the front of the building, or within a dwelling, are costly problems to be overcome during construction. In the existing dwelling on the subject land there are some fifty steps from the street level. Mr Crawford argues that such disabilities should be weighed by any prudent purchaser buying the subject land.
Mr Crawford also argues that the land, because of its location near the top of the ridge line, is subjected to above average noise from overflying aircraft, or hot air balloons as they use their after-burners to gain altitude.(3) The method of valuation -
In seeking to support his estimate of the unimproved value, Mr Crawford analyses the sale of an improved property, one lot removed to the south of the subject at 55 Lansdowne Street (Lot 2 on RP 74657). That property he argues sold about 1997 for $165,000, and has an area of 673 m². Mr Crawford estimates the value of the dwelling at about $60,000, and the value of the land at $105,000, although he provides no evidence to support those conclusions. Mr Crawford also notes that the applied unimproved value of 55 Lansdowne Street in 1997 was $140,000, which he concludes demonstrates an error by the Chief Executive.
To further demonstrate his case Mr Crawford has obtained a property appraisal of the subject land by a local real estate agent, who concludes a likely market price for the improved property at between $240,000 and $280,000. Mr Crawford argues that price range would demonstrate an increase of some 3% to 9% since the subject was purchased in 1993, consistent, in his opinion, with the general property market. Mr Crawford currently has the dwelling upon the subject insured at a replacement value of $173,000, which he argues would represent an added value of at least $120,000, giving a maximum value for the land at $160,000.
In seeking further support in Lansdowne Street, Mr Crawford has analysed the latest five sales of improved properties, which he argues sold in the range $125,000 to $215,000, giving an average sale price of $166,000. Mr Crawford then compares the applied unimproved values of those properties, which range between $140,000 and $220,000, giving an average unimproved value of $178,000. Based upon those average sale prices, and applying a percentage rate per square metre, Mr Crawford concludes a likely sale price for the subject land at $239,000.
Noting that the current applied unimproved value is $210,000, he concludes that the added value of the current dwelling would then only be worth $29,000, a figure he strongly disputes. In concluding his estimate of the value of the subject, Mr Crawford believes an increase of 10% beyond the former unimproved value in 1996 of $162,000, or $180,000, would be reasonable. Mr Houghton discounts any use of a mathematical approach, or any averaging technique, to establish the value.
To support his valuation, Mr Houghton relies upon direct comparisons of, in his opinion, comparable sales in the locality. Allowing for the impact of views, the existence of prevailing breezes, and the nature of the land of the sales, Mr Houghton has concluded an applied value of the subject land at $210,000. To check his valuation Mr Houghton also relies on a check of two further sales in the locality of Lansdowne Street, in order to ensure correct relativity has been applied.
Mr Houghton argues that there are two quite distinct property markets in that locality, involving improved properties and unimproved parcels. Mr Crawford concedes that there is a demand for properties where dwellings are subsequently either demolished or sold for removal, and a new dwelling constructed. However Mr Crawford argues that to adopt such sales as indicative of the value of the land, in his opinion, ignores the impact of a scarcity factor for vacant parcels. Mr Crawford argues that to conclude that all existing developed parcels of land should be afforded land values consistent with such redeveloped sites, is not logical.
Mr Crawford further argues that in the event of some major natural disaster, such as a wide spread fire, in his opinion, the land would then revert to its intrinsic value. He further argues that any new dwellings erected upon former improved lots would, in his opinion, tend to be valued as improved properties at something less than the cost of acquiring the site, plus demolishing the old building, and constructing the new building. Mr Crawford argues that such a resulting diminished value demonstrates that the true value of the land is less than the price paid to acquire it in those circumstances.
In applying his valuation Mr Houghton also advises that he has ignored any potential for further subdivision, or higher development of the subject land. In accordance with section 17 of the Act he has valued the subject land only as a single dwelling residential site.(4) Comparison of sales -
To support his valuation Mr Houghton provides the following sales of Residential A lands.
Sale 1 – (90 Fifth Avenue, Wilston - Lots 229 and 296 on RP 18914)
This is an 809 m² parcel, located about 1.1 kilometres east of the subject land, and backs on to a neighbourhood park, in a good residential locality. The sale has good access to Fifth Avenue, is below road level, with an east to west crossfall. Mr Houghton argues that views to the south-west to Mt Coot-tha are obstructed by dwellings across Fifth Avenue, and a rise in the topography in that direction (contours provided). However Mr Crawford argues that views of Mt Coot-tha are available from the two storey dwelling now constructed, although he concedes that those views are inferior to the subject. Mr Houghton sees Sale 1 as inferior to the subject land due to size, frontage, elevation and outlook.
The sale sold in December 1996 for $208,500, which after allowing for improvements and the removal of the old worker’s cottage dwelling (total $15,000) was analysed at $193,500, and applied at $180,000.
Sale 2 – (10 Dover Street, Wilston – Lots 564 and 565 on RP 19902)
This is a 809 m² parcel, in a good residential locality, about 400 metres south east of the subject, with good elevation and an easterly outlook. The sale falls from west to east towards Dover Street. Although smaller in size than the subject, the sale is seen as superior due to topography, location and easterly outlook.
The sale sold in May 1997 for $310,000, which after allowing for some concrete building works and other improvements ($50,000) was analysed at $260,000, and applied at $217,500.Sale 3 – (48 Watson Street, Wilston – Lots 1 and 2 on RP 42424)
This is a 1,722 m² unimproved parcel located about 200 metres south-east of the subject. The sale is very steep, falling sharply from the road level, about 25 metres in 50 metres. There is a large fig tree which is protected by a Vegetation Protection Order (VPO) near the north-west corner of the parcel, there is also a smaller tree protected by a VPO on the front of the adjoining parcel (Lot 2) to the south of the sale, and an electricity transformer box at the front boundary.
The presence of the trees and the natural steepness of the land makes access to, and building upon the sale, a more difficult and expensive matter. The large fig tree partly overhangs the front of the sale. The sale has a slightly smaller frontage than the subject, but because of the larger size of the sale, is seen as slightly superior to the subject land. Mr Crawford discounts any lack of views, arguing that the purchaser would not have paid $250,000 without the potential for very good views towards the rear. Mr Crawford claims Sale 3 is very superior to the subject land.
The sale sold in September 1997 for $250,000, which was analysed and applied at $250,000.Sale 4 – (43 Dalrymple Street, Wilston – Lot 108 on RP 884136)
This is a 607 m² parcel, located about 0.8 kilometres north-east of the subject. The sale is an elevated parcel with commanding views to the City, falling steeply from the road. Dalrymple Street is a divided road at the sale, which is both smaller in size and frontage. However because of its superior outlook, the sale is considered far superior.
The sale sold in August 1997 for $301,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $271,000, and applied at $260,000.
To further support the relativity of the subject, and the conservative approach taken by the respondent, Mr Houghton provides two supplementary sales which are only considered for relativity purposes in the current matter:
Sale A – (104 Abukela Street, Newmarket – Lots 12 and 13 on RP 19917)
This is a 1,126 m² parcel, about 360 metres south of the subject, falling steeply to the railway line to the south, which adjoins the sale. The property is considered inferior to the subject due to its poorer location, but the sale has good views to the south, including views of the City skyline from Torbreck at Highgate Hill to the City centre. The sale is being redeveloped, suggesting possibly later into two dwelling sites (photo supplied).
The sale is a dated sale and sold in July 1994 for $205,000, which has been applied at $180,000.
Sale B – (11 Lansdowne Street, Newmarket – Lots 1 and 2 on RP 19921)
This is a 814 m² parcel, about 250 metres south of the subject land. The sale is smaller in frontage and area, lower in elevation and closer to rail and traffic, has a similar outlook towards the west, but has a lesser slope to the subject. The sale is seen as marginally superior to the subject due to its easier topography and slightly better access, where Lansdowne Street widens at its intersection with Abukela Street.
The sale sold in August 1994 for $260,000, which has been applied at $220,000.
Following some discussions with the respondent Mr Crawford became aware of several other sales which he compares as follows:
• Sale 5 (Corner Inglis and Lovedale Street, Grange)
This sale was vacant, at the top of a rise, and level, with 270 degree excellent views to the north, east and south, and an excellent building area. The sale sold for $198,000 for an area of only 574 m². Mr Crawford sees that sale as superior to the subject because of the ease of building and the views, but provides no evidence of the date of the sale.
• Sale 6 – (112 Fifth Avenue, Wilston)
There are two sales located slightly to the east of Sale 1, and also backing on to Bert Hinkler Park, and in a quiet residential location. The sales adjoin, are reasonably flat, in a high position with City views. One parcel sold for $170,000, and the other with expansive views from the north-west to the south-east, including the Story Bridge, was sold for $251,000. Mr Crawford sees those sales as representing an entirely different market to the subject land, and in his opinion, exceedingly far superior to the subject.In seeking sales of vacant lands in the area to the north, west and south of the subject land, Mr Houghton confirms that there was a paucity of comparable sales in those areas. Mr Crawford notes that he was advised of only one sale in Farrington Street, Alderley, to the west, which sold for $136,000. Mr Crawford concludes that the reason that there is a lack of sales of either comparable vacant lands, or lands being redeveloped in the adjoining suburbs to the north, west and south, suggest, in his opinion, that those areas do not have the physical attractions inherent in the Wilston locality.
In support of his understanding of a rising market in the locality of the subject land, Mr Houghton notes that the property to the south of the subject at 32 Lansdowne Street sold in February 1996 for $165,000, and then resold in March 1998 for $205,000. Mr Houghton also notes a further property at 34 Langley Street, Wilston, (405 m²) south of Newmarket Road, sold in August 1997 for $97,000, and later resold in February 1998 for $110,000. Another property at 63 Anthill Street, Wilston sold in June 1996 for $90,000 and later resold in January 1998 for $125,000. Mr Crawford concedes that such sales do indicate that properties in that locality have increased rapidly, but argues that those resales have occurred after the date of 1 October 1997. Although it should be noted that the date of issue of the current valuation was not until 9 March 1998, which coincides closely with those three resales.
To support his conclusions, Mr Crawford also supplies a list of ten recent sales that he obtained while the valuation records were opened for public examination. However he acknowledges that he had no knowledge of the specific nature of those sales. One of those sales at 11 Lansdowne Street was a former sale of Sale B at $150,000 in September 1997. However Mr Houghton discounts any reliability of that sale, which he argues was a family transaction for taxation purposes. Mr Houghton argues the genuine sale of 11 Lansdowne Street was his Sale B in 1994 for $260,000. Mr Houghton also argues that current relativities between the subject land in Lansdowne Street at $210,000, reflects $50,000 to $60,000 less than similar lands in Watson Street with the better aspect, and easterly and southerly views.
Decision:(i) The history of the land -
I turn first to the history of the valuations of the subject land, and note the appellants concern that similar weight should be applied to all valuations determined by the respondent, whether that advice was that the unimproved value had changed, or remained stable. I note also Mr Crawford’s reference to “unsigned valuation statements”, which I interpret to indicate to him some level of less commitment by the respondent to the determination of the unimproved value.
In the matter of whether a notice of valuation has to be signed to formalise its relevance, I note that matter was the subject of comment by this Court. (see DK Trezise v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1997-98) 18 QLCR 387. However as outlined in that decision, the name of the appropriate delegate of the Chief Executive is intended to satisfy the requirements for formal endorsement of an action under section 96(2) of the Act, and as such satisfies the requirements of the legislation. It is now pleasing to note that the more recent notices of valuation now contain an electronic signature of the delegate, thus providing a better level of confidence for land owners.
In the matter of the apparent large increase in the unimproved value of the subject, I note that large percentage changes of themselves do not establish that an error has occurred in the valuation. While at best such large increases may be an indication to an owner that they should investigate the valuation further, there may be many reasons why a valuation has changed, at what would appear to be out of line with some overall statistical percentage change.
That matter has been considered many times by the Courts, and I note from precedents that a large increase in itself is not evidence of some error in the valuation. I note, for example, in the decision of NR and PG Tow v The Valuer General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 where the Land Appeal Court said at p. 381:“It follows that a large increase over and above the previous valuation is in itself not a relevant issue provided bona fide sales of comparable parcels support the new valuation.”
That matter was also considered in C and BD Henricks v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 59, where the Full Court of Queensland said that there could be many reasons why parcels of land can increase at different percentage rates over a period of time. The real test is not the percentage increase in the unimproved values, but a comparison of the subject land with sales of comparable sites in the vicinity of the subject at the time of the valuation.
(ii) The nature of the land -
It is agreed that the subject land is steep, and has a westerly aspect, in an exposed location on a high ridge in the locality. It is also agreed that the land enjoys good views to the distant ranges. I note the appellants’ concern of specific disabilities, such as westerly winds and noise from various sources, however I believe those factors would also impact other parcels on those higher topographic slopes. I also agree with the appellants that the more friendly environment, and the views to the south and east, from the areas east of Watson Street would be of greater value. Indeed Mr Houghton also concurs in that observation.
The fundamental difference between the parties is the determination of the area of key market attraction for location purposes in that locality. On the evidence there would appear to be no doubt that the preferred area to acquire properties lies more to the Wilston, Grange and Windsor areas, than in the area of Newmarket west of Watson Street.(iii) The method of valuation -
In seeking to support his estimate of the unimproved value, Mr Crawford has sought to compare sales of improved properties. This is often referred to as the “summation or cost method” of valuing the land. I note that the summation method is commonly used for valuing house properties, when any comparisons of other direct sales are not relevant. (see Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia by RO Rost and HG Collins, 3rd edition, reprint 1996, p. 106). That text also confirms that the preferred method is to compare the subject with sales of vacant land, but if sales do not exist, the summation method involves “an addition of the values of the constituent parts of a property to arrive at its total value”. Precedent for use of the summation, is found in Seatainer Terminals Ltd v The Valuer General (NSW) (1974) 29 LGRA 6. The summation method was also examined by Sugerman J in Marcus Clark and Co Ltd v Commissioner for Railways (1949) 29 LVR 98.
The difficulty however with such a method lies in determining the value of improvements to be subtracted from the total improved price paid for the property. Mr Crawford acknowledges that the value of the dwelling is something less than the replacement value for which he has it insured, but the question remains, how much added value does the dwelling actually bring to the land. Such an approach was identified in O’Brien Nominee Pty Ltd v The Valuer General (1979) 6 QLCR 280 at 284. In that matter the President noted:“The basic properties have sold at prices considerably below the value of the improvements assessed on the traditional method of replacement cost less accrued depreciation.
In such circumstances it is unrealistic to conclude that land, the commodity basic to the enterprise, has a minus or nominal value. It is logical to assume that in times of adversity and depression, when purchasers pay less for properties as a going concern, that the lesser price attaches not only to the land component but also to the improvements. The question facing valuers in analysing improved sales in these circumstances is what value is fairly to be attributed to the improvements?
It appears to us that the only tenable approach is to abandon the traditional method of replacement cost as at sale date less depreciation and to adopt an ‘added value’ concept.”
By analogy, in times where there has been a large selective demand for improved properties, such as in the Wilston area, then it would also be reasonable to conclude that the reverse situation occurs in respect of the land. If one accepts that generally a dwelling starts to depreciate after construction, yet the total price for an improved property rises, then much of the increase in the total value of the property can be attributed to an increase in the value of the land.
The difficulty for Mr Crawford in adopting such an approach is to determine the “added value” of the improvements. The appropriate method of determining the value of improvements would be to compare the value of the land with other sales of vacant land, and to deduct that figure from the total value. Because of those uncertainties, where sales of vacant land exist, they are preferred in determining unimproved value.
In the matter of using an averaging process to compare other properties in Lansdowne Street, I note that the use of averaging of sales in order to provide some statistical mean price, or medium price of total sales, has been rejected by the Courts. Such calculations provide little incisive understanding of the sales themselves, and give only a broad understanding of the range of sales which may extend from very low to very high prices. The matter of averaging of sales was addressed in Daandine Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Land Tax (1943) 7 The Valuer 299, at 305, where Williams J said in the High Court of Australia on 26 August 1943:“This method of averaging is to my mind unsound. The prices obtained at comparable sales should not be aggregated and averaged, especially when the prices obtained on sales of small areas are dealt with in this way in order to obtain the value per acre of a large area. The only safe course is to compare each sale with the subject land separately. For instance, if three sales considered to be comparable of £3, £2/10/- and £2 per acre are averaged, the average value would be £2/10/- per acre. But if the subject land was closer in value to the land sold at £2 per acre than to the other lands, the average value would cause the subject land to be seriously over-valued.”
That principle has been upheld by lesser Courts on many occasions subsequent.
In relying upon comparisons of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels, Mr Houghton has followed guidance long preferred by the Courts. I note for instance in WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, where the Land Appeal Court said at p. 46:
“It is indeed a fundamental principle of valuation that the best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels.”
The principle was also clearly defined by the Land Appeal Court in PH Clough v The Valuer General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70 at p. 76:
“It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situations, etc, to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements.
Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement.”
(iv) Comparison of sales -
While Mr Houghton acknowledges that his sales in the Wilston area all have a level of difference with the subject land, he has relied upon his experience as a valuer to seek to make allowance for those differences. In making his comparisons, Mr Houghton would appear to have followed guidance provided by the Land Appeal Court in H and E Grahn v The Valuer General (AV89-246/7) 13 December 1990, unreported, where the Land Appeal Court said at page 5:“A proper valuation calls for an exercise in balancing all the respective advantages and disadvantages inherent in or pertaining to a lot.”
Where the differences between the property have some level of complexity, Mr Houghton has sought to follow precedents established in Bingham v Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR 1, where in a minority decision Sugerman J said at pp. 18-19:
“The valuer, in arriving at his opinion in these difficult matters may have to draw upon his general knowledge and experience, including perhaps experience in other situations which, although lacking in complete comparability, may yet provide an experienced valuer with guidance and suggestions as to the general approach which may be made and as to considerations which may become relevant.”
In the absence of sales of directly comparable land, Mr Houghton has also followed the principle supported by the Land Appeal Court in King Ranch Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v The Valuer General 35 CLLR 255, where the Court found at page 259:
“In not attempting to do this, Mr Walker adopted a method of valuing based on knowledge and experience rather than one lacking precedent and authority.”
In so doing the Land Appeal Court followed guidance from Bingham v Cumberland County Council (supra).
I turn them to the sales provided and note that Mr Houghton sees the following comparisons:
| Sale | Applied Unimproved Value | Comparison |
| 1. | $180,000 | Inferior |
| 2. | $217,500 | Superior |
| 3. | $250,000 | Slightly superior |
| 4. | $260,000 | Far superior |
Mr Crawford by comparison sees the subject land as inferior to Sale 5 ($198,000), and far inferior to Sale 6 ($251,000). I note also that, as a general matter of relativity between the subject land and corresponding properties in Watson Street, which is the location of Sale 3, Mr Houghton notes that there is a general difference of $50,000 to $60,000 between those properties. On that basis it could be inferred that the subject land, compared to Sale 3, could have a value of approximately $190,000 to $200,000.
(v) Relativity -
To assist in balancing the likely range of value for the subject, I note that Mr Houghton sees his Sale A (while not relying on that outdated sale price) to have an applied unimproved value at the relevant date at $180,000; and his Sale B at $220,000. Mr Houghton sees Sale A as inferior , and Sale B as marginally superior, because of better access and topography. Mr Houghton tends to weigh the views from the subject as an important element in his comparisons, although I note that views from Sale A do contain the City skyline, which tends to be much sought after by purchasers. On balance I believe a value of $200,000 would reasonably represent most of the above comparisons.
Summary:
I note that section 33 of the Act dictates that a valuation is deemed to be correct unless proved to the contrary. I note also that the onus is upon the appellant under section 45(4) to prove that the Chief Executive has made an error of fact, or has used a wrong principle (Brisbane City Council v The Valuer General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41, at 56.) On the evidence I believe that the appellants have partially discharged that onus of proof.
Conclusion:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am persuaded that the appellants have partly proved their case. The appeal is allowed, the Chief Executive’s valuation is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 72351 is determined at $200,000.
N G DIVETT
MEMBER
0
0
0