Fischer v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 102

[1998] QLC 102

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

11 September 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Values -
  City of Brisbane: Division of Taringa -
  (REFS: AV97-379 and AV97-380).

WM Fischer
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

Warren Mazlin Fischer has filed two appeals against determinations of unimproved value by the Chief Executive of two parcels of land situated in Durham Street, St Lucia, details of which are:

AV97-379 -     An unimproved value of $155,000 for Lot 279 on SL4428, Parish of Indooroopilly, containing an area of 830 square metres - situation 66 Durham Street.

AV97-380 -    An unimproved value of $142,000 for Lots 215 and 216 on RP 23316, Parish of Indooroopilly, containing an area of 850 square metres - situation 69 Durham Street.

Both appeal parcels are zoned “Residential B” under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme of the City of Brisbane which was gazetted on 13 June 1987, and each was improved as at the relevant date for determination of the unimproved values (1 October 1996) with a single unit dwelling. The respondent Chief Executive has valued each site under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, as being used for the purpose of a single dwelling house. The appellant contends within the notices of appeal for unimproved values of $140,000 (66 Durham Street) and of $129,000 (69 Durham Street) but led evidence in the case for unimproved values of $145,000 (66 Durham Street) and $133,000 (69 Durham Street).
           Mr Fischer, who is a retired civil engineer and who has conducted unimproved value appeal cases in this Court on numerous occasions, presented the Court with voluminous computer-generated statistics in support of his contention that the unimproved values of 66 Durham Street and of 69 Durham Street should not have been increased by a factor of 10% between the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuations and the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations.  It is to be observed that the unimproved values contended for by Mr Fischer represent an increase of approximately 3.5% over the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuation of 66 Durham Street and an increase of about 3% over the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuation of 69 Durham Street.
           The statistical material provided by Mr Fischer includes a print-out of the unimproved values placed by the respondent Chief Executive on 510 parcels of land in the St Lucia area over the years from 1992 to 1997 (Exhibit 2).  These print-outs have been reproduced by Mr Fischer in graph form in a document titled “Relativities in Various Locations in St Lucia” (Exhibit 3).  Included in the material tendered by Mr Fischer is a map of the St Lucia area showing relativities in valuations as at 1 October 1996 with values applied in June 1993 (Exhibit 4).  Mr Fischer provided us with statistical information on traffic volumes in the St Lucia area, in the busily trafficked intersection of Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Munro Streets, and of Hawken Drive and Highland Terrace, which he again has reproduced in graph form (Exhibit 5).  Other graph form exhibits show the revaluations of sample sites in St Lucia from June 1972 to October 1997 (Exhibit 8).  Sample sites, apart from the subject lands, are 12 Dell Road, 186 Hawken Drive, 99 Highland Terrace, 215 Sir Fred Schonell Drive and 135 The Esplanade.
           Now I do not propose to incorporate all this statistical information in this decision.  It is in the hands of the parties for reference if needed.  But on my understanding of his case, Mr Fischer believes that the valuations of the subject lands should not have been increased by a factor of 10% because the valuations in streets such as Hawken Drive, Sir Fred Schonell Drive, The Esplanade and Swan Road were not increased between the 1 January 1996 and the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations, and the valuations in Dell Road and Highland Terrace were increased only by a factor of about 5%, with the result that unimproved value relativity in the St Lucia area, which had been established over recent years, has been disturbed in the 1 October 1996 relevant date area valuations.
           I do not feel the need to more fully explain the basis for Mr Fischer’s submission in these cases since there is no real disagreement between the parties concerning the opinions expressed by Mr Fischer concerning traffic patterns and levels of value, saving of course, for the unimproved value of the parcels under appeal.  The statistical traffic information confirms what I would have thought to be the obvious - that Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Hawken Drive are the busiest streets in the St Lucia peninsula - and that the roundabouts in these streets which are close to the university are heavily congested during peak university periods.
           Departmental Registered Valuer, Geoffrey Francis Nelson, furnished evidence in support of the valuations of the subject parcels and tendered valuation reports  (Exhibits 10 and 11) which describes the nature of the subject land, the roads, access and services available and, more importantly, the basic sales evidence on which he relies for his valuations.  None of this material was challenged by Mr Fischer but as is always the situation in valuation cases, the most relevant content of Mr Nelson’s reports is the sales evidence upon which he relies.  It is, in the case of each valuation, the following:

Sale No 1 - Lot 2 on RP 62040, Parish of Indooroopilly - 494 square metres - Turnbull to Jones on 28 September 1995, for $140,000 - analysed unimproved value $139,000 - applied unimproved value $135,000 - zoning “Residential A” - situation 195 Carmody Road, St Lucia.

Mr Nelson comments that this sale property is reasonably well elevated, and falls moderately to steeply to the rear.  He points out that it is situated on a busy road and is smaller in area than is the subject land.  Overall Mr Nelson sees the sale land to be slightly inferior or inferior to the subject parcels.

Sale No 2 - Lot 690 on RP 23342, Parish of Indooroopilly - 527 square metres - Cook to Mail-Link Design Pty Ltd on 16 June 1995 for $185,000 - analysed unimproved value $184,000 - applied unimproved value $180,000 - zoning “Residential A” - situation 84 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia.

Mr Nelson comments that this sale parcel is well elevated but falls steeply to the rear.  He says it is situated in a superior location with some City views and is considered overall by Mr Nelson to be superior to the subject parcels.

Sale No 3 - Lot 39 on RP 884425, Parish of Indooroopilly - 405 square metres - MG Foster Constructions Pty Ltd to Wilkinson on 9 February 1996, for $160,000 - analysed unimproved value $150,000 - applied unimproved value $135,000 - zoning “Residential A” - situation 39 Sixth Avenue, St Lucia.

Mr Nelson describes the sale land to be reasonably well elevated, above street level and rising steeply to the rear.  He says it is situated in a superior location than are the subject parcels but he considers the sale parcel to be overall inferior to slightly inferior to the subject parcels.
           Now Mr Nelson explained in general terms how he went about his 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations of all lands within the Taringa Division.  His valuation responsibilities were for a large area of the western suburbs including St Lucia, Taringa, Indooroopilly, Toowong, etc.  He decided, after due consideration to the increasing traffic volumes in streets such as those statistically examined by Mr Fischer, that better valuation relativity for the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuation in the Taringa Division would result from a decision not to alter (or increase) values in heavily trafficked streets such as Sir Fred Schonell Drive, Hawken Drive, etc., and to apply generally an incremental factor of 10% to all other parcels of land within the division.  This decision, of course, encapsulated the parcels owned by Mr Fischer.  Mr Nelson also told us that the values in Dell Road were only increased by a factor of 5% because of increasing difficulties with additional parking in the street, no doubt from University traffic.  He was not certain now as to why valuations in Highland Terrace were only increased again by a factor of about 5%.
Now where does this leave Mr Fischer with these appeals? Certainly we have no sales evidence from him to convince the Court that the 10% incremental factor should be set aside, and the incremental factor is backed by Mr Nelson’s sales evidence. It is also obvious that if Mr Fischer had made site specific comparisons with the valuations of sites in streets other than the ones he selected (Sir Fred Schonell Drive, Hawken Drive, The Esplanade, Dell Road and Highland Terrace) then his case against the incremental factor of 10% dissipates. This is especially so since there is no evidence that the volume of traffic in the subject Durham Street is anywhere near the level in the other streets nominated for examination by Mr Fischer. And it must be acknowledged that in accordance with section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, “any and every valuation, or alteration of valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief executive shall be deemed to be correct until proven otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered. ”
In these circumstances, I cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellant in accordance with section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act has been discharged. Both appeals are dismissed, and the following determinations are made:
           Appeal Ref AV97-379 - The unimproved value of Lot 279 on SL 4428, Parish of Indooroopilly as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $155,000 is affirmed.
           Appeal Ref AV97-380 - The unimproved value of Lots 215 and 216 on RP 23316, Parish of Indooroopilly as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $142,000 is affirmed.

(CH CARTER)     
Member of the Land Court