Fuessel v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1998] QLC 47
•6 May 1998
|
BRISBANE
6 May 1998
Re: Determination of unimproved value -
Local Authority: City of Logan.
(AV97-206).
Friedrich & Ingeborg Fuessel
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
D E C I S I O N
Falling for determination is the unimproved value of Lot 4 on RP 858664, Parish of Mackenzie, containing an area of 400 square metres as at a relevant date of 1 October 1996. The respondent Chief Executive has determined the unimproved value in the sum of $40,500, while the appellants contend within the notice of appeal for a value of $36,000. The land is zoned "Residential A" under the City of Logan Town Planning Scheme which was gazetted on 17 December 1988. It is situated in Lansdown Road which is the only internal road within the Lansdown Homes subdivision, which is located at the corner of Munchow and Kingston Roads, about 1.25 kms to the west of Waterford West Post Office.
Phillip Wayne Pidgeon who is an elected representative on the Logan City Council conducted the appeal on behalf of the appellants and furnished evidence in the matter. Mr Pidgeon informed the Court that Mrs Fuessel approached him with her concerns about the increase in the valuation of the land as between the relevant dates of 1 January 1996 and 1 October 1996, of $8,000 (1 January 1996 valuation $32,500). Mr Pidgeon looked into the situation and he too has some concern over the increase in value. He feels the valuation is affected by error or some shortcoming in the process as there is now disparity in the valuations when lot sizes are considered. Mr Pidgeon says all the valuations of lots in the Lansdown Homes subdivision were increased proportionately with the increase in the value of the subject land, but for some years now the value of other residential lots in the area with similar services and amenities has remained the same. Mr Pidgeon pointed to examples such as:
Lots in Limousin Place with areas of about 600 square metres remain at the same value of $42,000
Lots in Prescot Street also with areas of about 600 square metres are also valued at around $42,000
Lots in Logan Reserve Road again with areas of about 600 square metres are valued around $38,000 to $39,000.
Mr Pidgeon asked the Court to consider in particular in valuation terms the area of the subject land (400 square metres) compared with that of the larger comparison lots.
Mr Pidgeon acknowledges that the subject land is located within what can be described as a Green Street Development which is a relatively unusual residential concept with one narrow and lowly trafficked road designed to slow road traffic within the estate. He acknowledges that Logan Reserve Road carries more traffic than does Lansdown Road, and says that the Lansdown Homes Estate was subject to tree preservation orders which have recently been removed. Mr Pidgeon is not aware of any details of lot sales within Lansdown Estate.
The valuation under appeal was made by Registered Departmental Valuer William John Crothers who describes the nature of the subject land as being a rectangular-shaped inside allotment reasonably level with the road at the front. It falls gently to the south and is well drained.
Mr Crothers has valued the subject land having regard to four sales of vacant sites in the subject Lansdown Estate. In all there were some 20 to 22 sales in the estate within the relevant valuation period of which the four referred to are average examples. I do not propose to include details of the sales in this decision as they are in the hands of the parties for reference. Suffice it to say that the sales took place during the period commencing 29 January 1996 and ending 31 July 1996 and all sold at the same price ($42,950).
Mr Crothers told us that Green Street residential subdivisions are a type of development which is well accepted in the marketplace. They provide smaller lots with safe and secure enclosures with less than normal road traffic movements. Mr Crothers says that there is some difference in the price paid for lots in Green Street developments when compared with larger lots outside such developments, but the difference (lower) is not significant.
Mr Crothers investigated residential sales in the area after which he decided that, for the ordinary and larger-style residential lots in the area, there was no sales evidence warranting the alteration of the valuations of those lots for the 1 October 1996 valuations. But based on the sales within the Lansdown Estate, he sees there has been a rise in value of lots within the estate and that it is quite evident. Mr Crothers confirmed that Logan Reserve Road is a busily trafficked and noisy road.
Now, it has often been held in this Court that references to increases in value when the task at hand is to determine unimproved value for rating purposes within a local authority area is not a worthwhile ground of appeal. Also there can often be reasons for a change to be made in the relativity of valuations within an area (vide Appeal against determination of Unimproved Value - R and MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13). This is a case where the relativity change is based directly upon vacant sales evidence within the subject Lansdown Estate at or about the relevant date of valuation, and it has just as often been stressed in this jurisdiction that the use of sales evidence is the best evidence upon which to rely for the determination of unimproved value. The only sales evidence before the Court is that provided by Mr Crothers, and it is sales evidence reflecting the value of smaller (about 400 square metre) lots. It cannot simply be put aside in favour of the evidence of, or general comparison with, the lack of increase in value of other 600 square metre lots in the locality.
In these circumstances, I cannot find that the valuation is affected by error and that the valuation process has shortcomings - it has been done in the traditional way and is based on sales evidence.
I cannot find that the onus resting upon the appellants under the provisions of section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 has been discharged. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the unimproved value of Lot 4 on RP 858664, Parish of Mackenzie, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $40,500 is affirmed.
(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0