Grahn v The Valuer-General
[1990] QLAC 35
•13 December 1990
|
BRISBANE.
13th December, 1990.
Re:Appeals against determinations of the Land Court -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 - 1987
AV89-246 and 247.
Dr Hans and Else Grahn
-v-
The Valuer-General
J U D G M E N T
Dr Hans and Else Grahn have appealed against the determination of unimproved value of two (2) parcels of residential land situated in Whytecliffe Parade, Woody Point. The relevant date for the determinations of the respective unimproved values is 31st March, 1988. The Land Court determinations are:-
AV89-246 -An unimproved value of $75,500 for Subdivision 1 of Resubdivisions 83 and 84 of Subdivision 2 of Portion 111, Parish of Redcliffe (Valuer-General's assessment affirmed) - 18 Whytecliffe Parade.
AV89-247 -An unimproved value of $79,000 for Lot 2 on RP 141248, Parish of Redcliffe (Appeal allowed - Valuer-General's determination of $84,000 set aside) - 56 Whytecliffe Parade.
Dr and Mrs Grahn come before this Court maintaining that the unimproved value of each parcel at the relevant date is $40,000.
The conduct of the appellants' case was in the hands of Dr Grahn, who elected to present submissions in statement form. This material is substantially identical to the evidence he furnished to the Land Court and no useful purpose would be served in incorporating much of it in this judgment - suffice it to say that it is accurately recorded in the decision of the learned Member below and that decision should be read in conjunction with this judgment.
One of the principle concerns of the appellants is the problem with continual repairs to their dwelling house at 18 Whytecliffe Parade caused by land slips along an escarpment upon which the dwelling is erected. The main sliding line is under the balcony of the dwelling. After heavy downpours new slips become visible and Dr Grahn says the house is moving and sinking in the direction of the beach. The repair of structural damage involves costly outlays and additional maintenance to the dwelling house. Dr Grahn says that the land at 56 Whytecliffe Parade contains a dangerous sliding line.
Dr Grahn is somewhat aggrieved that, to his knowledge, no internal inspection of either of the subject sites was made by any of the respondent's valuers. We might comment that this is surprising since Ground 1 in the respective Notices of Appeal to the Land Court contain a reference to the problem with surface movement. The valuer, Mr G.P. Crowley, walked the beach and the frontage and he interviewed the purchaser of the sale land at 48 Whytecliffe Parade in addition to inspecting the improvements on the sale lots, but there is no evidence that he physically examined the subject lots on this particular issue. Be that as it may, we are confined in this judgment to the evidence which does not convince us that there would be insufficient room on either subject lot for the erection of a dwelling house away from the problem slip line. For valuation purposes, it must be assumed that each subject lot is unimproved as provided for in the Unimproved Value definition Section 12 (1) (b) of the Valuation of Land Act which reads -
"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."
Further, there is in the record of proceedings in the Land Court evidence that a purchaser of one of the Valuer-General's basic sales (Mrs Shymonisk) knew of the problems with the land slip prior to the purchase of her house property of 48 Whytecliffe Parade, and from Mr Crowley that as far as he could determine all properties on the eastern side of Whytecliffe Parade are somewhat similarly effected by the slip. Mr Crowley says the dwelling house at 42 Whytecliffe Parade, which has been erected since that site was sold some years ago, has been built well towards the shoreline on the more damaging part of the slip and that dwelling is also fairly damaged. But he says houses built just off the road seem to be fairly safe from the slip. In an event, the Shynomisk sale should reflect a land value which recognises the slip problem.
Before us, Dr Grahn made reference in his Grounds of Appeal to the Valuer-General's valuation of $77,500 for land at 16 Whytecliffe Parade which contains an area of 675 square metres. The valuation is at the rate of $114.80 per square metre and Dr Grahn says the subject valuation at 18 Whytecliffe is at the rate of $126.60 per square metre (AV89-246). He says both properties are in the same position and it is unjust to assess the appellants' land at a higher rate per square metre. He submits that at the rate of $114.80 per square metre the land at 18 Whytecliffe Parade should be valued at $68,421.
We agree with the submission made by the respondent that, for the purpose of valuing residential sites, the preferable method of comparison is on a site to site basis and not on the basis of a unit area value comparison. Site for site comparison should take into comparison such matters as the size of the lots, the situation of and access to the lots, the shape and topography of the lots etc and comparisons on a unit area basis do not necessarily reflect valuation considerations for the above features. We note that the difference in area between 18 and 16 Whytecliffe Parade is 79 square metres - not really a significant difference in allotments of these respective sizes. We also note, that evidence (page 52 of the record) seems to indicate that 16 Whytecliffe Parade has a narrower frontage than does the subject 18 Whytecliffe Parade and its extra area appears to result from its extra depth. This is also a valuation consideration on a site to site basis.
The appellants' submissions were premised upon personal perceptions which took no account of valuation principles or established interpretations of the Valuation of Land Act. The comparison sales submitted by the respondent's valuer were dismissed out of hand by the following submission -
"We refuse a comparison with the properties numbered with 97 and 98 on page 47 and mentioned from the Valuer-General. Our reasons are:
a)We do not know the properties.
b)We never have visited them.
c)We do not know their condition, because they are situated in some distance.
d)We do not know what kind of damage was caused there by the slips.
e)There was no inspection of our property done by the Valuer-General. It is therefore our opinion that he can not make an exact valuation and compare it with the mentioned properties.
f)According to our experience in that area, we suppose the selling price was in respect to the general conditions far too high. But that is a matter between sellers and buyers and should not cause any disadvantage for us."
Dr Grahn attempted to fortify this submission with the observation "it is not important what other people were paying for a property nearby". It is enough to quote the submission to indicate the excursive nature of this appeal.
It may be added that the appellants' submission consisted of a catalogue of negative perceptions and personal problems associated with their use of the land. A proper valuation calls for an exercise in balancing all the respective advantages and disadvantages inherent in or pertaining to a lot. There is a complete lack of reference by the appellants in this case to a number of obvious features which adds to the amenities of the respective sites rather that detracting from it.
Both appeals are dismissed, and the determinations of the Land Court as contained in the decision dated 6th April, 1990 are affirmed.
(J.B. Thomas) J.
Judge of the Supreme Court.
(C.H. Carter)
Member of the Land Court.
(D.M. White)
Member of the Land Court.
0
0