Harrington v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 118

[1995] QLC 118

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

29 September 1995

Re:     Appeal against a valuation -
  Redcliffe City Council.
  AV95-166.
Valuation of Land Act 1944.

Geoffrey R and Barbara M Harrington
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N

(Hearing at Redcliffe)

Mr and Mrs Harrington are the owners of Lot 1 on RP 88797, parish of Redcliffe.  The lot has an area of 506m² and is situated at 21 Thurecht Parade, Scarborough.  The land is zoned "Residential B" under the Town Plan for the City of Redcliffe, and is improved with a building containing two flats.
           The appellants have appealed to the Court against the determination of the Chief Executive of the unimproved value of the lot in the sum of $105,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 1 January 1995.  They are of the opinion the block should be valued at $94,000 on the single ground stated in the notice of appeal that a sale of a lot a few doors away improved with a residence and garage sold for $110,000.
           In the hearing of the appeal, Mr Harrington gave evidence on behalf of the appellants, whilst Mr TS Alexander, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, gave evidence in support of the determined value.  There is no disagreement between these gentlemen as to the nature of the block, services that are available to it nor that the lot provides a good level building site with views across park land to the Scarborough Boat Harbour.
           The valuation of $105,000 written by Mr Alexander is based on the highest and best use of the land under the zoning as "Residential B" land.  The applied value is equivalent to a value per square metre of $207.50.  He led evidence of two sales of land within a multi-unit zoning for purposes of demonstrating his opinion.  These sales comprise a lot of 604m² situated at 12 Silvester Street, Redcliffe, (S.1) which sold with a residence on the site for $89,000 in April 1994.  The home was removed after sale.  The sale showed an unimproved land value of $84,000 but is valued at $80,000, or $132 per m² for the purposes of this current Annual Valuation.  Mr Alexander said that the sale land is in an inferior location to the subject lot and has a narrower frontage.  The second sale is of a 551m² size lot situated at 100 Hornibrook Esplanade.  This lot improved with a residence which was subsequently removed, sold for $160,000 in July 1994.  That land is valued at $155,000, or $281 per m².  His comments upon the sale land and the subject lot are -

"The sale is in an inferior location being on a busy Esplanade but does have superior water views.  The subject is better located on a quieter street, opposite a park, with views of boats and marina.  Overall subject is inferior.  "

In the course of his evidence, Mr Alexander said that he had valued all Esplanade land on the peninsula for the purposes of this Annual Valuation.  In speaking about the sale cited by the appellants in the notice of appeal which in fact sold for $112,000, he said that the site although having a double street frontage with a home and garage on it at sale, because of its frontage of 10 metres had no potential for any higher use than for single unit residential purposes.  Subsequent to the sale the home was removed and a new home constructed on the more elevated land at the rear of the block.  He agrees that as a single unit residential site, the sale land is superior to the subject site.  Mr Harrington expressed the opinion that were the flats on the subject land burnt down, he would not be allowed to put units on the site.  Mr Alexander could neither confirm nor deny the statement which, it appears to me, can only be answered with any degree of firmness were a development proposal put to the Local Authority.  Nevertheless, the point does not have to be answered for the purposes of this valuation.
           Under s.3(4) of the Act, it is provided that in determining the unimproved value of land it shall be assumed that -

(a)the land may be used, or may continue to be used, for any purpose for which it was being used, or for which it could be used, at the date to which the valuation relates; and

(b)such improvements may be continued or made on the land as may be required in order to enable the land to continue to be so used: ... "

Simply stated, the section provides that whilst land may lawfully continue to be used for the purpose for which it is being used, the land may be valued according to that use.  In the circumstances it is logical and proper that the value be based on land sold for like purposes or sold with like potential.  In the course of their evidence, Mr Alexander referred to two further sales to the west of the subject site as supporting evidence.  These sale lots changed hands for sums in excess of $200,000.  Mr Harrington referred to a recent sale of another lot nearby.  As the valuation has to be determined as at 1 January 1995, I am bound under the Act to consider evidence directly relevant to the market pertaining at that time.  Further, under the provisions of s.45 of the Act, the Court, in considering the matter, is limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal.  In these circumstances I see no point in going into the additional sales evidence which on one side are of lots obviously much superior to the subject lot and on the other after the relevant date.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

(DM White)         
  President of the Land Court