Harrington v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 117

[1995] QLC 117

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

29 September 1995

Re:     Appeal against a valuation -
  Redcliffe City Council.
  AV95-165.
Valuation of Land Act 1944.

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

D E C I S I O N

(Hearing at Redcliffe)

This appeal is against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, of the unimproved value of Lot 5 on RP 87406, Parish of Redcliffe, in the sum of $102,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 1 January 1995.
           The appellants are contending for an unimproved value of $66,000 on grounds that certain sales or land transactions do not support the determined value. 
           Lot 5 contains an area of 5109 square metres and is situated at 527 Anzac Avenue, Rothwell.  Anzac Avenue is a four-lane bitumen sealed road.  The lot is of rectangular shape, is improved with a residence in which the appellants reside and has reticulated water, sewerage, electricity and telephone services available.  The lot is zoned "Urban Development" but because of the use made of it for single unit dwelling house purposes, the land has been valued by the Department for this purpose and in accordance with the provisions of s.17 of the Act which provides that the valuation of land exclusively used for single unit dwelling house purposes shall be valued without regard to any potential in the land for a higher and better use.  In this case that highest and best use or potential may be found in the zoning of the land for "Urban Development".

Mr Geoffrey Harrington appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants.  In the material constituting the grounds of the appeal, he referred to

(a)a transaction between the Education Department and the Redcliffe City Council involving the transfer free of charge of 3.57 hectares of land to the Council for Park purposes.  According to the report in the local newspaper (tendered in evidence), the land was reported to be worth $430,000.

(b)a sale of land adjoining the subject land thought to be of about 40 hectares of area and thought to have been sold for $500,000.

The appellants' estimate of the value of the subject lot was derived by dividing the area of the land referred to in transaction (a) by the area and applying that per hectare to the subject land.  In the course of his evidence, Mr Harrington referred to the fact that the lot had come under a vegetation protection order which, following his representations to Council, was lifted.  Although this action obviously gave the appellants considerable apprehension, the order was in fact lifted prior to the relevant date and to discuss the matter further would not be of assistance in testing whether the applied value is inappropriate on the evidence adduced or whether it may have had an effect on the value of the land for single unit residential purposes.  He also mentioned a sale of Lot 5 on SI 10854 containing 1.9422 hectares in Anzac Avenue.  This lot is said to have sold for $267,000 improved with a home and other works and further that a sewerage manhole on adjacent property had overflowed in a period of heavy rain and generally emits unpleasant odours.  He said that he has recorded evidence of the problem on video and has handed that to the local authority for its consideration and attention.
           The valuation was written on behalf of the Chief Executive by Mr TS Alexander, registered valuer in the employ of the Department.  He put details of four sales before the Court in support of his opinion that the subject land as a single unit residential site of the size that it is, has the value which has been applied.  The sale having the greatest degree of comparability with the subject land is that of Lot 41 on RP 210078 containing 7789 square metres of "Non Urban" zoned land situated in Buchanan Street to the south-east of the subject site.  This land sold in November 1993 for $120,000.  Mr Alexander said that a cottage on the land at sale was removed and a new home constructed on fill (mound) above flood level.  The access to the sale site from Anzac Avenue is by part bitumen road and finally gravel road.  The site has reticulated water but no sewerage service.  The analysis of the sale reflected an unimproved value of $110,000 and this value has been applied to the site for the purposes of the current Annual Valuation.  In comparing the two sites, it is evident that the sale land has a larger area, is low-lying, is on a gravel road and has no sewerage.  Mr Alexander has placed the subject site overall as slightly inferior to the sale land as a whole because of size and the influence of the traffic density on Anzac Avenue.  It appeared to me when all relevant points of comparison were put to Mr Harrington that he would prefer the subject site.  Mr Alexander then referred to the sales of two smaller sized single unit residential sites for the purpose of demonstrating the effects of location to busy roads on value and for the purpose of proving that when valuing single unit residential sites a comparison on a site-to-site basis is preferable to any comparison on a per square metre or per hectare basis.  This of course has been said by the Land Court and Land Appeal Court on numerous occasions.  The fallacy of the argument may be demonstrated in the sale of these smaller sized lots.  Sale 3 is to the north-east of the subject land in Forestlea Court.  That lot of 1018 square metres sold for $85,000 in a cleared and fenced state in January 1994.  Similarly, a lot of similar size on Scarborough Road (a busy sub-arterial road) but with better location, sold for $94,000 with clearing and fencing in May 1994.  At 483 Anzac Avenue to the east of the subject land, a sale of 1.019 hectares, improved with a residence, trotting track, etc., sold in December 1993 to an adjoining owner for $310,000.  That sale on analysis reflected an unimproved value of $152,500.  However, being a sale of land with substantial improvements, it is not the preferred guide in ascertaining the value of land in an unimproved state.  The preferred basis comprises sales of unimproved or lightly improved land which are comparable with the land to be valued.
           The evidence given by the appellants on the other hand speaks about

(a)a transaction dealing with land which will be used for public purposes of park and open space and as such is of no assistance irrespective of what the land may be worth for the use to be made of it;  

(b)a transaction or transactions involving land which is not precise as to what was sold and for what purpose.  The best information that could be obtained by Mr Alexander is that an adjoining parcel (apparently being part of a group of parcels held by the one vendor) of 8.447 hectares was sold in November 1994 for $407,574 and that such area has since obtained subdivisional approval and that a further parcel behind that of 32 hectares comprising in the majority flooded land and south of the proposed railway, sold for $100,000; and

(c)A sale which occurred in May 1995, subsequent to the relevant date and unknown to Mr Alexander.  Mr Harrington said that the purchaser does subdivisional work. In the absence of any worthwhile details of the sale and of the added value of the improvements thereon to the purchaser, nothing constructive can be derived from this sale.

Having considered the evidence given on behalf of the appellants with that given by Mr Alexander, I can only conclude that the evidence of the appellant is insufficient in cogency to disturb the applied value.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

President of the Land Court