Hwang-Li Sheu v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2009] QLC 53
•9 April 2009
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Hwang-Li Sheu & Ors v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 0053 PARTIES: Hwang-Li Sheu (AV2007/0171)
Hwang-Li & Ruey-Bin Sheu (AV2007/0174)
Hwang-Li & Ruey-Bin Sheu (AV2007/0175)
Hwang-Li & Ruey-Bin Sheu (AV2007/0176)
Hwang-Li & Ruey-Bin Sheu (AV2007/0177)
Hwang-Li & Ruey-Bin Sheu (AV2007/0178)
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2007/0171, AV2007/0174, AV2007/0175,
AV2007/0176, AV2007/0177, AV2007/0178DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Appeals against annual valuations under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 9 April 2009 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mrs CAC MacDonald, President ORDERS: Appeal No. AV2007/0171
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 9 on RP 84081 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Five Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($570,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0174
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 459 on RP 40784 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Four Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0175
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 73740 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0176
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of Lots 4 and 5 on RP 40092 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is determined at Four Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand Dollars ($494,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0177
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 70167 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is determined at Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($280,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0178
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 52328 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000) as at 1 October 2006.
CATCHWORDS: Valuation – unimproved value – correct methodology – comparison with unimproved values rejected – valuation of residential properties on a rate per square metre rejected -analysis of sales. APPEARANCES: Mr R Sheu for the appellants
Mr KA Fisher of Crown Law, for the respondentSOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor, Crown Law, for the respondent
This decision deals with six appeals against determinations by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the respondent) of the annual valuations of six properties. In AV2007/0171, the owner of the property is Hwang-Li Sheu. In the remaining five appeals the owners are Hwang-Li and Ruey-Bin Sheu. The owners are collectively referred to in this decision as the appellants. One of the appellants, Mr Ruey-Bin Sheu, conducted all the appeals on behalf of the appellants, and also gave evidence in each matter. The valuations under appeal were issued under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) and determined the unimproved value of each of the subject properties as at 1 October 2006.
Although each appeal will be considered separately and a determination made of the value of each property, there are a number of issues that were common to all of the appeals and it is convenient to deal with those issues first of all.
Valuation methodology
All of the properties are used for residential purposes and, therefore, pursuant to s.17 of the Act, any potential that any of the properties may have for alternative use or subdivision has been disregarded by the respondent. This approach was not challenged by the appellants.
Relativity
The grounds of appeal set out in each Notice of Appeal are similar. For the purposes of this discussion the grounds in AV2007/0171 may be taken as typical –
"The 2007 new valuation of the following property from DNRW supports the estimated value.
5 Castile St. Indooroopilly $510,000 of 1020 m² —> $510,000 x 1052
1020 = $520,000."
It became apparent at the hearing that in each appeal Mr Sheu had selected various properties (called comparison properties) in the vicinity of the appeal property and had calculated a dollar rate per square metre for the comparison property by dividing the unimproved value attributed to that property by the respondent at a particular date, by the area of the property. In some appeals Mr Sheu then averaged the rate per square metre shown for the comparison properties. However it appears that the amount he applied to the subject property in each case was the amount of the respondent's previous valuation for that property.
The appellants' primary submission was, therefore, that the unimproved valuations of the subject properties on a rate per square metre basis were out of relativity with the unimproved values of the comparison properties and, accordingly, that the valuations under appeal should be reduced. This submission raises a fundamental issue, namely, the appropriate methodology to be adopted for valuations of property made for the purposes of the Act.
Section 13 of the Act requires the Chief Executive to decide the unimproved value of the land to be valued for the Acts under which local authorities are established.
Unimproved value is defined in s.3 of the Act. As all of the subject properties are improved, the relevant part of s.3, for the purpose of this discussion, is s.3(1)(b) which provides that -
3 Meaning of unimproved value
(1) For the purposes of this Act—
unimproved value of land means—
…
(b) 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."
The general principles to be applied in determining the unimproved value of land under the Act have been discussed by the Land Appeal Court in a number of cases. For example, in Fischer v Valuer-General,[1] the Land Appeal Court said -
"It is indeed a fundamental principle of valuation that the best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels. Whilst maintenance of correct relativity is also of considerable importance for rating or revenue type valuations, we cannot prefer in the circumstances of this case, the use of the principle of relativity to the exclusion of the sales evidence. …
The best test of value at any particular time is the market for land, and the only sales evidence, albeit perhaps not ideal, is that provided and relied upon by the Valuer-General."
That statement of principle was accepted and applied by the Land Appeal Court in subsequent decisions such as Barnwell v Valuer-General[2] and Grahn v Valuer-General.[3]
[1] (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
[2] (1989) 13 QLCR 13.
[3] (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327.
It is clear from the Act and these decisions that the appropriate methodology to be adopted for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of land under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land by using sales of comparable unimproved or lightly improved land. That method is to be preferred to valuations based on relativity, although it is desirable that proper relativity be maintained between the parcels in a particular area. These principles will, therefore, be applied in considering each of the appeals.
Valuation on a site basis or rate per square metre?
The subject properties are residential lots. As mentioned above, the appellants calculated the values of the subject properties and the comparison properties on a rate per square metre basis. A similar exercise was rejected by the Land Appeal Court in Grahn's case, the Court saying that "the appropriate basis for the valuation of a residential lot is not the application of a rate per square metre but an assessment of the unimproved value of each lot as land used for single unit residential purposes."[4] The reasons for this had been explained in an earlier decision[5] -
"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."
[4] At 330.
[5] Grahn v The Valuer-General, Land Appeal Court, unreported, (13 December 1990).
Finally, it should be noted that, although Mr Sheu said that he had used the 2007 unimproved values of the comparison properties for his calculations set out in the notices of appeal, it emerged that the calculations he tendered as evidence at the hearing were based on the 2004 valuations. The 2004 valuations are of little relevance to these appeals and their use would in itself be sufficient to invalidate this exercise although it is emphasized that a methodology based on comparing residential properties on a rate per square metre basis is also inappropriate for the reasons set out above.
The mass appraisal system
Mr Sheu, for the appellants, submitted that the respondent had produced no evidence to support the 10% increase that, he said, had been applied to each of the subject properties since the previous valuation. Despite requesting the respondent's representatives to supply appropriate proof, they had not done so. Mr Sheu relied on various reports which, he said, indicated that the rise in property values was much lower than the 10% applied by the respondent. RP Data Property Pulse said that between June 2002 and June 2008 the CPI had risen between 2% and 4% only; an REIQ media release on 17 July 2004 stated that Brisbane property prices fell by 2.5% and another on 5 September 2005 that the Brisbane Region fell between 1% and 2.2%.
Mr Sheu did not call the compilers of these reports to give evidence in this matter. There was, therefore, no information as to the methodology adopted to reach the quoted statistics, nor any detail as to the geographical areas to which they applied. This evidence cannot be accepted as useful or reliable, in the absence of appropriate explanation from the compilers of the report. Moreover, I do not consider the information to be relevant to the valuation of the specific properties dealt with in these appeals. I have therefore rejected this aspect of Mr Sheu's evidence.
As to the 10% increase said to have been applied by the respondent to the localities in which the subject properties are situated, Mr U Singh, a registered valuer who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent, said that the Department had used the mass appraisal system to make the valuations for the year in question. As explained by Mr Singh, the mass appraisal system means that the valuers examine the sales in a particular market area and determine an average increase in values for that area over the relevant period as reflected by those sales, having rejected sales which were out of line with the general market trend or where the circumstances of a sale indicated that it was not an arm's length transaction. The general increase was applied to properties in that market area, although manual adjustments were made where particular circumstances did not warrant the application of the general 10% increase.
The Land Appeal Court has held previously that the use of the mass appraisal system does not offend the Act.[6] In any event, Mr Singh did not attempt to rely on the mass appraisal system to support the valuations issued in respect of the appeal properties. Rather, Mr Singh gave evidence about sales of properties which he considered to be comparable with the subject property and to support the valuations under appeal. In principle, the methodology adopted by Mr Singh is appropriate, as indicated by the decisions in Fischer and Grahn referred to above. That being the case, it was not necessary for the respondent to produce evidence to support the 10% increase in valuation because the evidence relied on by the respondent is sales evidence specific to each of the appeal properties.
[6] Wilson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1994) QLCR 63 at 71.
Onus of proof
Section 33 of the Act provides that any valuation made by the Chief Executive under the Act is deemed to be correct until proved otherwise. Section 45(4) provides that the burden of proving every ground of appeal lies upon the owners. The effect of these provisions is that there is a presumption that the value in money terms shown by the Chief Executive in the notice of valuation is correct and the onus lies on the appellant to prove otherwise.[7]
[7] Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41 at 56.
Mr Singh's evidence
Although Mr Singh was not the valuer who determined the issued valuations, he said that he had determined the objections in each case and his evidence was based on his own knowledge, experience and professional judgment. Mr Singh said that the valuations had been made having regard to vacant unimproved or lightly improved sales and, in his written reports, he provided brief details of sales in support of the valuations under appeal. Mr Sheu did not challenge Mr Singh's standing to give evidence in respect of the valuations under appeals. Mr Singh's evidence demonstrated that he had the appropriate knowledge and expertise to assess the valuations and I am satisfied that he exercised his independent judgment in relation to the valuations. His evidence was, accordingly, accepted.
I turn now to consider the individual appeals.
AV2007/0171 – 15 Charlane Avenue, Indooroopilly
This property has an area of 1,052 m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the subject land was determined by the respondent at $570,000. The appellant estimated the value of the property to be $520,000, relying on a comparison with a property at 5 Castile Street, Indooroopilly.
Mr Singh described Charlane Avenue as a cul-de-sac which comprises a full width bitumen sealed carriageway, concrete kerbing and channelling and grassed verges. All normal City services are available. Good access was available on to the subject land which is a level to moderate block with a narrow frontage of 11 metres and a fair outlook.
Sales Evidence
Mr Singh relied on three sales to support this valuation.
Sale 1 is an 842 m² residential property situated at 119 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia which sold on 23 May 2005 for $865,000. It appears that there was a house on the property as at the date of sale but Mr Singh described the property as "lightly improved", because, after the sale, the house had been completely gutted and major renovations carried out. He therefore analysed the sale price at $865,000 and applied a value of $760,000.
Mr Singh said that the sale property was overall superior to the subject property. The sale is a level to moderate block with similar services to the subject property. The sale was smaller than the subject.
Sale 2 is a 678 m² residential property situated at 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia. The property was sold on 17 June 2006 for $690,000. Mr Singh deducted $12,000 for clearing and fill and $62,727 GST to reach an analysed sale price of $615,273. He applied a value of $540,000. Mr Singh described the sale property as, overall, inferior to the subject property. He said that the sale property had similar services and similar access to the subject property. The sale was a smaller, irregular shaped, moderate to easy block with narrow exposure to a busy road.
Sale 3 is a 1,525 m² property situated at 168 Harts Road, Indooroopilly. The property sold on 8 June 2006 for $1,386,883. Mr Singh said that it was anticipated that the block would be subdivided and, therefore, the existing house on the land would be demolished. On that basis he deducted $12,000 for clearing and fill and added $10,000 for demolition costs to reach an analysed sale price of $1,384,883. He applied an unimproved value of $880,000.
Mr Singh said that there was general uncertainty surrounding the number of blocks into which the sale property would be subdivided. The most conservative approach was that two 760 m² parcels would be achieved. If $10,000 were added to $880,000 (the unimproved value of the pre-split block) for survey costs, the resultant two blocks would each show $445,000 for 762 m². That could be compared with the subject property which has an unimproved value of $570,000 on a larger block of 1,052 m² in a quieter cul-de-sac location.
Although the analysed sale price of this property was $1,384,883, Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $880,000 only, which is a reduction of some $500,000. There was no explanation from him as to the reason for the significant difference between the applied unimproved value and the analysed sale price. In the absence of any such explanation, it would appear that he considered that the sale price was out of line with the market generally and for that reason had applied the much lower value. Whatever the explanation, the discrepancy between the figures indicates in my view that the sale is not reliable and I have concluded that it should not be used for the purposes of this valuation.
Thus the sales evidence relevant to this appeal is confined to Sales No. 1 and 2. Both of those properties are situated in St Lucia. The subject property is in Indooroopilly. Mr Sheu submitted in relation to these sales and, also, in some of the other appeals, that sales in a different suburb were not comparable with the subject property and, therefore, the sales should not be relied on.
The differences identified by Mr Sheu between St Lucia and Indooroopilly were that the University of Queensland is located in St Lucia and, consequently, residents of St Lucia have easy access to the facilities provided by the University; St Lucia is a busy rental property area; there is a major shopping centre located in Indooroopilly; the area where the subject is located is a quiet residential area without the benefit of the access to the University of Queensland and no river views.
Mr Singh said that although there were some differences between Indooroopilly, St Lucia and Taringa, he had been valuing properties in the area for a significant period of time and in his opinion, the average house prices were the same or very similar in each area. In his view, therefore, properties in any of those suburbs could be relevant to the valuation of a property in one of the other suburbs, provided that the particular features of the two properties were comparable.
Although Mr Sheu was able to point to some differences between the features and facilities of St Lucia and Indooroopilly, his evidence did not go so far as to establish that different values applied in each of the suburbs. Indeed, in the absence of any sales evidence adduced by Mr Sheu, it was difficult for him to provide any convincing evidence as to the relative values of the properties in the two suburbs. In those circumstances, I have accepted Mr Singh's evidence which is based on his knowledge of the values of properties in the respective suburbs over a period of time. I therefore consider that the two sale properties in St Lucia may be used for the purposes of valuing the subject land.
Relativity
Mr Sheu compared the subject property with a property which partially adjoins the rear of the subject, 5 Castile Street, Indooroopilly. Mr Sheu said that the Castile Street property was fairly rectangular and it had an area of 1,020 m², similar to the subject. The unimproved value of the Castile Street property as at 1 October 2004 was $465,000. If the same rate were applied to the subject property its unimproved value would be $480,000. Mr Sheu said that the subject property was in a lower position in the street, the shape of the land was irregular with a narrow frontage allowing entry for one vehicle only and the irregular shape and lower position increased the difficulty and cost of construction for future maintenance and development.
I do not consider that this evidence is sufficient to establish that there is any error in the valuation of the subject land. A contour map tendered by the respondent shows that the bulk of the subject property is at a higher level than the comparison property. The comparison property is axe-shaped with a fairly long narrow driveway giving access to the street. The respondent's evidence also shows that the comparison property is burdened by a number of easements. In total, the evidence established that the comparison property is inferior to the subject property and therefore there appears to be no error in the relative unimproved valuations attributed to each property. In any event, as pointed out earlier in this decision, the 2004 valuation of the comparison property has little relevance to this appeal, and the preferred method for valuing unimproved land under the Act is by comparison with the sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels[8]. Further, residential properties should not be valued on a rate per square metre basis.[9]
[8] Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
[9] Grahn v Value-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327 at 330.
Conclusions re 15 Charlane Avenue, Indooroopilly
As discussed earlier, I consider that Mr Singh's Sales 1 and 2 may be used in the valuation of the subject property. Sale 1 shows an applied value of $760,000 for an 842 m² residential property which Mr Singh described as superior to the subject property.
Mr Sheu submitted that the sale was not comparable with the subject. Apart from its location and different suburb, the sale is situated on the ridge of Seventh Avenue with the superiority of a corner location, two accesses and a better view overlooking the St Lucia area. Mr Singh accepted generally the accuracy of these comments but said that this was why he considered the sale to be superior to the subject.
Sale 2 shows an applied value of $540,000 for a 678 m² residential property which Mr Singh described as inferior to the subject property. Mr Sheu considered that this property also was not comparable with the subject because the sale was located in St Lucia – not Indooroopilly – at the ridge of Hawken Drive, with superior views from the back of the property across the St Lucia Golf Course and the Brisbane River. Mr Singh agreed that there is a view of the St Lucia golf links and greens from this property but, he said, the river could not be seen because the view was blocked by large trees. Moreover the sale was on an extremely busy road.
The evidence shows that Sales 1 and 2 are not identical with the subject property. Nevertheless, I consider that they are sufficiently comparable to enable the sales to be used in the valuation of the subject. Both parties agree that Sale 1 is superior to the subject. Mr Singh has allowed for this by applying $760,000 to the sale and $570,000 to the subject. There is no evidence to show that this is an insufficient allowance. Mr Sheu considers that Sale 2 is superior to the subject, Mr Singh says that it is inferior. Mr Sheu's opinion was based on his belief that St Lucia is a superior suburb to Indooroopilly and also he considered the sale site to be superior because of the views available from it.
As discussed above, there was no sales evidence to support Mr Sheu's belief that St Lucia was superior to Indooroopilly and I have accepted Mr Singh's professional opinion that the values in each area are generally comparable. Further, since I am unable to resolve the difference in the evidence as to whether river views were available from Sale 2, I have accepted Mr Singh's conclusion that Sale 2 is inferior to the subject because of its small irregular shape and location on a busy road.
In my opinion, the sales evidence supports the unimproved value attributed to the subject property and I can find no error in the valuation. This appeal is dismissed.
AV2007/0174 – 12 Mavis Street, St Lucia
This property has an area of 551 m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent at $440,000 as at 1 October 2006. The appellant estimated the value of the property to be $400,000. The method used by the appellant to estimate the value of this land is discussed further below.
Mr Singh described Mavis Street as a cul-de-sac with a full width bitumen sealed carriageway, concrete kerbing and channelling and grassed verges. All normal City services are available to the property. The land has a narrow frontage of 8 metres and a fair outlook. It is a moderate to easy block.
Mr Sheu calculated his estimate of the unimproved value of the subject land by comparison with three properties in St Lucia. In his Notice of Appeal, he took the rate per square metre attributed to each of these properties as at 1 October 2006 and applied that rate to the subject property with the following results -
14 Mavis Street: $510,000 for 1,088 m² = $265,000 [rounded, it seems]
42 Dell Road: $440,000 for 703 m² = $345,000
50 Armadale Street: $380,000 for 567 m² = $369,000
Mr Sheu then averaged the results for the latter two properties to reach a figure of $357,000. He decided that that was probably too great a difference from the respondent's valuation so he inserted his estimate at $400,000 for the purposes of this appeal.
Mr Sheu used a similar methodology in his written statement (Exhibit 1) tendered at the hearing. However, in that document, he used the 2004 valuation figures as his base for the calculations and added information about an additional property – 71 Dell Road, St Lucia. As stated above, the 2004 valuation amounts are not relevant to the valuations under appeal and, therefore, I have excluded that evidence from my deliberations.
Moreover, as explained previously, Mr Sheu's methodology does not comply with the decisions of the Land Appeal Court cited above as to the appropriate methodology to be applied for the purposes of determining unimproved value under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act. The errors are compounded by the fact that Mr Sheu has averaged the results for two of the properties and then inserted a different amount as his estimate of the value. I do not consider, therefore, that these calculations should be used to establish the unimproved value of the subject.
The flaws in Mr Sheu's methodology mean that it is not necessary for me to traverse the evidence as to the similarities and differences between the subject property and the comparison properties. It cannot be overemphasised that the appropriate method of establishing the unimproved vale of land under the Act is the use of sales of unimproved or lightly improved land. Where, as here, such evidence is available, the relativity principle cannot be used to the exclusion of the sales evidence.[10]
[10] Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
It is necessary therefore to consider the sales evidence relied on by the respondent to support the assessed valuation of the subject property.
Sale 1 is a 663 m² property situated at 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia. The property sold on 3 June 2006 for $678,000. Mr Singh deducted $6,000 each for clearing and fill, added $5,000 for demolition and deducted $61,636 GST to reach an analysed sale price of $609,364. He applied an unimproved value of $500,000.
Mr Singh said that the services and access to Sale 1 were similar to the subject property. Sale 1 was a level block with backing on to an elevated rear block, it was larger than the subject and was, overall, superior to the subject.
Mr Sheu submitted that the sale was not comparable with the subject because the sale property was located near the attractive St Lucia Golf Course, it had the superiority of regular shape and wide frontage and a better view overlooking the golf course and the Brisbane River. Mr Singh disagreed that views to the river were available. Mr Sheu agreed with Mr Singh’s assessment that the sale was, overall, superior to the subject property.
Sale No. 2 is a 518 m² property situated at 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia. The property sold on 10 February 2006 for $441,000. Mr Singh analysed the sale to $400,909 by deducting $3,000 for clearing and $40,091 GST and adding $3,000 for demolition costs. He applied an unimproved value of $395,000.
Mr Singh described the sale property as having similar services and access as the subject property. He said that the sale is an easy to moderate block on the down slope of a quiet street. It is a smaller, slightly elevated regular block and is overall inferior to the subject property.
Mr Sheu largely agreed with Mr Singh's description of the sale property, although he said that the sale had a wider frontage than the subject and therefore better access for two cars. By comparison, the driveway on the subject was very narrow. While Mr Sheu's point about the width of the frontage is relevant, it is to be noted that because the subject property is to be valued as if the improvements did not exist, improvements such as the driveway into the subject property are to be ignored for the purposes of this valuation.
Mr Sheu also commented that the sale property is located in a quiet street with the superiority of a regular shape and better view overlooking a park. Mr Singh disagreed with the description of the area across the street from the sale as a park. He said it was regrowth forest and shrubs or undergrowth, very overgrown, unkempt and unattractive. Further, in front of the area there were multiple electricity transmission lines – probably 5 strands – strung between pylons which were also in the outlook from the sale property.
Mr Singh said that the sale property was inferior to the subject block because the sale needed cut and fill being a slightly elevated block and was smaller than the subject site. Mr Sheu disagreed that the sale needed cut and fill to enable a house to be built and took the view that the lower side of the property could have been filled which would be more advantageous, leading to a more elevated property. I consider that this evidence was inconclusive because neither Mr Sheu nor Mr Singh are experts on the topic of house building, the heights allowed by the local town plan were not discussed and generally the feasibility of Mr Sheu's assertion was not supported by any evidence.
Despite the differences between Mr Singh and Mr Sheu as to various features of the sale property, Mr Sheu agreed with Mr Singh's overall assessment that the sale property was inferior to the subject. Consequently the sale may be compared with the subject on that basis.
Sale 3 is a 400m² residential property situated at 156 Ninth Avenue, St Lucia which sold on 14 February 2006 for $440,000. Mr Singh analysed the sale by deducting $6,000 each for clearing and fill. He added $4,000 for demolition costs to reach an analysed sale price of $432,000 and he applied an unimproved value of $415,000.
Mr Singh said that the services and access to the sale and the subject property were similar. He described sale 3 as a level to moderate block which was smaller than and overall inferior to the subject property.
In his written submission, Mr Sheu said that sale 3 was not comparable with the subject land which had an irregular shape and narrow frontage. The sale was a regular rectangular block located in the famous "Avenues" in St Lucia, with wide frontage.
Mr Singh disagreed with Mr Sheu's description of the sale as a regular shaped property, saying that it had an irregular shape. Mr Singh's evidence was supported by the map tendered by the respondent. Mr Singh also said that the sale was located on a slight curve of the road and very substantial earthworks – cut and fill and retaining walls – had been carried out to accommodate the house. Moreover, access to the property was not easy because of the curve in the road which created some safety hazards. I have accepted Mr Singh's assessment of this property as inferior to the subject because Mr Singh showed a detailed knowledge of the features of the property and supported the relevant part of his evidence by reference to maps.
Having considered the sales evidence and Mr Sheu's evidence and submissions, I have come to the conclusion that the valuation of the subject property is supported by the sales evidence. Sale 1 is a superior property to the subject and Mr Singh applied a value of $500,000 to the sale. Both sale 2 and sale 3 are inferior to the property and have applied values of $395,000 and $415,000 respectively. I am satisfied therefore that the value of $440,000 applied to the subject is supported by that sales evidence. Moreover, Mr Sheu has not brought any evidence of other sales to support his opinion that the valuation of the subject land is excessive. I consider therefore that no error has been demonstrated in the valuation and the appeal is dismissed.
AV2007/0175 – 111 Dell Road, St Lucia
This property has an area of 890m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent at $550,000 as at 1 October 2006.
Mr Singh described Dell Road as a full-width bitumen sealed carriageway with concrete kerbing and channelling and grassed verges. The subject property was, he said, slightly elevated and located on a split section of Dell Road. The land has a wide frontage of 20 metres and has a fair outlook.
Mr Sheu said that the subject property is lower than the properties at the back of it. There is a refuge island with trees in the middle of Dell Road just in front of the property restricting the access of vehicles to the property. The disadvantage of the lower position and limitations on entering the property increased the difficulty and cost of construction for maintenance and development.
Mr Sheu estimated the unimproved value of the subject property to be $500,000. He calculated this figure by comparison with three properties in St Lucia. He took the rate per square metre attributed to each of these properties as at 1 October 2006 and applied that rate to the subject property, with the following results:
71 Dell Road: $480,000 for 936m² = $456,000
115 Dell Road: $610,000 for 1194m² = $454,000
14 Mavis Street: $510,000 for 1088m² = $417,000.Mr Sheu then averaged the values he had calculated to reach a figure of $442,000. He did not explain how that figure related to the value of $500,000 which was the figure nominated in the Notice of Appeal filed in this Court. Again, I have excluded Mr Sheu's calculations in Exhibit 1 which rely on the valuation figures as at 1 October 2004.
As with the previous appeal, AV2007/0174, there are significant flaws in the method by which Mr Sheu estimated the value of the subject land. In summary, Mr Sheu -
· relied on a comparison between the unimproved values of the subject and other properties in the vicinity, rather than a comparison of the subject with sales of unimproved or lightly improved comparable properties;
· compared the selected properties on a rate per square metre basis;
· averaged the rates per square metre of the comparison properties; and
· used another amount as his estimate of the value of the subject.
For the reasons given in relation to appeal AV2007/0174, I consider that this process does not lead to a reliable valuation. Moreover, where, as here, sales evidence is available to establish the value of the subject property, the relativity principle cannot be used to exclude that sales evidence.[11]
[11] Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
I turn now to consider the sales evidence adduced by Mr Singh in support of the valuation. Again in this appeal, Mr Sheu did not bring any sales evidence to challenge the evidence given by Mr Singh.
The sales relied on by Mr Singh in this valuation are 119 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia, 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia and 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia. Details of the sales at 119 Seventh Avenue and 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia are set out in relation to appeal No. AV2007/0171 (15 Charlane Street, Indooroopilly). The sale at 149 Hillside Terrace was discussed in relation to AV2007/0174 (12 Mavis Street, St Lucia). There is no need to repeat in detail the parties' descriptions of the sale properties and Mr Singh’s analysis of each sale.
Briefly, Sale 1 at 119 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia is an 842 m² residential property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $760,000. He described the sale as having similar services to the subject but better access than the subject property. He said that Sale 1 is a level to moderate block which is slightly smaller than the subject and is overall, superior to the subject property. Sale 2 at 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia is a 678 m² residential property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $540,000. Sale 2 is a moderate to easy block with narrow exposure to a busy road and is smaller than the subject and has an irregular shape. Mr Singh considered that the sale was, overall, inferior to the subject property. Sale 3 at 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia is a 663 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $500,000. He said that Sale 3 has similar access and services as the subject property. The sale is a level block backing on to an elevated rear block. It is smaller than the subject and is overall inferior to the subject property.
As with the previously discussed appeals, Mr Sheu said that none of the sales properties was comparable with the subject property. In making his comparison, he used identical terms to those used in the earlier appeals. This has led to error as Mr Sheu said in relation to Sales 1 and 2 in this appeal that they were not comparable with the subject because they were located in St Lucia whereas the subject was in Indooroopilly. In this appeal, the subject is, of course, also situated in St Lucia.
Although none of the sales properties is identical with the subject property, they are, in my opinion, sufficiently comparable to enable them to be used for the purposes of this valuation. In the earlier appeals, I largely accepted Mr Singh's description of the sales properties. Mr Singh's evidence has pointed out the similarities and differences between the sale properties and the subject and his reasons for applying the unimproved value of the subject land at $550,000 as at 1 October 2006. Those reasons are supported by his descriptions of the sale properties and I am satisfied that the sales evidence supports his valuation of the subject property. That conclusion, together with the fact that Mr Sheu has not adduced any sales evidence to support his estimated value, leads me to the conclusion that no error has been demonstrated in the valuation under appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
AV2007/0176 – 88 Beatrice Street, Taringa
This property has an area of 1,214 m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent at $520,000 as at 1 October 2006.
Mr Singh described Beatrice Street as a full width bitumen sealed carriageway with concrete kerbing and channelling. The verge fronting the subject land is even with no formed walkway or footpath. The subject property was, Mr Singh said, a moderate to easy block with a frontage of 13 metres, and a fair outlook.
Mr Sheu said that the contour map showed that this property has a fall of 4 metres in level and that it is 2.5 metres lower than Beatrice Street. That plus an easement with manholes through the middle of the property increased the difficulty in costs of construction for future maintenance and development. Further, access to the subject was difficult because of the road system in the area.
Mr Sheu estimated the unimproved value of the subject land to be $475,000. He calculated this figure by comparison with two properties in Taringa, by taking the rate per square metre attributed to each of those properties as at 1 October 2006 and applying that rate to the subject property with the following results:
6 Marmion Parade, Taringa: $460,000 for 1,513 m² = $369,000
60 Adsett Street, Taringa: $370,000 for 1,012 m² = $443,000.Mr Sheu then averaged the values he had calculated to reach a figure of $406,000. He did not explain how that figure related to the value of $475,000 which was the amount nominated as the value of the subject in the Notice of Appeal filed in this Court. I have rejected Mr Sheu's calculations set out in Exhibit 1 as they rely on the 2004 valulation amounts.
For the reasons set out at [44] and [45] above, I do not accept that the calculations set out in the Notice of Appeal lead to a reliable valuation. Moreover, where as here sales evidence is available to establish the value of the subject property, the relativity principle cannot be used to exclude that sales evidence.[12]
[12] Fisher v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
I turn now to consider the sales evidence adduced by Mr Singh in support of the valuation. Again, in this appeal, Mr Sheu did not bring any sales evidence to challenge the evidence given by Mr Singh.
The sales relied on by Mr Singh in this valuation are 119 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia, 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia and 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia. Details of the sales at 119 Seventh Avenue and 113 Hawken Drive were discussed in relation to AV2007/0171 (15 Charlane Street, Indooroopilly). The sale at 31 Ironside Street was discussed in relation to AV2007/0174 (12 Mavis Street, St Lucia). There is no need to repeat in detail the parties' description of the sale properties and Mr Singh's analysis of each sale.
Briefly, Sale 1 at 119 Seventh Avenue, St Lucia is an 842 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $760,000. He described the sale as a level to moderate block with services similar to the subject property and with a superior access to the subject property. He said that Sale 1 is a smaller block than the subject and is overall superior to it. Sale 2 at 113 Hawken Drive, St Lucia is a 678 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $540,000. He said that Sale 2 is a moderate to easy block with narrow exposure to a busy road. It has services similar to the subject property and has similar access to the subject property. The sale is a smaller irregular shaped block and is overall superior to the subject property. Sale 3 at 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia is a 518 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $395,000. He said that Sale 3 is a moderate to easy block on the down slope of a quiet street. It has services similar to the subject property and slightly better access than the subject property. Sale 3 is a smaller block and is overall inferior to the subject property.
As with the previously discussed appeals, Mr Sheu considered that none of the sales properties was comparable with the subject property. In making his comparison, he used virtually identical terms to those used in the earlier appeals although he noted that in this case the subject land was located in Taringa as compared with the sales which are in St Lucia.
Mr Singh's response in this case was similar to his response in relation to AV2007/0171, namely that he had lengthy experiences in valuing property in the Indooroopilly, St Lucia and Taringa areas and, in his opinion, the value of house properties was the same or very similar in each area. He therefore considered that properties in any of those suburbs could be relevant to a valuation in one of the other suburbs provided that the particular features of the properties were comparable.
Mr Sheu has not established that different values apply in Taringa as compared with St Lucia. Again this is because he has not produced any sales evidence in support of his contentions. In the circumstances I have accepted Mr Singh's evidence that properties in St Lucia may be used to value similar properties in Taringa since Mr Singh's evidence is based on his knowledge of the values of the properties in the respective suburbs over a period of time. I therefore consider that the sales properties in St Lucia may be used for the purposes of valuing the subject land.
As stated above, Mr Sheu identified a number of disadvantages in the subject property. The first was the slope on the property, which had the consequence that a large amount of fill would be necessary to level the property. Moreover there was an easement across the subject property containing water and sewerage pipes. In order to quantify the disadvantage suffered by the subject land, Mr Sheu had calculated the costs of levelling and filling the land using costings supplied to him by a firm at Seventeen Mile Rocks.
Mr Singh did not mention the disadvantages suffered by the subject property in his written report. In that report he described the property as a moderate to easy block. However, in his oral evidence, Mr Singh said that an inspection of the property from the front indicated that it was elevated on the roadside then dropped down into what looked like a watercourse and then rose again to the rear of the land. Currently the house is located closer to the road, but if the land were vacant, a house could be located towards the rear which was more suitable for development. However, that would involve some expense in trying to cross the watercourse. Mr Singh also said that there are no registered easements on the title, although there are City Council stormwater drainage and sewerage lines running through the property about a third of the way back from the road, traversing from west to east.
Mr Singh said that the previous valuer had made allowances for the subject property's disabilities in previous valuations. While that may be the case, there is no evidence that the disadvantage caused by the watercourse, stormwater drainage and sewerage lines traversing the property have been taken into account by Mr Singh in this valuation which Mr Singh supported by reliance on comparative sales evidence and not by reference to the earlier valuations issued by the respondent. As stated above, there is no mention of these disadvantages in his report and although he acknowledged their presence in his oral evidence, he did not indicate how, if at all, he had taken them into account in comparison with the sales properties which did not suffer similar disadvantages. The only conclusion I can draw is that in fact these disadvantages were not taken into account by Mr Singh. I regard this as an error in the valuation of the subject property.
There is no clear evidence as to how those disadvantages may be quantified in terms of their adverse effect on the unimproved value of the subject property. I do not consider that the calculations tendered by Mr Sheu in respect of the costs of fill and levelling the property are sufficiently reliable to be acted upon. Doing the best I can, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive should be reduced by 5% to allow for these disadvantages.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the unimproved value of the property situated at 88 Beatrice Street, Taringa is determined at $494,000.
AV2007/0177 – 92 Beatrice Street, Taringa
This property has an area of 683 m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent at $295,000 as at 1 October 2006.
The subject property adjoins the land the subject of the previous appeal, 88 Beatrice Street. Mr Singh described the land at 92 Beatrice Street as a moderate to easy block with an average frontage of 15 metres and a fair outlook towards Beatrice Street. Mr Sheu said that the contour map showed that this property has a fall of 5.5 metres in level and that it is 3.5 metres lower than Beatrice Street. That plus the easement through the middle of the property increased the difficulty in costs of construction for future maintenance and development. He also said that a narrow path only is available for vehicles entering the property.
In his Notice of Appeal, Mr Sheu estimated the unimproved value of the subject land to be $270,000. He calculated this figure by comparison with two properties in Taringa by taking the rate per square metre as reflected in the unimproved value of each of these properties as at 1 October 2006 and applying that rate to the subject property with the following results:
78 Hillsdon Road, Taringa: $265,000 for 711 m² = $254,000
77 Indooroopilly Road, Taringa: $265,000 for 680 m² = $265,000.Mr Sheu then averaged the values he had calculated to reach a figure of $259,000. He did not explain how that figure related to the value of $270,000 which was the amount of the previous valuation issued for the subject and the amount the appellants nominated as the value of the subject in the Notice of Appeal.
For the reasons set out at [44] and [45] above, I do not accept that these calculations lead to a reliable valuation. Moreover, where sales evidence is available to establish the value of the subject property, the relativity principle cannot be used to exclude that sales evidence.[13]
[13] Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
I turn now to consider the sales evidence adduced by Mr Singh in support of this valuation. Again, in this appeal, Mr Sheu did not bring any sales evidence to challenge that given by Mr Singh.
The sales relied on by Mr Singh in this valuation are 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia, 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia, 59 Taringa Parade, Taringa and 12 Ootana Street, Chapel Hill. Details of the sales at 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia and 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia were discussed in relation to Appeal No. AV2007/0174 (12 Mavis Street, St Lucia). There is no need to repeat in detail the parties' description of those sales properties and Mr Singh's analysis of them.
Briefly, Sale 1 at 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia is a 663 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $500,000. He described the sale as a level block backing on to an elevated rear block with better access than the subject property. He said that Sale 1 is a slightly smaller block than the subject and is overall superior to the subject property. Sale 2 at 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia is a 518 m² property to which Mr Singh applied an unimproved value of $395,000. He said that Sale 2 is a moderate to easy block on the down slope of a quiet street. The sale has similar access as that to the subject property. The sale is a slightly smaller elevated regular block and it is overall superior to the subject property.
In Mr Sheu's opinion neither Sale 1 nor Sale 2 were comparable with the subject. Both sales properties are situated in St Lucia not Taringa and therefore were not comparable because of their different locations. I have dealt with a similar objection in relation to the previous appeal (AV2007/0176) which concerned the land adjoining the subject land. For the reasons set out at [81] and [82] above I consider that the sales properties in St Lucia may be used for valuing the subject land.
Sale 3 is a 405 m² property situated at 59 Taringa Parade, Taringa. The property sold on 30 June 2005 for $345,000. Mr Singh analysed the sale by deducting $3,000 each for clearing and fill and adding $4,000 for demolition costs to reach an analysed sale price of $343,000. He applied an unimproved value of $315,000. Mr Singh described the sale property as a level to moderate block on a busy main road with similar access to the subject property. He said that Sale 3 is smaller than the subject property and is overall marginally comparable to the subject property.
Mr Sheu's opinion was that the sale property was not comparable with the subject because the sale was located in a convenient area opposite the Moore Park Baptist Church, Indooroopilly State School and commercial area on Moggill Road. The sale had a superior shape, was a level to moderate block, had full access to Taringa Parade and a better view overlooking Taringa and the Indooroopilly Shoppingtown area. By comparison, the subject land was inferior because of its lower position, half access from Beatrice Street, and the presence of the easements.
Sale 4 is a 471 m² residential property situated at 12 Ootana Street, Chapel Hill. The property sold on 4 May 2006 for $215,000. Mr Singh analysed the sale by deducting $3,000 for clearing and adding $3,000 for demolition to reach an analysed sale price of $215,000. He applied an unimproved value of $207,500. Mr Singh said that Sale 4 is a moderate to easy block close to a busy main road and with similar access to the subject property. Sale 4 is a smaller block and, in Mr Singh's opinion, is overall inferior to the subject property.
Mr Sheu submitted that the sale property was not comparable to the subject land for three reasons – the sale property is located in Chapel Hill not Taringa and therefore the two properties had different locational characteristics; the sale property is located in a quiet street with the superiority of a moderate to easy block; and the sale property was not comparable with the subject land because of the disadvantages suffered by the subject property – the easement, the subject's position and half access from Beatrice Street.
Mr Singh accepted that the sale property was in a different location from the subject property but said that the sale had been included because it was comparable with the subject in terms of its immediate surroundings. While the northern part of Ootana Street would be quieter, Sale 4 is located on the Moggill Street side and, as noise travels up, traffic noise from Moggill Road, which was only about 100 metres away from the sale property, would be quite considerable. The sale property was also similar to the subject property in that it had a similar slope and therefore required similar earthworks in order to obtain a suitable house pad.
Although Mr Sheu disagreed with the comparability of all of the sales, I am satisfied that they are sufficiently similar to the subject property to enable a comparison to be made for the purposes of this valuation. Where there is conflict between Mr Singh and Mr Sheu in the factual evidence concerning any of the sale properties I have accepted Mr Singh's evidence as he appeared to be familiar with the properties, was able to describe them in some detail and was able to support his evidence by reference to appropriate material such as maps.
As with the previous appeal (AV2007/0176, 88 Beatrice Terrace), Mr Singh made no mention in his written report of the disadvantages to the subject property caused by the watercourse, stormwater drainage and sewerage lines traversing the subject property. Again, Mr Singh said that these disadvantages had been allowed for in previous valuations. However, as I concluded in relation to the previous appeal, this valuation is made on the basis of comparable sales and there is no evidence that Mr Singh has taken these disadvantages into account in comparison with the sales property which do not suffer similar disadvantages. In those circumstances, I consider that there has been an error in this valuation.
Again there is no clear evidence as to how the disadvantages may be quantified in terms of their adverse effect on the unimproved value of the subject property, but doing the best I can, I have concluded that the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive should be reduced by 5% to allow for these disadvantages.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the unimproved value of the property situated at 92 Beatrice Street, Taringa is determined at $280,000.
AV2007/0178 – 63 Fairley Street, Indooroopilly
This property has an area of 607 m² and is used for single unit residential purposes. The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent at $330,000 as at 1 October 2006.
Mr Singh described the subject property as a level to moderate block with a frontage of 15 metres and a good outlook towards the local recreational and sporting ground. He said that Fairley Street is a wide street and comprises full-width bitumen sealed carriageway, concrete kerbing, channelling and grassed verges. The verge fronting the subject land is even with a formed footpath.
Mr Sheu said that the property is low lying and subject to flooding in heavy rain. The contour map showed, he said, that the property is located on the line of 13, which is the lowest position in the street. The highest property is on the line of 26, which means that the subject property is 13 metres lower than the highest point. In rainy periods, leaves and sand are washed down from the higher point and gather on the subject property. The subject property is also lower than the adjoining property and this contributes to the flooding problem. Mr Sheu considered that the only solution to this problem would be to fill the subject land. He submitted that the disadvantage of the low lying nature of the subject land and the necessity to fill it increased the difficulty and costs of construction for future maintenance and development of the property.
Mr Singh agreed generally that the subject property would be subject to flooding, but he thought that this would not be a frequent occurrence and he considered that the drainage in the area was on the whole sufficient to deal with any heavy rainfall.
In his Notice of Appeal, Mr Sheu estimated the unimproved value of the subject land to be $300,000. He calculated this figure by comparison with a property in Indooroopilly by taking the rate per square metre as reflected in the unimproved value of that property as at 1 October 2004 and he applied that rate to the subject property with the following result:
142 Central Avenue, Indooroopilly: $285,000 for 617 m² = $280,000
Mr Sheu did not explain how that figure related to the value of $300,000 which was the amount nominated as the value of the subject in the Notice of Appeal filed in this Court.
Although Mr Sheu had referred to the property at Central Avenue, Indooroopilly in his Notice of Appeal, he relied at the hearing on a comparison with a property situated at 4 Sovereign Street, Indooroopilly. The respondent did not object to the introduction of this property. The property is located behind the subject property and, said Mr Sheu, is in a quiet street. The shape of the property is fairly rectangular and it has a wide frontage of some 20 metres as compared with the 15 metre frontage of the subject. The valuation of that property was $285,000 and since it was the same size (607 m²) as the subject property, Mr Sheu considered that the subject property should also be valued at the same amount.
Mr Singh said that 63 Fairley Street is situated opposite a multi-unit development and it also adjoins a motel area to the south. There is consequently a deal of traffic accessing both the properties. Further there is an easement running diagonally across the property at 4 Sovereign Street traversing the property almost centrally. In Mr Singh's opinion the easement would increase development costs as it would have to be bridged.
Although I accept that the subject property suffers from traffic noise because of its location near three major schools, the relativity property also suffers from some traffic noise. In his cross-examination of Mr Singh, Mr Sheu suggested that there was another exit to the west of the motel property which the guests use to access Central Avenue which lies to the west. The evidence was not conclusive as that access did not appear to be via a made road and its availability for vehicular traffic was not established in the evidence.
I also consider that the subject property has a superior outlook to the relativity property as it has the advantage of overlooking the recreational ground although Mr Sheu said that that was a double-edged sword because of the noise emanating from the sporting activities on the ground at the weekend. The subject property is marginally lower lying than the relativity property but all in all, Mr Singh's evidence demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that the property at 63 Fairley Street is inferior to the subject property for the reasons he identified. Thus, I find that the evidence has not established that there is any error in the relative values attributed to the two properties.
In any event, as explained above, the preferred method of determining the unimproved value of land under the Act is by comparison with sales of unimproved or lightly improved property.[14]
[14] Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
I turn now to consider the sales evidence adduced by Mr Singh in his report of this valuation. Again, in this appeal, Mr Sheu did not bring any sales evidence to challenge that given by Mr Singh.
The sales relied on by Mr Singh in this valuation are 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia, 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia and 59 Taringa Parade, Taringa. Details of the sales at 149 Hillside Terrace, St Lucia and 31 Ironside Street, St Lucia were discussed in relation to appeal No. AV2007/0174 (12 Mavis Street, St Lucia). The sale at 59 Taringa Parade, Taringa is discussed in relation to appeal No. AV2007/0177 (92 Beatrice Street, Taringa). There is no need to repeat in detail the parties' description of those sales properties and Mr Singh's analysis of them.
Although Mr Sheu said in Exhibit 2 that none of these sales properties was comparable with the subject property, for the same reasons that he had identified in the earlier appeals, he agreed generally with Mr Singh's conclusion that Sale 1 was superior to the subject, and that Sale 2 was also superior to the subject. However he disagreed with Mr Singh's opinion that Sale 3 was inferior to the subject because, Mr Sheu said, Taringa Parade was more elevated than the subject and it was possible to obtain views over the Taringa area from the rear of the sale property.
As Mr Sheu agreed generally with the comparisons between the sales and the subject property, with the exception of 59 Taringa Parade, I am unable to see that there is any error in the valuation. I consider that the sales are sufficiently comparable with the subject to enable them to be used in the valuation and I also consider that the evidence has demonstrated that Mr Singh has allowed for the differences between the sales and the subject property in the valuation of the subject. Mr Sheu did not produce any evidence of sales to challenge the respondent's sales evidence and his evidence has not been sufficient to persuade me that there has been any error in the application of the sales to the valuation of the subject property.
My conclusion is therefore that, as no error has been demonstrated in the valuation of the subject property, this appeal is dismissed.
Orders
Appeal No. AV2007/0171
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 9 on RP 84081 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Five Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($570,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0174
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 459 on RP 40784 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Four Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0175
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 73740 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0176
1.The appeal is allowed.
2.The unimproved value of Lots 4 and 5 on RP 40092 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is determined at Four Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand Dollars ($494,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0177
1.The appeal is allowed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 70167 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is determined at Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($280,000) as at 1 October 2006.
Appeal No. AV2007/0178
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 52328 in the Parish of Indooroopilly is affirmed at Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000) as at 1 October 2006.
CAC MacDONALD
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
3
0