Kirsch v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 144
•31 October 1996
|
BRISBANE
31 October 1996
In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll No.: 1841/41950
Local Government: Pine Rivers
(AV95-148)
BH & MK Kirsch
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Brisbane)
D E C I S I O N
Mr. & Mrs Kirsch are the owners of land described as Lot 82 on RP 191088, Parish of Bunya, County of Stanley containing an area of 660 m². The unimproved value of the land was determined by the respondent to be $66,000 as at 1 January 1995, pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act). On objection by the land owners, that valuation was reduced to $64,000. The owners have appealed to the Land Court against that decision stating in the Notice of Appeal that the amount of the valuation should be $56,000.
The land is situated at 57 Leonarda Drive, Ferny Hills. Leonarda Drive has a bitumen surface with concrete kerbing and channelling. Town water, sewerage, underground electricity and telephone are connected to the property. At the time of the hearing, the property was developed and used as single unit residential home site.
Mr. Bryan Howard Kirsch appeared and gave evidence on behalf of himself and his wife. Evidence for the respondent was given by Matthew Maurice Woodbridge, a Registered Urban and Rural Valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources (formerly the Department of Lands).
In the report tendered by Mr. Woodbridge, he described the land as lying below road level and having a moderate to gentle slope to the south-east and east; the property is relatively elevated in relation to the immediate estate; drainage is good. A drainage easement runs across the back of the land parallel to the rear boundary.
Mr. Kirsch advanced a number of grounds in his appeal. Firstly, he contended that the valuation of the land as at 1 January 1995, namely $64,000, compared with a 1994 valuation of $51,000, is substantially higher than the previous years’ valuations back to 1988 when the value was $23,000. It seems that the appellants are objecting to the amount of the increase in the valuation, not only as compared with the previous year, but viewing the history of the valuations of the land since 1987-88.
The amount of the increase in the valuations is not in this case, a matter that can be taken into account by the Court. It was held in Tow v. Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 at 381 that :“a large increase over and above the previous valuation is in itself not a relevant issue provided bona fide sales of comparable parcels support the new valuation.”
Secondly, Mr. Kirsch had read a newspaper report that the average increase in valuations in the Pine Rivers Shire (where the land is situated) is 5% as compared with an increase of 20% for the appellants’ land. Even if the average increase for the shire is 5% (and this was not proved to the Court’s satisfaction), it is clear that a comparison of this nature is not a valid basis for determining the value of the land and the appeal cannot succeed on this ground:
“Revaluation of a Shire is not a matter of applying a more or less uniform increase to various types of land when comparing component parcels. What has to be determined is the unimproved value of each parcel of land within the Shire at the relevant date, and the best method or basis for making such determinations is the use of analysed sales evidence.” (Henricks v. Valuer-General (1982) 8 QLCR 176 at 178. (Although there was an appeal to the Full Court of Queensland in this case, there is nothing in the decision of the Full Court to challenge this statement of principle.)
The appellants also argued that, because there are a minimum number of blocks of land available for sale in the area of the subject land, scarcity has the effect of inflating prices. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that sales of vacant land in the area are scarce. The respondent relied on four sales of comparable land to establish the unimproved value of the appellants' land. As sales of comparable lots of unimproved land in the immediate area are the best evidence of the "unimproved value" of the subject land, as defined in s.3(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, I am of the opinion that the appeal cannot succeed on this ground.
Mr. Kirsch also argued that the valuation was too high because the estate in which the land is located has been assessed in comparison with land in neighbouring estates. In his view, properties in those neighbouring estates are worth more than his property and therefore such comparison is inappropriate. As the sales relied on by Mr. Woodbridge which are appended to his report, all relate to property in the immediate area of the subject land, I am of the view that this ground of appeal cannot succeed.
Mr. Kirsch also argued that the valuation of the appellants' land was out of relativity with that of neighbouring blocks, particularly Lots 81 and 80, which are larger in area than the subject land but which have been assessed at the same value as the subject land. While it is true that Lots 81 and 80 are larger than the appellants’ land, the evidence given by Mr. Woodbridge which was not challenged by Mr. Kirsch, was that Lots 81 and 80 are lower in elevation than the subject land. In Mr. Woodbridge’s opinion, the elevation of the subject land offsets the larger areas of Lots 81 and 80 and the relative valuations are justified on that basis. I accept Mr. Woodbridge’s evidence in this matter.
It appears there is a lack of public transport in the vicinity of the subject land which is a particular problem for Mr. Kirsch who suffers from a physical disability which requires his regular attendance at hospital for therapy and other treatment. The comparable sales relied on by Mr. Woodbridge to support the valuation are of land in close vicinity to the subject land and all are similarly affected by the lack of public transport. There is no reason therefore to upset the valuation on that ground.
The rest of the matters referred to by the appellants in the Notice of Appeal concern problems relating specifically to the subject land, its comparison with the sale lots and the market for land sales generally. It is convenient to deal with these matters in the context of the sales relied on by Mr. Woodbridge in support of the valuation.
Sale 1 is Lot 39 on RP 191088. The land is situated in Dena Street, Ferny Hills, has an area of 973 m² and was sold on 20 December 1993 for $70,000. Its analysed unimproved value is $69,000 and a value of $69,000 was applied to it. The property rises gently from the road and then falls steeply to the rear boundary, where it backs onto a fully timbered nature reserve severed by a steep gully. Mr. Woodbridge described this property as superior to the subject property having similar access, and services connected but larger in area. Mr. Kirsch said that the sale land was far superior to the appellants' land.
Sale No. 2 is located in Leonarda Drive (Lot 70 on RP 191034). It has an area of 1,175 m². It was sold on 18 April 1994 for $75,000. Its analysed unimproved value was $72,500 and a value of $66,000 was applied to it. Mr. Woodbridge described the property as a hatchet shaped block which means that there are four immediate neighbours. Services will have to be carried up the handle of the hatchet when the property is developed. It is, he said, considerably lower in elevation than the subject land and has drainage problems. The Kirschs’ land is inferior to the sale land.
Mr. Kirsch agreed generally with Mr Woodbridge's description of the land although he considered the two blocks to be similar in elevation and he was firmly of the view that Lot 70 had been sold at an excessively high price. He also considered that the area of land lost to the handle of the hatchet in the sale land was less than the amount of the land effectively lost to the subject property because of the easement running across the back of it. Mr. Kirsch expressed no opinion as to whether the subject property was inferior or superior to the sale property.
Sale 3 is located at Yingally Drive (Lot 50 on RP 191088) having an area of 728 m². It sold for $72,000 on 27 February 1995. Its analysed unimproved value is $70,000 and a value of $61,000 was applied to it.
Mr. Woodbridge described the sale property as lying slightly above road level, but generally level. A pedestrian pathway runs parallel (but outside) the eastern boundary below the sale land. The land is similar in access and services to the subject land, superior in area and inferior in elevation and outlook. Overall, Mr. Woodbridge considered the sale to be superior to the subject property. Mr. Kirsch considered the sale property to be much superior to the subject land because it is completely flat, obviating any necessity for cut and fill.
Sale No. 4 is located at Alan Court (Lot 7 on RP 211903), and has an area of 798 m². It was sold on 7 July 1992 (some 2½ years before the date of valuation) for $84,000, its analysed unimproved value is $83,000 and a value of $82,000 was applied to it.
Mr. Woodbridge said that the property is situated on a cul-de-sac backing onto a nature reserve. The block has just enough room for a house pad at the front of the property and then falls steeply to the rear boundary. It is superior in area and inferior in topography, elevation and outlook to the subject property. Overall Mr. Woodbridge considered the sale property to be superior to the subject property. Mr. Kirsch was not familiar with Alan Court.
It is noteworthy that all of the sales relied on by Mr. Woodbridge in support of his valuation are considered by him to be properties which are superior to that of the appellants. In particular the assessed value of Lot 3 is $61,000 and Mr. Woodbridge clearly states in his report that the property is superior to the subject land.
Mr. Kirsch gave evidence as to severe drainage problems on his property caused by the remedial work that has been done on neighbouring properties to deal with their drainage problems. He also complained of the location of a swimming-pool in one neighbour’s yard which interferes with the appellants’ enjoyment of their land. It is considered that both of these matters would adversely affect the unimproved value of the appellants’ land.
The conclusion that I have reached on the evidence presented to the Court is that, because of its particular disadvantages, the appellants’ land should be valued at a lower figure than all the sale properties, that is at less than $61,000. The appeal is allowed. The valuation of the appellants’ land is reduced to Fifty-nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000).
(CA MacDonald)
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0