Knowles Bristow Properties Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1995] QLC 36
•26 May 1995
|
BRISBANE
26th May, 1995
Re: An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944.
City of Brisbane.
AV94-202.
Knowles Bristow Properties Pty Ltd
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
DECISION
The appellant company owns land situated at the south-western corner of Melbourne Street and Manning Street, South Brisbane. The land is developed with a two-storey brick and glass showroom and office complex which was constructed during 1968 and used for showroom purposes on the ground floor and offices above.
The land is described as Lot 2 on Registered Plan 112591 Parish of South Brisbane, County of Stanley. It contains an area of 1,057 square metres. The site is zoned "Commercial". Its location is within the "City Frame Structure Plan" - a statement of intent attaching to the City of Brisbane Town Plan, relative to the development of land within an area peripheral to the Central Business District of Brisbane.
The land has effective frontage of 45.27 metres to Melbourne Street and 23.58 metres to Manning Street, with a three-chord truncation to the corner alignment.
As at 31st March, 1992, the Chief Executive's assessment of the unimproved value of the land was $475,000 which sum equated to a rounded $450 per square metre. An objection against that valuation was disallowed. In the Notice of Appeal to the Land Court, the appellant company contended for a valuation of $340,675.
Mr Bristow, a director of the appellant company, attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the appeal. The principal ground is what was described as the "sales history" of a site immediately adjoining the subject land. This site located at the truncated corner of Melbourne and Edmonstone Streets, containing 1,490 square metres, had failed to sell at auction first in May 1990 then again in June 1992. Mr Bristow's evidence was that, while he was unaware of the reserve price, his company had been prepared to pay $600,000 being a little more than $400 per square metre, for the site - an amount which he believed to be its fair market value. In his opinion, the adjoining land was of superior pro rata market value to the subject property due primarily to its shape and size which allowed greater development flexibility. The wider frontage of the subject land to Melbourne Street was not considered to be advantageous and Mr Bristow's inquiries had indicated to him that the smaller area of the subject land in comparison would not have resulted in a more competitive market or higher pro rata market value.
Basic to the appeal was the contention that the subject land was inferior to the adjoining site to the degree that the valuation should be at a rate per square metre 20 per cent less than the figure which Mr Bristow believes was the fair market value of that property (and not the Department's valuation). In support of the value contended for (approximately $320 per square metre) Mr Bristow referred also to a sale of land in Merivale Street, in what he considered to be a superior location opposite the then proposed convention centre, in February 1993, for the equivalent of $345 per square metre.
Evidence for the Department of Lands was given by Mr D.J. Rylands, registered valuer. Mr Rylands had not been the valuer originally responsible for the valuation. That particular officer was unavailable and a second valuer who it seems had been conducting some negotiations with Mr Bristow, was not able to attend the hearing. Mr Rylands then accepted responsibility for the task of supporting the valuation appealed against. Four sales were adopted as a basis. Two of these were in close proximity to the subject land. The first was part of the sale referred to by Mr Bristow of land in Merivale Street. At the same relevant date a physically equivalent unimproved value of $325 per square metre had been applied to that land, a figure which was well supported by the sale. In Mr Rylands' opinion, regardless of the proposal for the convention centre, the location of the subject property and its wide exposure to the superior Melbourne Street, made it a significantly superior property. The second sale was in Edmonstone Street, of a rectangular, but in comparison a relatively narrow frontage lot, in April 1990 showing an unimproved value of $383 per square metre. At the same 1992 relevant date a valuation of $340 per square metre had been applied to that land. Because of its south-westerly street aspect, away from the city and because of the style of development which followed the sale, any city views which might have been available from that land were considered by Mr Rylands to be of insignificant effect, as was, in his opinion, the somewhat higher elevation which was said to be flood-free in 1974. Mr Rylands was confident that the sale supported the higher valuation applied to the subject land due to its superior commercial location.
Mr Rylands also used as basic evidentiary support, a sale of fringe city commercial land in a superior location at Spring Hill and a sale of a corner business site in the hub of a commercial centre at Ashgrove. While some criticism was directed at the introduction of this evidence, particularly the latter sale, Mr Rylands saw some comparability due to the type of development which had taken place subsequent to the sales - the second site also suffering some shape and parking provision disability.
Mr Rylands also introduced supplementary evidence which included a June, 1994 sale of the adjoining site (the valuation of which was basic to Mr Bristow's appeal), for $700,000 showing then an analysed unimproved value of $468 per square metre. As with the subject land it had been valued at the 1992 relevant date at a sum equivalent to $450 per square metre. Included in his evidence was the information that the 1995 relevant date valuation of that adjoining land, when the sale would have been most relevant, had been reduced somewhat. Mr Rylands also provided the information that the relativity of valuations between the two sites had varied over the years prior and subsequent to the date relevant here.
Nevertheless, Mr Rylands, while accepting that the relativity question was one of opinion, was forthright in his own opinion that when all things were considered, including size, shape, relative street frontages and consequent exposure and development potential, the 1992 valuation of the subject land was in correct relativity with the 1992 valuation of the adjoining land.
Although not relevant here, whether Mr Rylands has the same opinion as to matters affecting the 1995 valuation will no doubt be tested in light of the evidence
that change of relativity has occurred, and not to the benefit of the subject property.
The burden of proof of the grounds of appeal in these matters, under the relevant legislation, lies with the appellant. Mr Bristow for the appellant sought to rely on opinions which are not supported by the evidence. There is, in fact, no "sales history" of the adjoining land relevant to the 1992 valuation. The appellant company had an opinion as to the value of that land, and tested that opinion in the marketplace, unsuccessfully, for the owner would not accept the offer. While it seems there was little change in the local market from 1992 to 1994, or if there was, it was a downward trend, the adjoining land sold in 1994 for $100,000 more than the appellant's opinion of its value.
The second issue relates to the relative worth of the two adjoining lots. Mr Rylands is a senior valuer in the Department and experienced in his profession. His is the only professional valuation opinion before the Court.
I have not been convinced that the valuation appealed against has been proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved valuation of the land in the amount of $475,000 as at 31st March, 1992, affirmed.
RE Wenck
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0