Krista v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1998] QLC 73
•2 July 1998
|
BRISBANE
2 July 1998
Re: Determination of Unimproved Value -
City of Brisbane: Division of Windsor -
(AV97-276).
J Krista
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
D E C I S I O N
This appeal is against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $166,000 for a "Residential B R3" zoned parcel of land situated at 19 Conon Street, Lutwyche, and which is more particularly described as Lots 10 and 11 on RP 19115, Parish of Enoggera, County of Stanley, containing an area of 809 square metres. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996, and the appellant contends within his notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $120,000.
Jozsef Krista furnished evidence in support of his appeal, which is based on the ground of relativity with other valuations of parcels in Conon Street. Mr Krista claims that the increase in his valuation is excessive ($46,000 or 38%) when compared with increases in the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuation of the following sites:No 12 Conon Street - 503 square metres - increase $6,500 - or 11% (use dwelling house/residential).
No 15 Conon Street - 809 square metres - increase $8,000 - or 8% (use dwelling house/residential).
No 23 Conon Street - 470 square metres - increase $14,900 - or 21% (use residential/flats).
No 25 Conon Street - 607 square metres - increase $16,000 - or 20% (use residential/flats).
No 27 Conon Street - 1292 square metres - increase $8,600 - or 8% (use dwelling house/residential).
No 29 Conon Street - 2130 square metres - increase $12,750 - or 7% (use dwelling house/residential.
Mr Krista claims that the increase in the valuation of his land is unfair as it was at a rate of 17% higher than the highest increase in valuation in the street. He also claims that part of his land is subject to flooding to a depth of 40 to 45 cms by runoff waters in times of heavy rain from a tennis court complex located at the rear of his land, and he produced photographs by way of illustration of this periodic inundation. Runoff flooding also affects the No 15 Conon Street property.
Mr Krista told us that the improvements on the land comprise an old house which is converted to four flats, one of which is occupied by himself, and the others being rented out at low rentals. Mr Krista considers that a fair value of his land is $125,000, but he will accept a determination in the sum of $144,000.
Mr Krista informed the Court that he has been trying to sell the property through the real estate firm Raine & Horne at Lutwyche, which firm advised him he should place the property on the market for $170,000. Mr Krista commented that if the land component value was $166,000, then if a sale eventuated at $170,000 he would be receiving virtually nothing for the improvements and the furniture in the building.
Ross Brian Cranstoun who is a registered valuer in the employ of the respondent Chief Executive, furnished evidence in the matter. Mr Cranstoun was not the original valuer but he agrees that a valuation of $166,000 for the subject land as at a relevant date of 1 October 1996 is fair and reasonable and supported by available sales evidence. Mr Cranstoun describes the nature of the subject land as being well elevated with an easy fall from the rear (north) to the front boundary (a fall of 3 metres in 40 metres). He says the subject land is situated at the end of Kenneth Street, which has an easy fall away from it. This allows for city views over the buildings at the southern end of Kenneth Street. Mr Cranstoun tendered a photograph indicating this view taken from the roadway in front of the subject property. Mr Krista disagrees that the illustrated view is available from the whole of the property as from parts of it, treetops obliterate the outlook.
Mr Cranstoun relies for his basis of valuation upon the analyses of two sales of "Residential B" zoned sites (one R4 and one R3), details of which are:
Sale No 1 - Lots 50-51 on RP 19057 - 813 square metres - Matthews & Tillotson to Gumina Constructions Pty Ltd on 8 August 1996 for $180,000 - situation 90 Stoneleigh Street, Lutwyche - zoning "Residential B R4" - analysed unimproved value (after allowing for demolition costs of a building) $182,000 - applied unimproved value $180,000 ($222 per square metre).
Mr Cranstoun describes this land as being in an inferior location and with inferior elevation when compared with the subject land. He points out that it is similar in size, shape and slope but has superior zoning. There are no views from the sale land. Mr Cranstoun considers this sale property to be superior to the subject land on a rate-per-square-metre basis due to its better zoning.
Sale No 2 - Lots 21 $ 22 on RP 19036 and Lots 39 & 40 on RP 19044 - 1628 square metres - Spencer & Terribile to Riverslea Pty Ltd on 21 August 1996, for $335,000 - situation 38 Stoneleigh Street, Lutwyche - zoning "Residential B R3" - analysed unimproved value (after allowing for demolition costs of a building) $344,200 - applied unimproved value $310,000 ($190 per square metre).
Mr Cranstoun considers this sale property to be inferior in location and elevation when compared with the subject property. He points out that it is larger, has similar zoning and slope but has superior shape and no views. Mr Cranstoun considers the sale property to be inferior to the subject land on a rate-per-square-metre basis due to its location, size, and lack of views.
Mr Cranstoun says there are two levels of value in Conon Street - one as for "Residential B" use land and one as for properties valued under the provisions of section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act as single unit dwelling houses. For this reason, Mr Cranstoun does not see any valuation relativity problem in Conon Street for the 1 October 1996 relevant date revaluation, although he feels that perhaps No 25 Conon Street valuation may have received a section 17 concession whereas the building apparently is occupied as flats.
Mr Cranstoun believes that the valuations upon which Mr Krista calculated his rates of value increase relate to a relevant date some years ago as the valuations were re-written at the same figures as for the 1 January 1995 valuation.
My attention was drawn to an earlier appeal in this Court (Ref. AV95-550) against the same valuation ($166,000) for the same land as at an earlier relevant date of 1 January 1995. My learned colleague, Dr Divett, heard that matter and in a written decision dated 23 April 1997 dismissed the appeal which was also based on the ground of relativity between the valuation of the subject land compared with that for other sites in Conon Street (Nos 27 and 29). I note that Dr Divett referred in his written decision to the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in NR and PG Tow v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 in which that Court held 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.
While I am not bound to follow the earlier decision, it is well established that I should not lightly depart from it unless there is convincing new evidence warranting me to so do, and certainly there is no evidence that the market for land in the area has diminished between the relevant dates of 1 January 1995 and 1 October 1996. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion as Dr Divett and for the same reasons. It is apparent that the valuation under appeal is supported by the sales evidence introduced by Mr Cranstoun and the differing land uses in Conon Street make it difficult to make an issue of the valuation increases. I should add that the listing of the subject land for sale with an agent at a certain price does not constitute evidence of value. It is akin to an offer to sell, and it is well recognised that offers to sell do not provide us with a suitable basis for valuation. In any event, the evidence satisfies me that if a sale of the subject property eventuates, it is most likely it will be purchased by a person/persons who would view it as a redevelopment proposition (as did the purchasers of Mr Cranstoun's basic sale properties) and on that basis, the improvements on the subject land would only have a demolition value for the purpose of sale analysis, despite Mr Krista's pleas that it would be very unfortunate to see such a quality old building demolished.
The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value as determined by the respondent Chief Executive for Lots 10 and 11 on RP 19115, Parish of Enoggera, in the sum of $166,000 is affirmed.
(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0