Kubel v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 116

[1995] QLC 116

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

29 September 1995

Re:     Appeal against a valuation -
  Redcliffe City Council -
  AV95-156.
Valuation of Land Act 1944.

Martin and Jean Kubel
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N       

(Hearing at Redcliffe)

This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, of the unimproved value of Lot 4 on RP 87406, parish Redcliffe, in the sum of $105,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 1 January 1995.
           The appellants are contending for a value of $69,000 being the value applied to the land when last revalued.
           Lot 4 is a rectangular-shaped lot of 5134m² and is situated at 529 Anzac Avenue, Rothwell.  The land is zoned "Urban Development" under the Redcliffe City Council Town Plan.  It is used for single unit dwelling house purposes and has been valued for that purpose by the Chief Executive and in accordance with the provisions of s.17 of the Act which requires that a valuation of land exclusively used for single unit residential purposes shall be valued without regard to any potential in the land for a higher and better use, for example, subdivision.  In prosecuting the appeal, Mr Martin Kubel referred to sales/offers of -

(a)a parcel of 3.5ha transferred free of charge from the Education Department to the Redcliffe City Council which land was reported in the local press as being worth about $430,000;

(b)an adjoining parcel said to be of the order of 40 hectares and said to be sold for $500,000; and

(c)offers for sale of land at Mango Hill.                 

The value contended for by the appellants was derived from the first transaction by taking the reported worth of the site of $430,000 and by dividing that sum by 7, this being roughly the ratio of the size of the subject lot to the area transferred.  It transpired, however, in evidence that the land was transferred to the Local Authority for Park and Open Space purposes.  In the circumstances, the transaction can have no weight in the exercise before the Court.
           In cross-examination Mr Kubel agreed that the subject land which is valued on a site basis - single dwelling house use - is best compared on a site-to-site basis with sales of comparable land.  Details of the reported sale of the land adjoining were not precise as to area sold, the consideration paid or what was intended to be done with the land.
           The valuation was written on behalf of the Chief Executive by Mr TS Alexander, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands.  There is no disagreement as to the content of his report on the nature, quality, situation, access and usage of the subject lot.  The lot has reticulated water and sewerage.  Mr Alexander agrees that Anzac Avenue is a busy road and in arriving at the applied value he looked also at sales of land on busy roads such as Scarborough Road.  His primary sale is situated to the south-east of the subject land in Buchanan Street.  On 25 November 1993, this sale land which is described as Lot 41 on RP 210078 containing an area of 7789m² was sold for $120,000.  The land is zoned "Non Urban".  A cottage on the land was subsequently removed and a new home constructed on a mound above flood level.  The site is accessed from Anzac Avenue by bitumen road when it adjoins Grace College and thereafter by gravel road.  The sale land has reticulated water but no sewerage.  Mr Kubel knew the area of the sale land and agreed that the area is flood prone.  I have little doubt after hearing him that he would prefer the subject lot as a homesite.  The sale used by Mr Alexander in Scarborough Road is of a 1012m² lot situated at 343 Scarborough Road.  This single unit residential site was sold for $94,000 in May 1994.  The sale showed an unimproved value of $92,000 and is valued at $78,000 for the purposes of this Annual Valuation.  Mr Alexander said that the sale land is better located, is much smaller in area and overall is inferior to the subject land.  He also referred to a sale in Forestlea Court to the north-east of the subject land of a lot containing 1018m² which sold for $85,000 in January 1994 and to a parcel of 1.091 hectares to the east of the subject land which sold with a dwelling to an adjoining owner of $310,000 in December 1993.  This sale on his analysis reflected a land value of $152,500.  These sales which are of completed transactions comparable with the subject land in usage comprise better evidence of value than the material put before the Court by Mr Kubel.  Clearly the first sale (Buchanan Street) is the most comparable of the sales whilst the sales in Scarborough Road and Forestlea Court (particularly the latter) provide a good benchmark from which to work up to a value of the subject lot having regard to its size and the ambience that provides a single unit dwelling house. 
           Under the provisions of the Act (s.45), the onus is placed on an appellant of proving to the satisfaction of the Court based on the grounds stated in the notice of appeal that the applied value is incorrect.  On the evidence in this case I find that the appellants have failed to discharge the onus.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

(DM White)            
  President of the Land Court