Little v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1999] QLC 100

[1999] QLC 100

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

24 September 1999

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value –

City of Brisbane – Division of Balmoral.
  (Ref. AV98-688).

Bryan G Little

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $92,000 for a “Residential A” zoned parcel of land situated at 21 Ludwig Street, Cannon Hill.  The land is described as Lot 9 on RP 117334, Parish of Bulimba, County of Stanley, and contains an area of 900 square metres.  The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1997, and the appellant contends within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $80,000.

The appellant, Bryan Gordon Little, furnished evidence in support of the grounds of appeal which read:

“1.       There is a main sewer main traversing my block.

2.The property is under one of the Main Flight paths to Brisbane Airport, I suffer from considerable aircraft noise.

3.There is considerable road noise from Creek Road.  Creek Road is one of the main transport corridors and carries a lot of heavy vehicle, transport and emergency transport vehicles.

4.I had a Valuation done on my property approximately five months ago.  The Valuation by my bank was $134 000 so with the Department of Natural Resources Valuation of $92 000 at the 1 October 1997, that leaves $42 000 Valuation of my house and improved Valuation of my block, which would cost me at least $90 000 to replace, which leaves a huge Discrepancy between the two Valuations.

5.The only land sales in this area to make a true Valuation Comparison to would be at Carindale, which is an upmarket and overpriced area.

6.The house at 18 Ludwick Street was sold recently for $115 000 with other sales in the area up to $140 000.

7.The original Valuation by the Department of Natural Resources on 1 October 1997 was an increase of 13% over the Valuation on 1 October 1996 of $86 000, which is way above inflation and the C.P.I. ”

The appellant provided the following evidence.

Re:  Ground 1 – Mr Little stresses that this is his principal ground of appeal.  There is a sewer main which is in the form of an underground pipe and which crosses his block between his house and the rear boundary.  The pipe runs almost parallel to Ludwig Street.   There is a man-hole cover 24.9 metres from the street frontage.  Mr Little told us that the rear of his house is 15.5 metres from the street alignment and this leaves 22.8 metres of backyard between the rear of the house and the back boundary.  The sewer main is 9.4 metres from the back of the house and is 13.4 metres from the back boundary.  Because of its location, Mr Little says the sewer line severely restricts the future location of an inground swimming pool if one day he elected to install it.  But Mr Little told us there is room for a pool between the sewer line and the rear boundary but this is not the position he would choose for the pool if the sewer line was not in existence.

Re:  Ground 2 – Mr Little told us that his property is badly affected by noise pollution from aircraft using the Brisbane Airport, and probably will also be affected by the proposed western parallel runway at the airport. But this, of course, will be a consideration from a valuation point of view, in the future. Mr Little also told us of the noise his property receives from the use of a nearby railway line, but I note that railway noise was not included within the grounds of appeal to which the appellant is limited under the provisions of section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944.

Re:  Ground 3 – Mr Little submitted that the subject land, being in close proximity to Creek Road and to Wynnum Road, also suffers from traffic noise and from traffic congestion.  People use these main roads to access Bunnings Hardware, the Sunday Markets and the Cannon Hill Shopping Centre, and all these major centres of activity contribute to an increasing local traffic problem.

Re:  Ground 4 – Mr Little submits that there is a huge discrepancy between unimproved land values and realistic property values, and that if the current unimproved value ($92,000) was taken from the valuation advice he received from a real estate agent that his property is worth a maximum value of $145,000 -–then this leaves a value of $53,000 for the house and landscaping which, Mr Little believes, is ridiculous against what he feels is a replacement cost of about $85,000.

Re:  Ground 5 – Mr Little did not inform the Court of details of any land sales at Carindale.

Re:  Ground 6 – This is a house which sits on an 875 square metre parcel of land across the road from Mr Little’s property.  The house is an original building in the Street and the purchaser is now restoring the building. 

The valuation under appeal was made by Jennifer Robyn Manners who is a registered valuer in the employ of the State Valuation Services.  Ms Manners describes the nature of the subject land as comprising a regularly shaped inside allotment falling gently to the north.  It is situated near the top of a small crest which forms the highest part of Ludwick Street, and is one block removed from Creek Road.  Ms Manners confirms that there is a sewer main which traverses the width of the block approximately 25 metres from the street alignment, and also confirms that the subject property is affected by aircraft noise from aircraft arriving at the Brisbane Airport when northerly winds prevail.  But Ms Manners told us the subject land falls outside the Brisbane Airport Corporation noise contours by about 900 metres.

Ms Manners relies upon the following sales evidence as a basis for her valuation of the subject land:-

Sale No 1 – Lot 2 on RP 136442 – 607 m² - TJ and BA Hoge to SJ and KA Metcalfe on 12 May 1997 for $81,000 – applied unimproved value as at 1 October 1997 $78,000 – situation 57 Delsie Street, Cannon Hill – zoning “Residential A”.

Ms Manners describes this sale site as being a vacant regular shaped inside allotment in an average quality location, 350 metres west of the subject land.  The sale land has some elevation with a northerly outlook and falls gently to the road.  The sale land is exposed to the adverse effects of aircraft noise.

Ms Manners makes comparison between the sale land and the subject land in terms of the subject land being wider and approximately 50% larger, both the sale land and the subject land are similarly affected by aircraft noise.  Ms Manners says the subject land is in an average quality location but confirms that the land is adversely affected by its proximity to Creek Road.  Ms Manners says that despite the subject’s disadvantages overall, she considers the subject land to be superior because of its larger area.

Sale No 2 – Lot 1 on SP 101269 – 522 m² - TE Keys to SL and RH Brown on 14 January 1998 for $69,500 – applied unimproved value as at 1 October 1997 $65,000 – situation 20 Montfort Street, Cannon Hill – zoning “Residential A”.

Ms Manners describes this sale site as being a regularly shaped inside allotment in a poor to average quality location, 1.3 km west of the subject land.  The sale land has an easy to moderate fall below road level.  It also has a sewer main traversing the width of the block.  The sale property is subject to significant levels of aircraft noise and it falls within the BAC noise contours directly under the flight path.  A primary school is situated approximately 100 metres east of the sale land and the Cleveland railway line is 400metres north of it.

Ms Manners says the subject land is wider and approximately 70% larger than the sale land.  She again confirms that the subject land is affected by aircraft noise but it is further adversely affected by the proximity to Creek Road.  Overall Ms Manners considers the subject land to be superior to the sale land because of its size, topography and location in a better quality area compared with that within which the sale land is situated.

Sale No 3 – Lot 10 on RP883062 – 515 m² - M Battel to JM and DJ Leitch on 28 November 1997 for $57,500 – applied unimproved value as at 1 October 1997 $57,000 – situation Rawlinson Street, Murarrie – zoning “Residential A”.

Ms Manners describes this sale site as being a gently sloping, regular shaped, inside allotment in a poor to average location about 700 metres north of the subject land.  She says it is likely that the sale land is exposed to rail noise as well as aircraft noise, and it is situated approximately 150 metres south of the railway line.  Creek Road is situated about 200 metres west of the sale land and Wynnum Road is 200 metres south of the sale land.

Ms Manners says that the subject land is wider and approximately 75% larger than is the sale land and is situated in a superior location.  It is similarly affected by aircraft noise but less likely to be affected to rail noise.  She confirms that Creek Road is in closer proximity to the subject land.  Overall Ms Manners regards the subject land to be superior to the sale land due to its size and location.

Ms Manners acknowledges that the sewer line interferes with the full enjoyment of the subject site but she says there is still room for some use of the rear land.  She offered the opinion that had there been no aircraft or railway noise and no sewerage line then the unimproved value of the subject land would have been assessed at around $100,000.

Ms Manners has not had regard to the property sale at 18 Ludwick Street.  She prefers to rely on vacant land sales and I agree with her that vacant land sales do provide a better basis of valuation than improved sales.  But Ms Manners has viewed 18 Ludwick Street and she says that Departmental valuers would often apportion a value of $5,000 to old houses of the type on 18 Ludwick Street at the date of sale.

Now Ms Manners seems to have taken into account the disabilities including the noise problems when making the valuation under appeal to the extent that any diminution in value due to these factors is reflected in the sales evidence upon which she has relied.  Further it must be said that Ground 4 within the grounds of appeal is not one which would convince me that the unimproved value under appeal is excessive.  It is akin to analysing an improved sale (although there was no evidence from the real estate agents as to what is the basis for his valuation of $145,000 maximum) and I have already commented upon the use of improved sales evidence in comparison with the use of vacant sales evidence.

Reference within grounds of appeal in appeals of this nature to percentage or relative increases in valuation (Ground 7) is not a worthwhile ground of appeal.  What has to be determined is the unimproved value of the subject land as at the relevant date and this is best assessed having regard to sales evidence.

The effect which the sewer line has on the value of the subject land has, I feel, been taken into account by Ms Manners, especially since one of her sales (Sale No 2) is also traversed by a sewer line.

In all the circumstances, I cannot find that the value under appeal is excessive or unreasonable.  It follows then that the appeal be dismissed, and that the unimproved value of Lot 9 on RP 117334, Parish of Bulimba, County of Stanley, as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of $92,000 be affirmed.

(CH Carter)

Member of the Land Court