Look v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1996] QLC 46

[1996] QLC 46

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

23 APRIL 1996

Re:     AV94-215, AV95-683 -
  Appeals against unimproved valuations -
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Local Authority/Division:  Brisbane City Council/Stephens

D.J. & F.M. Look
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N S

These appeals are against unimproved valuations as assessed by the Department of Lands of land situated at No. 43 Andrew Avenue, Tarragindi, described as Lot 5 RP 56240, Parish of Yeerongpilly, containing 658 m².
           As at 30 June 1993, the unimproved value had been assessed in the amount of $78,000 while the appellants' estimate was $58,000.  Then as at 1 January 1995, the assessed unimproved value was $80,000 and the appellants' estimate was $65,000.
           In the earlier date appeal, the grounds were that the valuation was out of relativity with valuations of land situated at Nos. 51, 54, 59 and 63 Andrew Avenue; and that special disabilities as identified had not been fully considered. 
           Mr D.J. Look appeared at the hearing and conducted the case for the appellants.  The relativity issue complained of was that the lots at Nos. 51 and 59 were of comparable size but were valued at $69,000 and $64,000 respectively; No. 54 (825 m²) with its area being 25.3% greater, was valued at the same amount as the subject ($78,000); No. 63 (680 m²) is larger, has corner position with an area of open space adjoining but was valued at $64,000.
           The special disabilities which were claimed not to have been fully considered were:

(1)The subject land "is on the rise of a steep incline with up traffic having increased engine noise passing the property".

(2)"The property is on a bus route with the resultant noise of buses passing, and the whine and grind of buses inbound as they go up the incline".

(3)"A licensed club is in close proximity to the property".

Most of Mr Look's evidence in support of the grounds of appeal, was given during his cross-examination.  He agreed that the appellants' estimate of value had been based on relativity issues and, although he thought the overall level of value had pre-empted a rising market, he was unaware of any sales evidence to support his opinion.
           On the specific relativity issues, he accepted that a contour map of the area as supplied by the Lands Department, indicated the relative topography of the subject land and those lands where comparisons were raised.  The subject land had a side slope to the east of about 1 metre at the frontage and less than 2 metres at the rear.
           No. 54 is of lower elevation, has a side slope to the east of about 2 metres at the frontage and a slope from the south-west frontage of at least 3 metres to the rear north-eastern corner.  It adjoins a convenience store, built to the frontage alignment, with an awning over the footpath.  That footpath accommodates a bus stop and post box.  Mr Look did not consider the convenience store as a particular disadvantage whilst the size of the land and adjacency to open-space parkland were seen as distinct advantages.
           No. 59 presently has a bus stop adjacent.  It was established as a result of the hearing that the bus stop had been located in that position since September 1994.  (It was Mr Look's evidence that at some time between the two dates of valuation, the bus stop had been relocated from outside no. 47, next door to the subject land, to No. 59.)  In terms of disability he did not believe the noise factor at the subject property had diminished significantly since the relocation of the bus stop because of the need for buses to accelerate up the hill past the subject land.  He agreed however that a bus stop adjacent or in very close proximity, is a negative feature because of the congregation of passengers awaiting the bus transport.  No. 59 is lower in elevation than is the subject land and has a reverse cross-slope of about 6 metres from the north-west frontage to the south-east rear. 
           No. 63 is located at the corner of Andrew Avenue and Fernvale Road, lower in elevation again than No. 59.  The adjacent "open space" referred to by Mr Look was in fact part of the surveyed road reserve, on which some visual privacy had been provided to No. 63 by the establishment of trees.  Even though the intersection was a relatively busy one and there was a fairly steep incline from Fernvale Road into Andrew Avenue, Mr Look held the opinion that the traffic noise factor was only "marginally worse" at No. 63. 
           Valuation reports relative to these matters were tendered to the Court through Mr N.C. Hughes, registered valuer employed by the Department.  At the time when these appeals were set down for hearing, Mr Hughes had been engaged in an annual valuation of the locality, but at a date subsequent to those relevant here.  Due to the unavailability of the valuer responsible for these valuations, Mr Hughes was given the task of preparing the Department's valuation evidence.  He had correctly concentrated on the grounds of the appeals and particularly matters of relativity comparison.  While he also had taken into consideration the "special" disabilities as described by the appellants, it was his opinion that those disabilities were not unique to the subject land but generally common to the immediate locality, to either a lesser or greater degree.  For example, he had discussed the operation of the licensed club (Tarragindi Bowls Club) with its manager and had established the normal usage of the club's facilities.
           Dealing with the individual properties it was Mr Hughes' opinion that No. 51 had inferior outlook through its lower elevation and then blighted by the shop opposite.  That land had a greater cross-slope, was closer to the existing bus stops and had the disability, in his opinion, of an increased noise factor.  He agreed that after consideration of both the positive features of size, frontage, adjacency at the rear to gazetted parkland, outweighed the negative features of the property at No. 54 (lower elevation, steeper slope and adjacency to the shop which interfered with the outlook being built right to the frontage).  In his opinion No. 54 was superior to the subject land.  Then No. 59 was considered quite inferior due to lower elevation, steeper slope, adjacency to the bus stop and closer proximity to the intersection of Andrew Avenue and Fernvale Road.  While No. 63 had both positive and negative features particularly with regard to Fernvale Road, he accepted the same overall inferiority was shared between it and No. 59 in comparison with the subject land. 
           For the purpose of explaining the type of traffic flow which might be expected on Fernvale Road, Mr Hughes had established that the Brisbane City Council classified Fernvale Road as a Type D - Sub-arterial Road in the concept of the hierarchy of roads for town planning purposes.  Andrew Avenue was a Type B - Collector Road.
           Mr Hughes had come to the conclusion that the valuation appealed against for the subject land was, on a relativity basis, too high.  He felt more comfortable with a valuation of $74,000 which was $4,000 less than the original valuation.  He had no knowledge prior to Mr Look mentioning it in passing from the witness-box, that the bus stop outside No. 59 had been relocated from No. 47 in the period suggested by Mr Look.  He undertook to establish the date of relocation and the actual date of its establishment at No. 59 - September, 1994 - was then provided in written form to the Court at a later date.  Mr Hughes gave evidence that had he been aware of the actual location of the bus stop as at 30 June 1993 (and he could not be criticised for not having known) then the existing valuation of the subject land as at that relevant date required further reduction.  He was of the opinion that the further reduction would not exceed $2,000. 
           Although these appeals were heard separately at the request of Mr Look, it is convenient for the Court to deal with them in the one decision.  In the 1 January 1995 valuation, the grounds of appeal were generally similar although the properties where relativity of valuations was questioned were No. 54, as before, No. 55 and then No. 59, as before.
           No. 55 (1995 valuation - $75,000) is the same size as the subject land and is situated the fourth lot to the east, at lower elevation.  The relocated bus stop referred to earlier is situated at no. 59 (1995 valuation - $70,000), next door to No. 55.  The road has a steeper uphill incline adjacent to No. 55 than at the subject land.  No. 55 is situated directly opposite the convenience shop and bus stop at No. 58.  Again Mr Look does not see that location relative to the shop as any particular disability although he agrees that the visual amenity is affected.
           Mr Hughes, as at this later date of valuation, was correct in his assumption that the bus stops were located as they existed on his inspection.  The original 1995 valuation of the subject land, by another, had been in the amount of $86,000 but this had been reduced to $80,000 on objection and it is the latter valuation appealed against.  Mr Hughes' observations as to elevation of the various lots, slope, traffic noise, local environment including visual amenity, were consistent.  It was his opinion that the existence of the convenience store directly opposite No. 55 had detrimental effect additional to visual amenity. 
           My consideration of these matters is best dealt with in reverse.  I have been persuaded by Mr Hughes' evidence which was found to be forthright and professional, that a valuation of $80,000 was fair and reasonable as at 1 January 1995.  That valuation was made firstly on the basis of sales evidence.  The principle of maintenance of correct relativity from lot to lot then eventually resulted in the valuation of $80,000.
           The decision of the Department to reduce that valuation is a clear indication that the valuation as at 30 June 1993 was also too high on relativity issues.  Mr Hughes was obviously correct in finding a reduced valuation at that date.  He then agreed that had he known about the bus stop next door to the subject property at that time, he would have further reduced his valuation but to no less than $72,000.  I would accept that, if his amended valuation of $74,000 was correct.  It is observed however that with all matters considered, the valuation of the subject land and that of No. 54 had been originally identical, both at $78,000 in 1993 and both at $86,000 in 1995.  On objection, the 1995 valuation was reduced on the subject land to $80,000 being $6,000 (or near 7%) less, when the bus stop had been by that time relocated.  There is no cogent reason provided why similar relativity should not have existed in 1993 between those two blocks - before consideration of the bus stop.  That would have resulted in a valuation, purely on comparable relativity, of $72,500.  Providing the minor additional benefit of doubt to the appellants, and taking into consideration the effect of the adjacent bus stop, as at 30 June 1993, I will adopt a site value of $70,000.
           Some discussion had taken place during the hearing as to the real effect of difference in size on the valuation of otherwise comparable residential lots.  It has been well held that while  size is a valuation consideration which cannot be ignored, it is "site" value rather than a "unit of area" value which is the basis of valuation which should be adopted, for residential land
           The Land Appeal Court in H and E Grahn v The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327 discussed a submission that comparable blocks, otherwise than in area, should be valued at the same rate per square metre, and at page 330 the Court said:

"The appellants fail on this point because the appropriate basis for the valuation of a residential lot is not the application of a rate per square metre but an assessment of the unimproved value of each lot as land used for single unit residential purposes.  As the Land Appeal Court said in its decision on the appellants' previous appeal (H and E Grahn v The Valuer-General, AV89-246 and 247, 13 December 1990):

'for the purpose of valuing residential sites, the preferable method of comparison is on a site to site basis and not on the basis of a unit area valued comparison.  Site for site comparison should take into comparison such matters as the size of the lots, the situation of and access to the lots, the shape and topography of the lots etc and comparisons on a unit area basis do not necessarily reflect valuation considerations for the above features."

My decisions are as follows:

(1)The appeal against the valuation of $78,000 as at 30 June 1993 is allowed.  The valuation of the chief executive is set aside and the unimproved value is determined at that date in the amount of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000).

(2)The appeal against the valuation as at 1 January 1995 is disallowed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.

R E Wenck
  MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT