McNaughton & Odgers v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 144

[1998] QLC 144

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

24 November 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value -
  City of Brisbane - Division of Brisbane -
  (Ref.  AV98-01).

Mrs JL McNaughton and Mr DW Odgers
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

The abovementioned parties have appealed against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $84,000 ($260 per square metre) for a “Residential B - Residential Development Area R4” parcel of land situated at 58 Cintra Road, Bowen Hills. The real property description of the land is Lot 2 on RP53458, Parish of North Brisbane, and it contains an area of 324 square metres. It is almost square in shape. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996. The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $48,500 ($150 per square metre). The valuation under appeal has been made under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as land exclusively used for the purpose of a single dwelling house.
           David William Odgers furnished evidence in support of the sole ground of appeal which reads:

“ Valuations of comparable property in the area are approximately 73% less.”

Mr Odgers prepared in schedule form a list of 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations of similarly zoned properties in Cintra Road and in the adjoining Folkestone Street which he has plotted on a locality plan.  Lots 3/7 on RP 10094 situated at Nos 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 Folkestone Street each contain an area of 364 square metres and are each valued at $67,000 ($184 per square metre).  Lot 8 on RP 10094 and Lot 1 on RP 53458 situated at the corner of Cintra Road and Folkestone Street (adjoining the subject land) with a combined area of 769 square metres are valued together at $115,000 ($150 per square metre).  Lots 18 and 20 on RP 10094 situated at 46 and 48 Cintra Road with a combined area of 910 square metres are valued together at $146,000 ($160 per square metre).  Another parcel situated at 40 Cintra Road and described as Lot 2 on RP 10093 containing 612 square metres is valued at $108,000 ($176 per square metre).
           Mr Odgers submits on behalf of the appellants that valuations should be calculated according to the same defined criteria and that similar properties in the same location should be of similar value. 
           Mr Odgers is particularly concerned that the valuation of the subject land is out of line with the valuation of $115,000 for the adjoining lots - Lot 8 on RP 10094 and Lot 1 on RP 53458 (corner Cintra Road and Folkestone Street).  He has apportioned this valuation between the two parcels as to $67,000 for Lot 8 and $48,000 for the corner Lot 1.  The comparison of the valuation of the subject land at $84,000 with that of Lot 1 at $48,000 really alarmed Mr Odgers and alerted him to file an objection and this is really the main evidence upon which Mr Odgers relies for his ground of appeal.
But it transpired in evidence that this combined valuation of Lot 8 and Lot 1 and was made under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as land being used for the purpose of a single dwelling house, as one large site, ignoring the existing subdivision into two lots. So to apportion the value of $115,000 between the two lots is not appropriate. A more appropriate exercise is to compare the valuation of the subject land ($84,000 for a 324 square metre site) with the valuation of the corner site ($115,000 for a 769 square metre site).
           Mr Odgers has carried out a similar exercise with the valuation at 46 and 48 Cintra Road and has apportioned the valuation of $146,000 as to a valuation of $73,000 for each of the individual sites both with areas of 455 square metres.  For the same reason this method of valuation comparison is not appropriate.
           Mr Odgers told us that Cintra Road is rather hilly and that his land is somewhat higher in elevation than the parcels in Folkestone Street.
           The Departmental valuation was made by Registered Valuer George William Lindberg who describes the nature of the land as being level with the street frontage and having a slight fall to the rear boundary with a moderate cross-fall from south to north.  Mr Lindberg says the site is of medium elevation with an urban outlook and has views to Perry Park and to some of the northern suburbs of Brisbane, Breakfast Creek and Windsor. 
           Mr Lindberg relies for his valuation upon the analyses of three sales of “Residential B-R3”, “Residential B-R4” and “Residential A” zoned parcels in the suburb of New Farm.  I do not propose to detail this material in this decision as it is in the hands of the parties for reference and in any event, the appeal is based on the ground of unimproved value relativity.
           Mr Lindberg told us that the comparison lots 3/7 referred to by Mr Odgers in Folkestone Street are a different shape to the subject land being narrower and deeper.  He says the shape of the subject land gives better flexibility for the design of a home.  Mr Lindberg points out that the home on Lots 18 and 20 on RP 10094 situated at 46 and 48 Cintra Road sits between two blocks of home units and the valuation of $146,000 for these lots reflects this disability.  Lot 2 on RP 10093 is also situated next to a block of units.  Now while the subject land is also located adjacent to a block of units, Mr Lindberg feels that a valuation of $84,000 for it also reflects that disability.
           Mr Lindberg commented in evidence that the values which have been applied to lots in Folkestone Street reflect a traffic noise disability in that street which he says is a busy road, although he recognises that Cintra Road also carries a considerable but lesser volume of traffic which he believes is marginally less hazardous and intrusive than traffic in Folkestone Street.
           Now it must be said that the use of a rate of unimproved value per square metre as a basis of unimproved value comparisons when the task is to value single unit residential sites is not to be preferred to valuing on a site-to-site basis.  Mr Lindberg expressed this view during the course of the presentation of his evidence, and this contention is supported by decisions of the Land Appeal Court and of this Court.  Having regard to the totality of the evidence, and looking at the comparison in values in the area on a site-to-site basis, I cannot come to the conclusion that a value of $84,000 for the subject land as a single unit residential site is excessive.  Certainly the shape of the subject land is advantageous.  Further, I feel this valuation is well supported by Mr Lindberg’s sales evidence albeit in a different suburb.
           In the result then, the appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 53458, Parish of North Brisbane, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $84,000 is affirmed.

(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court