MJ & PK Walsh v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 133

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

12 November 1998

Re:	Determination of Unimproved Value -
City of Townsville -
(Ref. AV97-400).

MJ and PK Walsh
v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

This appeal is against a determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $96,000 for a “Residential 2” zoned parcel of land situated on the southern side of Sallows Street (No 6), Pallarenda, and which is more particularly described as Lot 57 on Plan 79617, Parish of Coonambelah, containing an area of 607 square metres. The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $70,000, and the relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996. Erected upon the land are two maisonettes each of which is occupied by tenants. The Chief Executive’s valuation of the land is made on the basis of its highest and best use and not under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act as land used for the purpose of a single dwelling house.

Michael Joseph Walsh furnished evidence in support of the grounds of appeal

which read:

“1. An increase of over 35% on the previous valuation is excessive.

2. The majority of properties in Sallows Street are valued at $70,000 or less.

This applies to properties in adjacent streets.

3. Concession: The 20% loading only applies to maisonettes not single residences that are also rented out; i.e. both used for income-producing purposes. This is discriminatory and unfair. ”

Mr Walsh confirmed in evidence that the valuation for normal blocks in his street is $70,000 and he believes that the valuation of the subject land should be the same. He claims that all sites in the street, away from the corner lots on The Esplanade, have similar attributes and he says that although it may look good on paper to have values tapering from The Esplanade down Sallows Street, this has no basis.

Mr Walsh also says that previous valuations of blocks on the northern side of Sallows Street were higher than the valuations on the southern side of the street, and that the north side lots, although having the same frontages, are larger. But now the values on both sides of the street are similar.

Mr Walsh cannot understand why the subject land is not valued under section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, but concedes that its use does not fall within the section 17(2) definition of a single dwelling house. I should say now that the valuation cannot be made under section 17(1) of the Act because the land is not used for the purpose of a single dwelling house as defined, and the Chief Executive’s decision to value it as for its highest and best use is justified.

Mr Walsh produced in evidence three photographs indicating the outlook from the front door of the subject maisonettes, and from two positions on the pavement of Sallows Street, in support of his contention that there are no significant views of the ocean from the subject land or from the street.

The valuation under appeal was made by Departmental Registered Valuer, Robert Arthur Noakes, who describes the nature of the land as being of regular shape. It is situated at street level and is generally level and has a northerly aspect. Mr Noakes has made the valuation on the basis of the analyses of three sales of sites in the Pallarenda area, details of which are in evidence. From these sales, upon which single unit residences have been since erected, Mr Noakes has derived a value of $80,000 for the subject land if it was to be valued under section 17 of the Act as land used exclusively for single unit dwelling house purposes. To this value he has added a premium of 20% to bring it to a valuation as for the highest and best use of the land. Mr Noakes says he gains support for adding this premium upon the evidence of the sales of two sites at Garbutt. They are:

23 Dalkeith Crescent with an area of 1277 square metres which sold on 11
January 1995 for $56,000.

This is a “Residential A” zoned site with an approval for the erection of a duplex building.

5 Bylong Ct with an area of 902 square metres which sold on 15 September
1995 for $37,700.

This is also a “Residential A” zoned site with no duplex approval. Mr Noakes has adjusted the sale price of $37,700 for 5 Bylong Ct to a value of $42,000 for the same land if it had the same area as 23 Dalkeith Crescent (1277 square metres). The comparison between the sale price of 23 Dalkeith Crescent ($56,000) and the adjusted sale price of 5 Bylong Ct ($42,000) suggests to Mr

Noakes that a premium of 33H% ($14,000) was paid for 23 Dalkeith

Crescent for the duplex approval. From this evidence, Mr Noakes concludes that an application of a 20% premium in the valuation of the subject land for it being developed with maisonettes is reasonable.

Mr Noakes does not see there to be a valuation relativity problem in the area.

He feels the values should be shaded down from The Esplanade in Sallows Street for a few blocks to reflect the proximity of the blocks to The Esplanade, not for available ocean views.

I am satisfied on the evidence that the use of a premium of 20% above the valuation of the subject land as a single unit dwelling house site is justified. I am further satisfied that a value of $80,000 for the subject land as a single unit dwelling house site is well supported by the sales evidence, particularly that of Sales Nos 2 and 3 in Bay Street, Pallarenda. Mr Walsh has not satisfied me that there should not be some kind of grading off in the value of lots in Sallows Street as they progressively are removed from The Esplanade. After all, the relativity maps put in evidence by Mr Walsh shows that this grading off has taken place within the space of four or five lots from The Esplanade in a street which contains 12 lots in all.

Section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act places upon appellants the onus of proof in appeals of this nature and on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that this onus has been discharged. But before proceeding to my formal decision in the matter, I should say that the valuation of parcels occupied as rented single unit residences as single dwelling sites is a valid valuation exercise under section 17(1) of the Act.

The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of $96,000 as determined by the respondent Chief Executive for Lot 57 on Plan 79617, Parish of Coonambelah, is affirmed.

(CH Carter)

Member of the Land Court