Musso v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 44
•23 April 1996
|
BRISBANE
23 APRIL 1996
Re: Appeals against determinations of unimproved value -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
AV94-471 and AV95-698
Local Authority: Brisbane City Council
Vincent Musso
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
D E C I S I O N
The Department of Lands assessed the unimproved value of land described as Lot 1 RP 134485, Parish of Enoggera, County of Stanley, containing an area of 799 m2, as follows:
Date of valuation - 30 June 1993 - $175,000
Date of valuation - 1 January 1995 - $180,000
The owner, Mr Musso, appealed against those valuations contending for valuations of $135,000 and $130,000 respectively. The grounds of appeal in the earlier matter were that an increase of 59% was unreasonable and not supported by sales of similar properties in the area; the valuation of adjoining land had decreased by $10,000 after an "appeal" to the Department; the valuation should take into consideration features such as adverse slopes. In the second appeal the grounds were that relativity with other properties had not been maintained and that the valuation of adjacent land had further decreased by $6,000 while the subject land increased by $5,000.
The land is situated at the south-western corner of Main Avenue and Silvester Street, Wilston and is zoned "Residential B-R3". Important to this matter is that the land is developed with a block of six flats. Normal city services are available.
The valuations under appeal were written by Mr I.G. Savage, registered valuer, through whom separate reports were tendered. Mr Savage described the nature of the land as being well elevated, falling with a moderate to steep slope from the north-western corner, the fall being 8 metres over the depth of 40 metres. Views to the south were described as "extending from the Story Bridge & Mt Gravatt in the east, to the CBD Red Hill and in the west Mt. Cootha. Because of the slope the views cannot be built out." Mr Savage was challenged as to the extent of view available, particularly the inclusion of "the Story Bridge & Mt Gravatt". He conceded that his description may have been incorrect in that respect. Nevertheless, he maintained that the views available were extensive and not capable of being built out although Mr Musso contended they were in fact interfered with by a nearby unit building at lower elevation.
Access to the land was described as good from a divided split-level bitumen sealed carriageway in Main Street and a full width bitumen carriageway to concrete kerbing and channelling in Silvester Street.
Mr Savage gave evidence that, based on measurements he had taken, the building site coverage achieved by the existing building fell within that permitted in the higher density "Residential B-R4" zone. He had valued the land then in accordance with s.3(4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) which provides:"Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, in determining the unimproved value of any land it shall be assumed that -
(a)the land may be used, or may continue to be used, for any purpose for which it was being used, or for which it could be used, at the date to which the valuation relates; and
(b)such improvements may be continued or made on the land as may be required in order to enable the land to continue to be so used;
but nothing in this subsection prevents regard being had, in determining that value, to any other purpose for which the land may be used on the assumption that any improvements referred to in subsection (1) had not been made."
On his evidence, I agree that s.3(4) is applicable in this case, and the land should be valued, under the Act, on the assumption that it may continue to be used for the purpose it was being used, and that the improvements may be continued or made to enable the use equivalent to "Residential B-R4" zoned land and not "R-3", as it is in fact zoned.
While dealing with the Valuation of Land Act and the ground of appeal relevant to relativity with the valuation of the land adjacent, it so happened that an appeal heard immediately prior to those of Mr Musso, related to the valuation of that adjoining land as at 30 June 1993. This confirmed Mr Savage's evidence here that the adjoining land, although zoned "Residential B-R3", was used for the purposes of a single dwelling house and fell to be valued under s.17(1) of the Act. For Mr Musso's benefit the contents of that provision are, as far as is relevant here:"In making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house ....., any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other purposes shall be disregarded irrespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made.:
As the basis of valuation of the adjoining land is, in effect, its worth as a single homesite, not as zoned and the basis of valuation of the subject land relates to its more intense development than now permitted under the present zoning, it is inappropriate for any argument on alleged lack of relativity between those two valuations, to be otherwise considered.
Mr Savage's 1993 valuation was based on three sales, two of which showed analysed values of $197/m2 and $216/m2 for "Residential B-R4" zoned land. The third was in the lighter density "R3" zone and was analysed to show an unimproved value of $152/m2. All sales were considered to be inferior, to varying degree and for varying reasons, all having inferior views. His valuation at that date of the subject land was based on a unit of area value of $220/m2.
The 1995 valuation was based on two sales, one zoned "Residential B-R3" in May 1993 for an analysed unimproved value of $185/m2, which had not been used for the 1993 valuation. That land was then resold in March 1994, to show an analysed unimproved value of $215/m2. It was considered inferior to the subject land. The second sale was of a much larger 1214 m2 "R4" zoned site with inferior elevation, views and outlook which sold in March 1994 showing an analysed value of $230/m2, but to which land a valuation equivalent to $208/m2 had been applied. As I understood his evidence, the 1995 valuations of the Windsor Division were intended to be 10% higher but because of some computer-orientated problem the lower level had been adopted. While the sales evidence might be interpreted to support an even higher valuation, I am satisfied that, for the task before the Court, and in the absence of any specific challenge as to the veracity of that evidence, the 1995 valuation (equivalent to $225/m2) appears comfortably supported.
Mr Musso had based his opinion of value, for the 1993 relevant date, on information he had obtained from discussions with local real estate agents and a study of sales figures obtained from them. Those sales figures were "average prices" for which a number of houses had sold in the various residential zones in the suburbs of Wilston and Windsor. Many of the houses were considered to have had significant added value, and, on Mr Musso's broad analyses, he suggested that in those cases, at least, the sales showed the land component to be in the range of $80,000 to $120,000. The valuation of his land had increased in June 1993 from $110,000 to $175,000. Mr Musso was aware of vacant land having sold for "well above $120,000" but in those cases he suggested the sale lands enjoyed "spectacular City views". He did not regard the view available from his land as being spectacular, but more in the average range.
Mr Musso was aware that "an identical building" could not be constructed today. However, he interpreted that as "making the land less useful for redevelopment, and less valuable". That, of course, is the intent of s.3(4) of the Act. While that building remains, the land is dealt with on the assumption that an identical building could be constructed, even though in reality that could not again happen.
Mr Musso's remaining arguments referred to the question of relativity between the subject land and the adjacent land and that has already been dealt with.
In the end result, while Mr Musso's evidence has cast doubt on the extent of view available and probably the limited effect the available view has from the existing building, as designed, his estimate of value is not convincing and generally wrong in terms of both market valuation principle and the statutory valuations made under the Act. Mr Savage's evidence as to unimproved value has to be preferred.
The appeals are therefore unsuccessful and are disallowed. The valuations appealed against are affirmed.
R E Wenck
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0