Scougall v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1998] QLC 100
•11 September 1998
|
BRISBANE
11 September 1998
Re: Determination of Unimproved Value -
City of Brisbane: Division of Toombul.
(REF. AV97-395).
RS and VB Scougall
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
D E C I S I O N
Raymond S and Veronica B Scougall have appealed against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $108,000 for a “Residential A” zoned parcel of land described as Lot 1 on RP 34574, Parish of Toombul, County of Stanley, containing an area of 809 square metres. The land is situated at 71 Ridge Street, Northgate. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996, and the appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $94,000. It is to be noted that the appellants’ unimproved value is the same as that applied to the land as at the previous relevant date of 1 January 1996.
Raymond John Scougall, who is a son of the appellants and a Senior Property Officer in the employ of the Department of Main Roads, conducted the case for his parents and also furnished evidence in support of the widely drawn grounds of appeal. Mr Scougall describes the nature of the subject land as being of moderate elevation and generally rising moderately from the footpath in Ridge Street to the rear. He does say, however, that the land is subject to surface water runoff from the properties at the rear which has necessitated the installation of stormwater drains to divert water from the housesite. Mr Scougall told us that this problem has been exacerbated by the construction of a 2-metre high retaining wall across the rear of the property adjoining his parents’ land to support filling placed upon that property. There is also a 4-metre high chain wire “tennis court” fence and associated cricket practice nets erected on top of the retaining wall.
Mr Scougall describes Ridge Street as being a major feeder road through the suburb of Northgate, and points out that Ridge Street carries a fair volume of traffic.
Mr Scougall has taken a view of the valuation rolls put on display for the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations in the area, and has discovered that the respondent Chief Executive had increased the unimproved value of the subject land and of most other “Residential A” zoned lands in Northgate bounded by Sandgate Road, Robinson Road, Railway Parade and Belmore Streets by a factor of 15% above the 1 January 1996 relevant date values. He produced computer printouts illustrating the increased values (Annexure 2 within Exhibit 2). Mr Scougall says that this compares with the re-writing of the unimproved values at the same levels as at 1 January 1996 for most other residential areas in Northgate, and again he produced a computer-driven printout showing examples of the valuation re-write (Annexure 3 within Exhibit 2).
Now it is the appellants’ case that rather than values increasing, market evidence within the aforementioned residential area where values were increased by a factor of 15% showed, during the relevant period (1 January 1996 to 1 October 1996), a static level of value, or perhaps even a decreasing trend. Mr Scougall points out that in previous appeals by the same appellants against the unimproved value determinations by the Chief Executive as at relevant dates of 31 March 1992 and 30 June 1993 (Court references AV93-640 and AV94-365), the respondent Chief Executive saw fit to use as a basis for his valuation of the subject property two sales of parcels included in the Annexure 3 zone. They were the sales of 22 Rilatt Street, Wavell Heights, and of 133 Bilsen Road, Wavell Heights. A view of Annexure 3 confirms that the unimproved values of those parcels remain the same as at the 1 January 1996 and the 1 October 1996 relevant date valuations ($82,000 and $90,000 respectively). Mr Scougall submits that since the previous valuations in the area, all material comparisons between the properties in the Annexure 3 zone and the subject area have remained static.
In support of his claim about the lack of increase in values in the subject land area as between the relevant dates of 1 January 1996 and 1 October 1996, Mr Scougall has scheduled the following sales evidence:Sale No 1 - Lot 163 on RP 34519, Parish of Toombul - 405 square metres - Gralton to Lindberg on 1 April 1997 for $55,100 - analysed unimproved value $53,100 - Department applied unimproved value $66,000 - situation 54 Gympie Street.
Mr Scougall commented that this is a vacant land sale, fenced both sides and the rear, slightly below road level with a slight fall to the rear. Mr Scougall considers that this sale land is in a slightly inferior locality in comparison with that within which the subject land is situated, and he regards the sale site to be an inferior parcel in comparison with the subject property.
Sale 2 - Lot 1 on RP 899105, Parish of Toombul - 494 square metres - O’Sullivan to Roemermann on 9 January 1997 for $85,000 - analysed unimproved value $80,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $92,000- situation 8 Scott Street.
Mr Scougall describes this as being an elevated level site slightly below road at the eastern end, with the site being filled and retained and fenced. Mr Scougall regards the sale locality to be superior to that within which the subject land is situated. He says Scott Street is a quieter street located close to a park. Mr Scougall regards the sale land overall to be inferior to the subject land.
Sale No 3 - Lot 2 on RP 882785, Parish of Toombul - 350 square metres - Sarcorp Pty Ltd to Baker on 27 March 1996, for $82,000 - analysed unimproved value $80,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $89,000 - situation 107 Peary Street.
Mr Scougall describes this land as being an elevated site, level at the front then falling slightly to moderately to the rear. He says it is situated in a superior locality and in a more prestigious area in comparison with that within which the subject land is situated. Mr Scougall again regards this sale site to be inferior to the subject land.
Sale No 4 - Lot 3 on RP 883785, Parish of Toombul - 350 square metres - Sarcorp Pty Ltd to Long on 2 January 1996, for $85,000 - analysed unimproved value $83,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $89,000 - situation 105 Peary Street.
Mr Scougall describes this sale site as being elevated, level at the front then falling slightly/moderately to the rear. Again Mr Scougall describes the locality within which the sale land is situated to be superior to that embracing the subject land and he says the sale land is located in a more prestigious area. Overall Mr Scougall regards the sale land to be inferior to the subject land.
Sale No 5 - Lot 2 on RP 61877, Parish of Toombul - 739 square metres - Perry to Kieseker on 18 November 1996, for $115,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $121,000 - situation 1 Pole Street.
Mr Scougall says there was a small brick dwelling and weatherboard shed on this sale site at the time of sale. It is a corner site with moderate elevation and a moderate crossfall to the west. Mr Scougall again says the sale site is located in a superior locality and overlooks a park. He regards the sale site to be superior to the subject land, and is of the opinion that the improvements on the sale land are of added value.
Sale No 6 - Lot 12 on RP 904330, Parish of Toombul - 674 square metres - Bliss to Roat on 12 August 1996 for $106,000 - analysed unimproved value $104,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $94,000 - situation 3 Pole Street.
Mr Scougall says this sale site is of moderate elevation with a moderate crossfall to the west. Again Mr Scougall describes the sale locality as being superior, with a quieter street and again close to a park. Overall Mr Scougall regards the sale site to be comparable with the subject land.
Sale No 7 - Lot 11 on RP 904330, Parish of Toombul - 604 square metres - Bliss to Paashuis on 12 August 1996, for $106,000 - analysed unimproved value $104,000 - Departmental applied unimproved value $91,000 - situation 5 Pole Street.
Mr Scougall describes this sale site as being of moderate elevation, with a moderate crossfall to the west. Again he says it is situated in a superior locality with a quieter street and close to a park. Mr Scougall also regards this sale land to be comparable with the subject land.
Mr Scougall informed the Court that his Sales Nos 6 and 7 were purchased by parents (5 Pole Street) and a daughter (3 Pole Street) who were extremely anxious to acquire properties side by side. As a result, he suggests they “paid above market value” as they did not want to lose on the deal. Mr Scougall believes that his Sales 6 and 7 do not fit the Spencer test due to the anxiousness of the purchasers.
It is to be observed that Mr Scougall’s Sales Nos 1 and 2 took place after the relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value in this case, i.e. 1 October 1996.
By way of summary, Mr Scougall submits that the respondent Chief Executive has made an error of fact in assuming that the market in the residential area within which the subject land is situated had increased in value from the previous valuation period (1 January 1996) when the weight of his scheduled sales evidence indicates otherwise. Further, Mr Scougall says there is no market evidence to support any increase in the value in the area between that date and 1 October 1996, and as a result the unimproved value of the subject land should remain at $94,000.
The valuation under appeal was made by Registered Departmental Valuer James Thomas Houghton who describes the nature of the subject land as rising from the front to the rear. The site has good drainage and has good elevation with an outlook to the east. Mr Houghton has made the valuation of the land having regard to the following sales evidence:Sale No 1 - Lot 2 on RP 883785 - 305 square metres - Sarcorp to Baker on 27 March 1996, for $82,000 - analysed unimproved value $79,000 - applied unimproved value $78,000 - situation 107 Peary Street.
Mr Houghton points out that the sale parcel is much smaller than is the subject land, and that it is a level allotment with good elevation. Mr Houghton considers the sale site to be inferior to the subject due to size and frontage.
Sale No 2 - Lot 3 on RP 883785 - 305 square metres - Sarcorp to Long on 2 January 1996, for $85,000 - analysed unimproved value $82,000 - applied unimproved value $78,000 - situation 105 Peary Street.
Mr Houghton again points out that this sale parcel is much smaller than is the subject land. It is a level allotment with good elevation, and Mr Houghton considers it to be inferior to the subject land due to size and frontage.
Sale No 3 - Lot 12 on RP 904330 - 674 square metres - Bliss to Roat on 2 August 1996, for $106,000 - analysed unimproved value $103,000 - applied unimproved value $94,000 - situation 3 Pole Street.
Mr Houghton again points out that this sale site is smaller than is the subject parcel. It has good elevation but is considered by Mr Houghton to be inferior to the subject land due to size and frontage.
Sale No 4 - Lot 11 on RP 904330 - 604 square metres - Bliss to Paashuis on 12 August 1996, for $106,000 - analysed unimproved value $103,000 - applied unimproved value $91,000 - situation 5 Pole Street.
As is pointed out by Mr Houghton, again this sale parcel is smaller than is the subject land. He says it has good elevation but considers the sale site to be inferior to the subject land again due to size and frontage.
Now it is to be noted that Mr Houghton’s sales schedule shows that the Departmental valuation of 107 Peary Street and 105 Peary Street as at 1 October 1996, is $78,000. This is at odds with the results of Mr Scougall’s search of Departmental records which show that the applied value to each site was $89,000. Mr Houghton explained that when he became aware of the sale transactions, he recognised that there was something wrong with the applied unimproved value for the sale sites, and he took steps to correct what he perceived to have been a valuation anomaly. He then reduced the valuations to $78,000 to remedy the valuation defect. It seems to me that the trigger for the reduction was the receipt of the sales data for these lots, and no other valuation reductions were made in Peary Street. Now although the sale lots in Peary Street are considerably smaller than the common sales in Pole Street (Mr Scougall’s Sales Nos 6 and 7 and Mr Houghton’s Sales Nos 3 and 4), I am led to a finding that the prices paid for those sites are somewhat high, perhaps for the reason advanced by Mr Scougall. Further, the Departmental valuations applied to No 3 and No 5 Pole Street as at 31 October 1996 ($94,000 and $91,000 respectively) compared with Mr Houghton’s analysed unimproved values ($103,000 for each) lend support to the view that the prices paid were high.
In these circumstances, and taking an overview of all of the evidence, I find that the unimproved value applied to the subject land should be reduced to that assessed by Mr Scougall. The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 34574, Parish of Toombul, is determined in the sum of $94,000.
(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0