Seccombe v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources; Kopp v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1999] QLC 131
•21 December 1999
|
LAND COURT
BRISBANE
21 December 1999
Re: Appeals against annual valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll Nos 011-2070 and 011-2072
Local Government: Brisbane City – Sandgate
(AV98-724)
Ian D and Antionette J Seccombe
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(AV98-689)
Carolyn A and Brian K Kopp
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
DECISION
Background:
These matters deal with two properties at 101 Yundah Street, Shorncliffe, described as Lot 1 on RP 58223 and Lot 4 on RP 59526 (AV98-724); and 95 Yundah Street, Shorncliffe, described as Lot 3 on RP 4541 (AV98-689), Parish of Nundah. The subject lands are located closely together in Yundah Street, about two kilometres from the Sandgate Post Office, 450 metres from Cabbage Tree Creek, 250 metres from the Shorncliffe Railway Station, and 250 metres from local, private and public schools. Yundah Street has a bitumen strip carriageway with earth shoulders, and concrete kerbing and channelling. Access is good to Yundah Street from both lands, but there is a retaining wall to the Swan Street frontage to 101 Yundah Street, which is a corner parcel. The key issues are comparisons of sale, the added value of improvements, the nature of the market and relativity.
By agreement with the parties, the two matters were heard concurrently; and an inspection of the subject lands and the sales was jointly undertaken following the hearing. Both subject parcels are zoned as Residential A under the Town Plan of the Brisbane City Council of 1987, and current at the date of valuations of 1 October 1997. 101 Yundah Street has an area of 852 m² and 95 Yundah Street has an area of 1,088 m². All normal utility services are available.
On 9 March 1998 the Chief Executive issued valuations of the subject lands at $135,000 (Seccombe) and $140,000 (Kopp). Following objections the Chief Executive confirmed those valuations on 25 August 1998. The appellants have now appealed those figures claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $90,000 (Seccombe) and $100,000 (Kopp). Following a court supervised preliminary conference on 9 March 1999, a joint hearing was undertaken on 5 October 1999.
Mr William Alfred Pye, an experienced registered valuer, appeared and gave evidence for the appellants, also calling evidence from Mrs A Seccombe and Mrs CA Kopp. Mr George Knight appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Mr Andrew Dale Grams, the Departmental registered senior valuer responsible for determining the valuations.
The evidence:
(1) The nature of the lands -
101 Yundah Street is an elevated corner parcel with a crossfall from north to south. There is no physical access to Swan Street as there is a steep bank which is currently fully retained with a wall and fence. From the existing dwelling there are restricted glimpses between trees and dwellings across the road towards a local golf course to the south-west. The views from 101 Yundah Street would be described merely as local views of no outstanding character. However the general ambience of Yundah Street, with its pleasant street planting of trees, is seen as of some character nature, which is sought after in the marketplace.
There are no significant views from 95 Yundah Street, which is blocked by trees to the rear, other than the similar pleasant streetscape evident along Yundah Street to the front. The subject land is elevated with a slight fall to the rear, where there is a 1.5 metre wide pedestrian access strip to Friday Street, which provides more direct walking access to the railway station. There is a sewerage line across the rear of the Kopp land which is not seen as an impediment to its effective use.
The appellants argue that part of the pleasant amenity of the subject land is adversely impacted by the presence of Queensland Housing Commission Public Housing Units at the north-western and south-eastern corners of Pier Avenue and Yundah Street, about 150 metres north of the subject land. While attempts have been made to retain the external character of those units, it is claimed that their tenants often display Public Housing attitudes. There is also an old mens home three lots removed from 95 Yundah Street towards the north; and also a hotel around the corner in Pier Avenue, which attracts undesirable characters at night. The combined effects of those impacts, in the appellants’ opinion, are not felt in some adjoining areas nearer the esplanade.
Mr Pye concedes that Yundah Street is a pleasant locality, but argues that it is less attractive than other areas nearer the esplanade, where views of Moreton Bay enhance the value of the land. Mr Pye argues that it is the proximity to Moreton Bay, and views of the water and cooling effects of offshore breezes, that attracts people to Shorncliffe; and that is why the locality is currently experiencing rejuvenation.
Mr Grams argues that hearsay evidence during his personal inquiries with purchasers and real estate agents, suggests that the Yundah Street locality, east of Friday Street, has in fact become a special submarket area within the overall Shorncliffe locality. Mr Grams also believes that the Yundah Street topography is better than the topography of lands in the northern part of Palm Avenue, immediately behind the esplanade. Mr Grams argues that recent sales of properties in the price range of $200,000 to $400,000 in Yundah Street, supports his conclusion. Mr Pye discounts that conclusion, noting the older character of many homes in Yundah Street.(2) Planning Impacts -
In developing his conclusion that the Yundah Street locality east of Friday Street has some special market attraction, Mr Grams notes the existence of the Sandgate Local Area Plan of the Brisbane City Council (the Council). Mr Grams notes in particular that the Local Area Plan defines several precincts, which are used to provide greater certainty for residents about where infill development may be possible. The Local Area Plan is a residential development study provided to identify potential heritage places and character housing of note. The study is part of the Council’s approach to retaining and preserving the character of areas of the city, and in fact provides further planning control over large areas of Brisbane where the traditional character of the buildings should be retained.
Shorncliffe is identified as an area within the Sandgate locality which is considered to be a significant traditional character area, because of the nature of the buildings, its topography and seafront location, its wide streets and mature tree planting, and its relative isolated intact nature. Within the Shorncliffe area (area 1) five precincts are identified. The subject lands are located within Precinct 2, which has a preferred development type of low density residential, and which has been classified as Category 2+, where redevelopment of existing character buildings would be favoured, and redevelopment of non-character sites which would contribute to the streetscape and amenity, would be supported. Buildings of Character 2+ are seen as having an extremely high traditional character, which is highly intact. Precinct 2 extends east of Friday Street to the boundary with Precinct 1, which is all of the beachfront and esplanade lands.
The area west of Friday Street extending west to Fulham Street, and south of Rainbow Street, is defined as Precinct 3, which also has a preferred development type of low density residential, but has a character rating of only Category 2. Category 2 is generally traditional character, but with some intrusions of unsympathetic post-World War II development, or change from high traffic volumes.
Another area relating to the sales evidence is Precinct 5, which immediately adjoins Precinct 4 to the north near Palm Avenue, and extends to Rainbow Street in the south. Precinct 4 contains lands recently zoned as Residential B along the esplanade, which are identified as Category 1 significance. Precinct 5 is seen as the same Category 2+ as Precinct 2, but the development is seen to have an appropriate mix of dwellings, with emphasis on retention of the existing character housing, similar to Precinct 2. The preferred development type in Precinct 5 is also low density residential. The control mechanisms relating to Precincts 2, 3 and 5 are similar, with a consent application being required in each case. Mr Pye was not familiar with the Local Area Plan.(3) Comparisons of sales -
To support his estimate of the unimproved values Mr Pye provides the following sales of vacant lands:
Sale 1 – (9 Palm Avenue, Shorncliffe – Lot 5 on RP 4483)
This is a parcel of 577 m², located about 600 metres north-west of the subjects, at the northern end of Palm Avenue, near Eagle Terrace which is the esplanade road fronting Moreton Bay. At that location there are steep steps down to the water. The sale is a good elevated lot which Mr Pye argues has views of Moreton Bay from the upper floor of the building now relocated on that parcel. The sale also has rear access to Stephenson Street. There is a sewer line passing across the centre of Lot 5 which impacts the use of the rear area behind the dwelling.
The appellants see the sale as in a superior locality, with additional vehicle access available, and superior in all respect except size to the subject lands. The sale sold in March 1997 for $90,000, and was applied at $75,000 (1996) and $83,000 (1997).Sale 2 – (14 Agnes Street, Shorncliffe – Lot 4 on RP 4490)
This is a 364 m² parcel located about 550 metres north-west of the subjects, which falls about 2 metres from north to south towards the road. Agnes Street is one street removed from Eagle Terrace, and the appellants see it as superior land except for its smaller size.
The sale sold in January 1996 for $70,000, and was applied at $55,000 (1996) and $72,000 (1997).
Sale 3 – (Corner Ashford Street and Wharf Road – Lots 119, 120 and 121 on RP 4612)
This was a parcel of 1,215 m² occupied by an old dwelling, which has subsequently been removed and a new dwelling constructed on each of the three existing parcels. The sale is good level building land with some views to the mangroves of the wetlands to the west and north. The sale is about 650 metres west of the subject land, in a flatter low-lying area similar to the sales in Cotton Street and Friday Street. The sale is located in the southern part of Precinct 3 of the Local Area Plan. While the appellants place little relevance on that sale, Mr Pye notes that the applied unimproved values for the total three parcels was $145,000 (1996) and $152,500 (1997). Mr Pye argues this shows a sale value of about $60,000 for each of those three lots.
The sale sold in April 1997 for $165,000. Mr Knight argues that sale represents a different market to the Yundah Street locality.
Sale 4 – (104 Palm Avenue, Shorncliffe)
This is a corner lot of 455 m² of flat good building land at the corner of Palm Avenue and Robertson Road, in December 1998 for $90,000. That sale was the result of a new subdivision, and the sale has views of the golf course. Mr Pye sees that sale as having similar topography to the Cotton Street sale of Mr Grams.
Mr Grams has no record of that sale and had not considered it in his valuation. Mr Pye obtained his information from discussions with the builder who bought the land, and who has since onsold a new colonial type dwelling on that site. Mr Pye believes any advantage of location near Yundah Street would, in his opinion, be outweighed by the advantage of the corner location of Sale 4. Mr Pye sees his Sale 4 as superior to the Cotton Street sale (Sale 2), although his main comparison with his Sale 4 is to the subject land. Because of the late date of his Sale 4 Mr Pye places no reliance upon that sale.
To support his valuation Mr Grams provides the following sales, located mainly in the same planning precinct as the subject lands:
·Sale 1 – (9 Palm Avenue, Sandgate – Lot 5 on RP 4483)
This is the same sale as Mr Pye’s Sale 1. Mr Grams sees the sale as overall inferior to the subject due to its location, smaller size and narrower frontage. Mr Grams analysed the sale at $89,000, and applied it at $83,000. The sale is zoned as Residential B R4.
·Sale 2 – (8 Cotton Street, Shorncliffe – Lot 15 on S 2724)
This is a 405 m² Residential A lightly improved parcel, about 220 metres south of the subjects, of lower elevation and at street level. The sale is smaller, with a narrower frontage, but closer to Cabbage Tree Creek. There is an overhead electricity transformer outside the sale. A sewerage line crosses the centre of the sale which restricts full utilisation of the land. The sale is seen as in an inferior location, and overall inferior.
The sale sold in April 1997 for $110,000, which after allowing for improvements (including $10,000 for an existing dwelling that was refurbished) was analysed at $99,000, and applied at $90,000. The unimproved value at 1 October 1996 was $50,000.·Sale 3 – (110 Friday Street, Shorncliffe – Lot 11 on RP 4585)
This is a 506 m² Residential A parcel located about 150 metres south of the subjects. The sale is smaller, has a narrower frontage, is closer to Cabbage Tree Creek, and the golf course is opposite the sale, as is also the railway line. However the presence of the railway line, which is used regularly to park railway carriages overnight, is seen as a visual intrusion into the amenity. Overall the sale is seen as inferior.
The sale sold in July 1997 for $124,000, which after allowing for improvements, including $15,000 for an existing dwelling later refurbished, was analysed at $108,000, and applied at $88,000. The unimproved value at 1 October 1996 was $51,000.(4) The added value of improvements -
There is disagreement between Mr Pye and Mr Grams in respect of the added value to allow for the existing dwellings upon Mr Grams’ Sales 2 and 3. Both valuers agree that it is the added value that the old dwellings bring to those sales which must be determined. However in respect of Sale 2 (8 Cotton Street) Mr Pye sees the residual added value of the old dwelling at $45,000, while Mr Grams sees it at $10,000. Mr Pye has estimated his figure on the basis that the dwelling is seen as being “listed” because of its era of construction; but he has not made any allowance on the basis of the dwelling being heritage listed. He is aware of the potential delays that might accrue with Council if a dwelling is replaced, rather than refurbished.
Mr Pye concludes that the best evidence of the added value of the improvements on Sales 2 and 3 would be what a buyer would have to pay for the improvements, and then have them moved on to the land, including restumping, council approvals, and reconnecting the services. On that basis he concludes figures of improvements of $45,000 for 8 Cotton Street, and $44,000 for 110 Friday Street, as he argues that the purchaser used those improvements, rather than take them away. Mr Grams by comparison argues that any added value of the dwellings must also allow for the further cost to be incurred in restumping and refurbishing the old dwellings.
Mr Grams has sought estimates of comparable old dwellings currently available for relocation on to lands in that area. He provides examples of character style buildings, in the range of about $32,500 to $33,500, which could easily fit into the general Yundah Street locality. Some cheaper homes at $22,500 to $27,000 had less character about them, and in my opinion, did not appear to reflect the ambience of the Shorncliffe area. It is noted that the price of $33,500 includes relocation to the land, new stumps, roof and guttering, and reconnecting of the services. Mr Grams argues that the existing old dwelling cannot be worth more than what a removal home would be worth to be placed upon the land.
However it is agreed that refurbishment of an existing dwelling on parcels of frontage less than 15 metres (ie. Sales 2 and 3) would only require a building approval, rather than a town planning approval, which would be required for a relocated home. It is also noted that if a dwelling is relocated, then a new roof must be provided, whereas for a refurbished dwelling the roof need only be repaired. While the latter might only represent a more limited life expectancy for the roof, its added value to a builder, who then onsells to a new owner after refurbishment, might represent a fair added value.
In respect of the old buildings on 8 Cotton Street and 110 Friday Street, there has been major replacement of walls, floors and linings, and Mr Grams sought to deduct such further costs from any cost of a replacement building, which would have been in sound condition. Mr Grams provides average estimates for the additional replacements at 8 Cotton Street for restumping on high stumps ($7,000), and a new roof ($4,000) including guttering. Mr Grams provides no estimates of the cost of removal to the site, or reconnecting of services. It was also agreed that an advantage to a developer, which would provide added value, would be the capacity to utilise at least parts of an existing dwelling, and its footprint, in order to streamline Council approvals for the refurbishment process. The key issues in that added value lie in the time delays avoided, and the known nature of the extent of the refurbished building.
Mr Grams further argues that the owner of 110 Friday Street claims that it would have been less costly to have built a new dwelling, rather than refurbish the old dwelling, due to problems encountered in raising the dwelling and concreting under. For that reason the owner placed no value on the old building. However Mr Grams concedes that the current dwelling is located closer to the boundary on one side than what would have been approved had a new building been constructed. In challenging the likely costs of reroofing a relocated dwelling Mr Pye notes that it cost $9,000 to reroof the old dwelling now located on Sale 1 (9 Palm Avenue). However Mr Grams notes that roofing costs would depend upon the materials used, and he had estimated only upon average costs for that service.(5) Relativity -
Mr Pye seeks support that an error has occurred in the current valuations by referring to changes that have now occurred in the relativity between a property at 11 Palm Avenue (adjoining Sale 1) and 95 Yundah Street. Mr Pye notes that between 1989 and 1996 the relativity of those two parcels had remained reasonably consistent. In the valuations at 1 October 1997 the valuation at 11 Palm Avenue had increased from $85,000 to $94,000 (10.6%), while the valuation at 95 Yundah Street had increased from $78,000 to $140,000 (79.5%). Mr Pye argues that there has been no change in circumstances to warrant such a change in relativity, noting in fact that the subject lands are now impacted by the presence of the Public Housing, not evident at 11 Palm Avenue.
Mr Grams argues that a comparison between 11 Palm Avenue ($94,000) and the adjoining 9 Palm Avenue (Sale 1 at $83,000), would indicate, in his opinion, that the unimproved value of 11 Palm Avenue (Lots 14 and 15 on RP 4484) is too low. Mr Grams notes that 11 Palm Avenue is a larger parcel of area 855 m², and has a frontage of about 20 metres compared to an area of 577 m² and a frontage of 10 metres for 9 Palm Avenue. Mr Grams then believes, based upon those criteria, that an unimproved value of $110,000 would be more appropriate for 11 Palm Avenue. However in coming to that conclusion Mr Grams has discounted 9 Palm Avenue as having any views of Moreton Bay, because of the nature of the topography.
Conscious of directions in respect of the relevance to be placed upon an inspection of properties, which is to be found in Melwood Units Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Main Roads (1976) 3 QLCR 209, at 223-224, I merely note that, following the inspection of 9 Palm Avenue, I accept Mr Pye’s evidence that there are views of Moreton Bay and the offshore islands from the second level of the dwelling upon Sale 1, a matter no doubt considered by the purchasers of that sale when they paid $90,000. Because of the premium that tends to accompany the presence of views of the water, it would be reasonable to conclude that those views outweigh the wider width, but lower elevation, of 11 Palm Avenue, and the former relativity prior to 1 October 1997 may not have been incorrect.
Decision:(i) The methods of valuations -
I turn first to the method of valuations and note that it is agreed that the preferred approach is by direct comparison of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels, where they are available. Such a principle has long been regarded by the Courts as the preferred approach, and has been noted in many precedents. I note for instance WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, where the Land Appeal Court said at p. 46:“It is indeed a fundamental principle of valuation that the best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels.”
The principle was also clearly defined by the Land Appeal Court in PH Clough v The Valuer General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, at p. 76:
“It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements.
Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement.”
However because of the paucity of sales of vacant lands in that locality, Mr Grams has sought to analyse several sales where the added value of the improvements is judged to have been of a lesser value than with normal improved properties. He has taken such an approach in view of the growing demand for properties which are being refurbished, and where the character of the area is demanding development of houses of an older nature. The weight to be applied to such enhanced sales lies in the reliability of an assessment of the added value that any remaining improvements bring to the land. Both parties agree that there has been an increase in the market in the locality in recent times since 1996.
In considering first the vacant sales of the appellants I note that Mr Pye places most reliance upon his Sale 1, which is a common sale with the respondent. Mr Pye gets some support from his Sale 2 which he sees as superior but smaller in size, and with no views of the water. Mr Pye places no reliance upon his Sale 3 or upon his Sale 4, the latter mainly because of its late date in December 1998, well after the relevant date. However on a direct comparison with Mr Grams’ Sale 2 (8 Cotton Street), Mr Pye sees his Sale 4 as superior.
In seeking to rely upon one vacant sale (9 Palm Avenue) and two lightly improved sales, Mr Grams has placed some emphasis upon the specific nature of the “character protection” of the locality surrounding Yundah Street. To this end he has been guided by opinions in the marketplace, the Sandgate local area plan, recent sales of improved properties, and significant refurbishment costs being paid on properties in Yundah Street. There is no argument that Sale 2 (8 Cotton Street) and Sale 4 (110 Friday Street) are reasonable comparisons, but there is divergence about the added value of the existing old dwellings on those sales prior to refurbishment.
In seeking to determine the added value of those buildings, Mr Grams argues that such value could not exceed the cost to have a comparable old dwelling relocated, reroofed, and reconnected to services on those lots. Mr Grams determines that, allowing for a relocated dwelling at $33,500, and allowing for the repairs and replacement of floors and walls etc, the resultant added value of the existing dwellings would be $10,000 (8 Cotton Street) and $15,000 (110 Friday Street). I note also those costs include a figure of $11,000 for restumping and new roofs.
However any decision to seek to demolish the existing building upon those sales, and to seek Council approval to relocate an alternative structure, would have involved consideration of any likely delay in gaining the approval of Council, and any additional clearances to side boundaries required of the new dwelling. Bearing in mind the narrow width (10 metres) of those sales, and the existing width of relocatable homes, there was always some loss of site useability involved in the relocation. This may be evidenced in some cases where only the wall framing is retained, thus apparently allowing the refurbishment to proceed on the complete footprint of the old dwelling.
There was no specific evidence given of the extent of any residual added value to the new owner by not having to seek fresh town planning approval to remove the old dwelling, beyond the need for a building approval, however there was some reference to the indicative costs that were likely to have been avoided. Mr Pye concedes that, in his opinion, while it is not impossible to get town planning approval to remove an old dwelling in the character protection areas, it is much harder than seeking to get approval to refurbish the building (transcript 28). Mr Pye was also very clear that the Character Protection Area listing does not specify the building as of heritage classification for preservation, but merely only protects the buildings because of their era of construction. Mr Grams agrees that there is a time delay in getting town planning approval to develop properties on narrow parcels of less than 15 metres wide (transcript 46), and it is easier to get approvals for “refurbishments rather than to rebuild a new home” (transcript 65). The possibilities of delay of a year in getting an approval to remove a dwelling were considered (transcript 77), although part of those costs to a developer would have been alleviated if the old dwelling was capable of being tenanted during that period. In the case of 8 Cotton Street the old building had been rented at the date of sale.
I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the mental process confronting a purchaser wishing to develop the 8 Cotton Street or 110 Friday Street properties, would have balanced the difficulties and costs of refurbishing the existing dwelling, against the unknown costs and difficulties of removing the dwelling. That the owner chose the former probably reflects the higher added value that he saw in retaining the old structure. To the cost of $33,500 to arrange a relocated dwelling, must therefore have added an estimate of the cost of delays by Council, and the impact of possible greater constraints upon the location of a new building. If I assume a delay of say an additional 12 months to get the town planning approval, that could represent interest at ($90,000 by 7%) or $6,300 of further costs. While there is no evidence to directly support that additional cost, it could represent the additional unknown cost to the owner, and hence its further added value, and it closely relates to Mr Pye’s advice of $40,000 to relocate a dwelling on 9 Palm Avenue.
In analysing the residual added value of the two old dwellings, I note that if I assume a total additional cost to the owner in each case at $33,500, plus $6,300 (for lost interest), I conclude a replacement cost of say $40,000. From that figure if I deduct the cost of restumping and new roof ($11,000), I conclude an added value of $29,000, from which I must allow the cost of relocation, and reconnecting services. In both cases there is also the extra cost of replacing floors and walls which were infected by white ants. I also note that Mr Grams has allowed a differential of $5,000 at 110 Friday Street to allow for the benefit to the owner of his building remaining very close to the side boundary.
In the end I believe that the added values as determined by Mr Grams at 8 Cotton Street ($10,000) and 110 Friday Street ($15,000) represent a reasonable estimate of the added values to the owners. That then leaves the selection of the sales evidence by the two valuers. Mr Pye sees that the upward trend in the market is reflective of the whole area of Shorncliffe. Mr Grams sees a separate submarket area in that locality coinciding with Precinct 2 as different from the surrounding areas. On the evidence before me I would not entirely agree with Mr Grams that Precinct 2 is different to Precinct 5 in respect of the market perceptions, and therefore comparability. On that basis I would place similar weightings upon the comparison with Mr Pye’s Sale 1 (9 Palm Avenue) and Mr Grams’ Sales 2 and 3.
In comparing Sale 1 with the subject lands I believe that the better views from Sale 1 would tend to balance the additional size and width of the subject lands. If I consider the current relativity of 11 Palm Avenue ($94,000 – 855 m²) to 9 Palm Avenue ($83,000 – 577 m²), I believe that represents the difference between a smaller parcel with views of the water, compared to a large parcel without views of the water in that location.
If I then compare the subject land with Sale 2 applied at $90,000, and Sale 3 applied at $88,000, I find both of those sales are smaller, and inferior. While Mr Pye places little reliance upon his Sale 4 (110 Palm Avenue - $90,000) because of the lateness of that sale, I note that Mr Pye believes his Sale 4 is superior to Mr Grams’ Sale 2 (8 Cotton Street). I get little assistance from Mr Pye’s Sale 3 (Ashford Street and Wharf Road) which was a parcel of 1,215 m², and not for three lots each at $60,000. On balance I believe the subject lands would have an unimproved value more than $90,000. Any comparison with Mr Pye’s Sale 2 ($70,000) must allow for the larger difference in size for an inside parcel that has no views of the water, and I get little assistance from that sale.
In seeking to determine by how much the subject lands are superior to Sales 1, 2 and 3 I seek assistance in relativity with 11 Palm Avenue. That parcel has an area comparable to 101 Yundah Street, but smaller than 95 Yundah Street. However 11 Palm Avenue also has rear access from Stephenson Street, comparable to the rear access of 95 Yundah Street. While 101 Yundah Street is a corner location, I believe the physical difficulty of the embankment along Swan Street frontage would detract from access from that direction. I believe that 95 Yundah Street is superior to 101 Yundah Street, which in turn is slightly superior to 11 Palm Avenue.
If I then consider any potential impact upon the subject lands by the Public Housing in Yundah Street, I find a lack of conclusive evidence on that matter. While it may be a matter of concern to the residents near the subject, this Court has no conclusive evidence to suggest that there is a difference generally between residents of private or public housing, it is worth speculating that there are both good and bad residents in both public and private houses, and any broad generalisation correlating public housing, without proof, does not assist me in this matter. I am also aware that when valuing property, the Chief Executive takes no notice of the ownership of the properties. I also note that the subject has been valued as a single homesite, due to its current zoning, and there has been no provision considered in respect of any higher use of the subject. (see section 17 of the Act).
Summary:
In concluding the various comparisons I believe valuations for 101 Yundah Street at $105,000 and 95 Yundah Street at $110,000 represent reasonable unimproved values, considering the evidence supplied.
Conclusions:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am persuaded that the appellants have partly proved their case. The valuations as determined by the Chief Executive are set aside. The unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 58223 and Lot 4 on RP 59526 (AV98-724) is determined at $105,000. The unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 4541 (AV98-689) is determined at $110,000.
N G DIVETT
MEMBER
0
0
0