Stanynought v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1996] QLC 145

[1996] QLC 145

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

31 October 1996

In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
  Valuation Roll No:  3356
  Local Government:  BCC-Hamilton
  (AV95-438)

Stonehewer A and Evelyn MB Stanynought
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N

Mr and Mrs Stanynought are the registered proprietors of property described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 58035, situated in the Parish of Toombul, County of Stanley, and having an area of 607 square metres. 
           Pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Chief Executive of the Department of Lands determined the annual valuation of the property as at 1 January 1995 at $122,000. The appellants objected to the determination but by notice issued on 15 August 1995, their objection was disallowed. The appellants have now appealed to this Court contending that the valuation of the land as at 1 January 1995 should be $84,000.
           Mr Stonehewer Abbott Stanynought appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants.    The valuation report which was relied on by the respondent in support of the valuation, had been prepared by Mr JT Houghton, a valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources (which includes the former Department of Lands).  Mr Houghton gave evidence on behalf of the respondent and his report was tendered to the Court.
           Mr Stanynought contended that the appellants' property which is located at 127 Anthony Street, Ascot, is out of keeping with the rest of Ascot and Hamilton.  It was, he said, built in the 1930's and does not have the grandeur of the Edwardian era.  He also pointed out that there is no room for a swimming pool and said that this factor adversely affected the value of the appellants' land. 

Neither of these matters can be taken into account in determining the unimproved value of the land.  The valuation is not concerned with the style of house erected on the property nor its location on the property.  What has to be determined is the unimproved value of the land at the relevant date.
Section 3(1) of the Valuation of Land Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, "unimproved value" of the land means

"(b)in relation to improved land - the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.  "

It is clear from this definition and also from authorities such as Toohey's Limited v. The Valuer-General [1925] AC 439 at 443 that, in determining the unimproved value of the land, the improvements are to be taken not only as non-existent but as if they never had existed.
           Mr Stanynought emphasised the heavy traffic affecting the appellants' enjoyment of and access to their property.  He also identified a number of other defects and problems associated with the property.  In particular he said that the property is not well sited and has sewerage problems which can only be corrected by major excavations which would involve disturbing all the other services to the property.  The views from the property are uninspiring.  The property is subject to noise and air pollution caused by aircraft flying overhead which also interferes with television reception.  The noise at night and in the early hours of the morning is unbearable, he said, and this has caused several people to leave the area.  He also said that the Federal Government had announced that they would pay compensation to landowners affected by the operation of the new International Airport in Brisbane but no further evidence was forthcoming about that matter. 
           Mr Houghton described the subject property as lying above road level.  It falls gently from the rear to the front with a north-east crossfall.  The property has sandy soil composition with fair drainage.  It faces east and is situated in a good quality residential location.  The land is zoned "Residential A" and a single unit brick dwelling is erected on the site.  The property is handy to all amenities.  Anthony Street is a fully made road with formed footpath and kerbing and channelling.  The vehicular ingress and egress to the property is at times difficult due to a traffic detriment.  Town water, electricity, sewerage (combined system), telephone and gas are connected.  Mr Stanynought agreed with this description of the property except in relation to the drainage which he said he did not regard as being fair drainage.
           Mr Houghton noted particularly in his report that although Anthony Street is a residential street it carries considerable traffic as a connecting road towards more major thoroughfares in the area.  Anthony Street is also affected by school traffic to the Ascot State School which is nearby.  Several traffic calming humps have been installed in the street.
           Turning now to the sales relied on by Mr Houghton in support of the valuation -

Sale 1 is a property located at 31 Moynihan Street having an area of 592 square metres.  The property sold on 24 January 1994 for $207,000.  At the time of sale, a dwelling house was erected on the property which has since been removed.  Mr Houghton said that the house was sold for removal for $10,000 and he allowed that amount plus $2,000 for clearing and fencing in reaching an analysed unimproved value of $195,000.  He applied a value of $165,000.  Moynihan Street is located 150 metres from the subject property and falls to the east.  The sale parcel is generally at road level and is located well down the street and is thus lower in elevation than properties near Anthony Street.  Moynihan Street is a good residential locality generally unaffected by traffic.  Although the subject property enjoys superior elevation to the sale block, it is considered inferior to the sale parcel due to traffic detriment.   

The details of this property were put to Mr Stanynought in cross-examination and he agreed generally with them.  In his cross-examination of Mr Houghton, Mr Stanynought suggested that a house could not be built for $10,000.  $10,000 was the removal price and as such that sum was properly deducted from the sale price together with the value of other improvements to reach the unimproved value.               

Sale 2 is of a property situated at 29 Pringle Street having an area of 415 square metres.  The property sold on 2 February 1994 for $160,500, has an analysed unimproved value of $159,000 and an applied value of $140,000.  Pringle Street is close to the subject property and falls to the east.  The sale is of a vacant parcel of land which is generally at road level and is located well down the street.  It is inferior in elevation to the subject property.  The sale property is opposite the Ascot State School and is severely affected by all-day parking. 

Mr Stanynought also agreed generally with the description of this property and in response to a question, expressed the opinion that the property would not have very impressive views and that they would in fact be similar to the views from his property.

Sale 3 is of a property situated at 90 Reeve Street, having an area of 405 square metres.  The property sold on 7 October 1993 for $140,000, has an analysed unimproved value of $139,000 and an applied value of $127,000.  Mr Houghton described Reeve Street as carrying considerable traffic between Sandgate Road and Alexandra Road.  The sale parcel is an above-road block and is smaller in size and frontage than the subject property and is generally similar in elevation to the subject.  The subject is considered inferior to the sale parcel due to the traffic detriment suffered by the subject.

Mr Stanynought agreed that the property at 90 Reeve Street was superior to his property.  However, he disagreed that Reeve Street carried considerable traffic. 
           Consideration of the evidence given by Mr Houghton, both orally and in his written report, leads me to the conclusion that in determining the value of the appellants' property at $122,000, Mr Houghton has relied on comparable sales of unimproved land and taken into account those of the defects which Mr Stanynought described in the  appellants' property which would adversely affect its unimproved value.  Mr Houghton has valued the appellants' property at a lower figure than the applied values in relation to the sales, principally on the basis that although each of the sale properties is smaller than the appellants', they are not affected as severely by the traffic detriment suffered by the appellants.  Mr Houghton has also taken into account the problems to the appellants property caused by the combined sewerage system.
           I accept that the appellants' property is adversely affected by aircraft noise but of course all the properties in the area surrounding the appellants' land would be similarly affected.  The sales relied on by the respondent are of properties in the vicinity of the appellants' land and the prices obtained on the sale of those properties must reflect the problems caused by aircraft noise.  There is, therefore, no basis for allowing Mr and Mrs Stanynought's appeal on this ground.
           In his notice of appeal and the written and oral evidence admitted to the Court by Mr Stanynought, Mr Stanynought argued that there had been no "genuine" sales of vacant land in the area because the suburb was a fully developed suburb.  Those sales that had occurred were, he suggested, of land which had resulted from a subdivision of a larger block and they did not represent the true value of property in the area.  While it appears that there is some subdivision of larger properties occurring in the area and that sales 2 and 3 relied on by Mr Houghton had previously formed part of larger blocks, there is no evidence before the Court to indicate that the sales relied on were anything other than arms length transactions concerning sales of vacant blocks of land.

Mr Stanynought also said that the sales of property in the area were stagnant, reflecting no increases in prices over the last five years.  Mr Houghton rejected that suggestion.  Again, the sales relied on by Mr Houghton are the best evidence of the unimproved value of the appellants' land.
           Mr Stanynought did not adduce any specific evidence concerning comparable sales of unimproved land.  He did tender lists of sales of properties in the general area during the twelve and twenty-four months preceding 7 June 1996, which, as he said, were sales of improved properties.  One of the sales in the list, (at Towers Street), was discussed at some length by Mr Houghton, during cross-examination.  The property was sold in April 1994 for $320,000 as an improved property.  It sold again in July 1995 for $390,000 and in 1996 the building was removed.  The evidence regarding this second sale does not assist the appellants' case, and in any event is not relevant in assessing the value of the appellants' property as at 1 January 1995.
           On the evidence before the Court and having regard to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, I cannot find any reason for concluding that the valuation is incorrect and therefore the appeal is dismissed. The valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

(CA MacDonald)         
  Member of the Land Court