Stanynought v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1996] QLC 8

[1996] QLC 8

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

16 February 1996

Re:     Appeal against Annual Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  City of Brisbane.
  (AV93-255).

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

D E C I S I O N

Mr and Mrs Stanynought are the owners of land situated at 127 Anthony Street, Ascot, and described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 58035, Parish of Toombul, County of Stanley, with an area of 607 square metres.  As at 31 March 1992, the respondent determined the unimproved value of that land at $97,000.
           An objection by Mr and Mrs Stanynought against that valuation was disallowed and they then appealed to the Land Court against the respondent's decision upon their objection, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value is $84,000.  The grounds of appeal relate to the problems suffered by the property, including those relating to combined sewerage system, access from the street in peak hour, no room to build a swimming pool, noise and air pollution and interference with television from aircraft, and road traffic noise.  They also state that there have been no significant sales in the area and that, in any case, sales of land are not a true reflection of value, as they are rare and inconsistent.
           The subject land is an inside residential allotment situated in Anthony Street, Ascot, between upper Lancaster Road and Towers Street.  Anthony Street is fully sealed with formed footpaths and kerbing and channelling.  Although Anthony Street is a residential street, it is a popular connecting road between major thoroughfares and carries a considerable volume of traffic.  It is also affected by school traffic to the Ascot State School and to St Margaret's School.  Several speed bumps have been installed in the street, one being located outside the subject property.
           Town water, electricity, sewerage (combined system) and telephone services are connected to the property.  At the relevant date the land was zoned "Residential A" under the City of Brisbane Town Planning Scheme and was developed with a single unit brick dwelling.
           The land faces east and is above road level.  It falls gently from the rear to the front with a north-east cross-fall.  It has fair drainage but suffers from seepage from the property above it.  It is situated in a good quality residential location.
           Mr SA Stanynought appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants.  He elaborated on his grounds of appeal, emphasising the increase in aircraft noise, particularly at night, since the opening of the new International Airport.  He feels that this has had an effect on values in the area.
           Mr Stanynought also explained the problems of sharing a combined sewerage system with two other properties.  Until recently the system was subject to blockage, but this has been remedied at a cost of $10,000 shared between the three owners.  However, despite this, the sewerage problem still remains although apparently blockages are less frequent.
           Perhaps the greatest problem suffered by the property is the increase in traffic, as Anthony Street has become a popular route between the major traffic thoroughfares.  This has turned what was previously a quiet residential back street into a heavily trafficked road.
           In an effort to prevent speeding, a number of speed bumps have been constructed in Anthony Street.  One of these speed bumps is located outside the subject land with a consequent increase in the traffic noise.
           Mr Stanynought was of the opinion that there have been few property sales in the area.  He did not think there had been any vacant land sales, although he knew that sometimes old houses were sold and removed and the land then subdivided into two or more lots.  Although he conceded that Ascot is one of the better Brisbane suburbs, he said that Anthony Street is not in the same category as the better streets, including Towers Street, which he thought had a significant "snob" value.
           Evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by Mr JT Houghton, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands.  Mr Houghton was well aware of the problems suffered by the land and had valued the property on the basis of sales in the Ascot area, making allowance for the differences between the sales and subject properties.  Mr Houghton was aware of the aircraft noise, but stated that the sales were similarly affected.
           Mr Houghton's Sale No. 1 is a property situated at 32 Moynihan Street, Ascot, with an area of 607 square metres, zoned "Residential A", which sold in February 1991, for $200,000.  Mr Houghton analysed the sale to show an unimproved value of $176,000.  The improvements on the land included a dwelling which was sold for removal for $20,000, and clearing and fencing to which Mr Houghton attributed $4,000.  As at 31 March 1992, he applied an unimproved value of $140,000 to the property.  A new dwelling has since been erected on the land.
           In comparing the sale to the subject property, Mr Houghton commented that Moynihan Street is located only 150 metres from the subject land and falls to the east.   The sale property is generally at road level and located well down the street and is thus lower in elevation than property in Anthony Street.  Moynihan Street is a good residential locality, generally unaffected by traffic.  He stated that although the subject land is superior in elevation to the sale property, it is considered to be inferior because of the traffic. 
           Mr Houghton's Sale No. 2 is also situated in Moynihan Street (2 Moynihan Street), only one property removed from the corner with Anthony Street.  This property, with an area of 622 square metres and zoned "Residential A", was sold in October 1991, for $220,000.  Mr Houghton analysed the sale to an unimproved value of $202,000, improvements at the time comprising an old dwelling which has since been removed, to which Mr Houghton attributed a value of $15,000, and clearing and fencing to which he attributed a value of $3,000.  As at 31 March 1992, he applied an unimproved value of $160,000 to the property.  A new dwelling has since been erected on the site.
           In comparing the sale property with the subject land, Mr Houghton commented that although it is far superior in elevation to Sale No. 1, it is lower in elevation than the subject land.  However, he considered the sale property to be superior to the subject land as it did not suffer from the traffic problems.
           Mr Houghton's Sale No. 3 is situated at 40 Towers Street, Ascot, with an area of 405 square metres, zoned "Residential A", which sold in December 1991, for $144,000.  The only improvements on the land were clearing and fencing to which Mr Houghton attributed a value of $4,000, analysing the sale to show an unimproved value of $140,000.  As at 31 March 1992, Mr Houghton applied an unimproved value of $130,000 to that property.
           In comparing the sale with the subject property, Mr Houghton said it falls moderately below road level to the rear.  Although the sale is situated in a first-class residential locality, it is below road level but has an outlook over properties to its rear.  The sale property is smaller than the subject land and has less frontage, but Mr Houghton considered it to be superior because it did not suffer from the traffic problems.
           Mr Stanynought did not disagree with any of Mr Houghton's comments about the sales.  However, he expressed surprise at the price that was paid for these properties.  He considered them all to be over-priced.  He wondered whether any of the purchasers were aware of the aircraft noise when they purchased the properties.
           However, despite this, Mr Stanynought could not provide evidence of any other sales in the area.  Indeed, he made it clear that he did not think that sales provided a good indicator of value.
           Mr Houghton was aware of the traffic problems suffered by the subject land because of its popularity as a route between major thoroughfares.  He felt that he had made sufficient allowance for that disability in valuing the subject land at $97,000.
           Mr Houghton was also aware of the difficulties of being serviced by a combined sewerage system.  However, he did not feel that this affected the value of the land as much as the traffic problems. 
           Mr Houghton conceded that the area is subject to aircraft noise.  However, he felt that purchasers of land in the area would be aware of, and expect to suffer from, such disability.  He said that it had not deterred purchasers of land in the area and stated that there were other sales, besides the three that he had quoted.
           Mr Houghton said that if the subject land did not suffer from the problems of the combined sewerage system and from traffic noise, he would have applied an unimproved value somewhere near that of Sale No. 2 of between $160,000 and $170,000.  While it was more elevated than both Sale No. 1 and Sale No. 2, neither the sales nor the subject property enjoyed any views.
           Although agreeing that Towers Street was a superior residential location, he made the point that his Sale No. 3, which is situated in that street, is smaller than the subject and is situated below road level.  He therefore thought he had made a valid comparison between the value of that land and the subject land.
           When asked about the values that he had applied to the dwellings in his analyses of Sales Nos. 1 and 2, Mr Houghton replied that he had fully investigated each of the sales and had applied the value in each case which had been received by the purchaser from the house removalists.
The provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 make it quite clear that the respondent is to determine the unimproved value at 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 the improvements did not exist. It has been held on many occasions by Courts of the highest authority that the best method of determining the unimproved value of land is by comparison with sales of unimproved or lightly improved lands. A comparison with such statistical indices as the Cost of Living Index or the Consumer Price Index have been rejected as not complying with the definition.
           Mr Houghton has used the approved method to value the subject land.  He has chosen three sales in the immediate area of Ascot.  The two sales in Moynihan Street were sold with old residences which have since been removed.  Mr Houghton used the prices obtained for those removal houses in analysing the sales.  He can therefore have some confidence in the analysed unimproved value in each case.  His third sale is of a smaller allotment situated in a better area. 
           In comparing the sales with the subject land, Mr Houghton feels that he has made sufficient allowance for its particular problems.  Indeed, if it was not for those problems, he would have valued the land at between $160,000 and $170,000.  Therefore, he has effectively allowed over $60,000 for the traffic and sewerage problems.  I have no evidence before me to indicate that this is not sufficient allowance for those problems.
           The other grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Stanynought can be dealt with briefly.  Aircraft noise is certainly a problem but it is suffered by the whole of the Ascot area.  It has not deterred the purchasers of the three properties used as basic sales, and I have no evidence to indicate that the purchasers of those properties were imprudent or had no prior knowledge of the noise.  Mr Stanynought has stated that there is no room for a pool on the subject property.  However, he concedes that this is because of the location of the house.  The Act requires that the land be considered as if the improvements had not been made.  If the land was vacant, it would certainly be possible to construct both a residence and a pool on a property of 607 square metres.
           The appellants have not been able to produce evidence to indicate that the unimproved value determined by the respondent is excessive.  Indeed, the evidence presented by Mr Houghton is to the contrary.  He appears to have carried out a detailed comparison between the sales and the subject property and made sufficient allowance for the problems suffered by it.  Mr Stanynought has not been able to advance any alternative basis for his suggested valuation.  I therefore have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed at $97,000.

President of the Land Court