The Proprietors "Carrington" Building Units v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1999] QLC 52

[1999] QLC 52

 

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

26 MAY 1999

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value –
  City of Brisbane
  Division of Brisbane
  (AV98-574)

The Proprietors "Carrington" Building Units
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against the determination by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $3,500,000 ($2,200 per m²) for a 1,612 m² parcel of land situated at 16 Albert Street (Corner Alice Street) Brisbane and which is more particularly described as Lots 1-23 on Building Units Plan 5406 (Lot 1 on RP 176286), Parish of North Brisbane.  The site is improved with a block of home units known as "Carrington", and is zoned "Special Development – City Residential" under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme for the City of Brisbane.  The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1997 and the appellants contend within the Notice of Appeal for an unimproved value of $1,062,000 ($659 per m²).  The sole ground of appeal reads:

"The comparative value of this land far exceeds other land values in Alice Street."

Lynette Winifred Edmonds, who is a resident in "Carrington", furnished evidence in support of the appeal.  Mrs Edmonds believes that the valuation of the "Carrington" land is excessive when compared with the following valuations of sites in Alice Street, The City:

Lots 1-6/BUP106774 – 909 m² - Corner Alice and Edward Streets - unimproved value $1,150,000 ($1,270 per m²) – property known as "Old Mineral House";

Lots 1-2 etc/BUP3411 etc – 5,485 m² - 204 Alice Street - unimproved value $10,400,000 ($1,900 per m²) – property known as "The Gardens";

Lots 1-3/BUP1068 etc – 7,274 m² - 152 Alice Street (Corner Albert Street) - unimproved value $14,500,000 ($2,000 per m²) – property known as "Park Royal Hotel";

Lot 1 on RP 40587 – 455 m² - 140 Alice Street - unimproved value $300,000 ($660 per m²) – property known as "Dunnet Body Works" – ORB Holdings;

Lots 1-36/BUP103388 – 3,204 m² - 132 Alice Street - unimproved value $6,400,000 ($2,000 per m²) – property known as "Quay West".

Mrs Edmonds informed the Court that all the comparison lots are of a similar nature and use except for 140 Alice Street ("Dunnet Body Works") which is valued at $1,152 per m² less than is the valuation of the subject land.  She stressed that the valuation of the subject land is $906 per m² above that of "Old Mineral House", is $275 per m² above that of "The Gardens", is $231 per m² above that of "Park Royal", and $174 per m² above that of "Quay West".
         Mrs Edmonds provided the Court with a copy of a flood report which shows that the subject land has an elevation between 4 metres AHD and 6.5 metres AHD.  The 1974 flood level was 5.5 metres AHD, and it is estimated that the Wivenhoe Dam has reduced the river flood level to 3.8 metres AHD.  Mrs Edmonds also pointed out that there is a convenient supply of public transport in the area of "Carrington" with a City Circle bus passing the units at frequent intervals.  But she also says that the buses create a noise factor and a pollution element.  Taking an overview of the unimproved value comparisons, the flooding problem and the noise and pollution elements, Mrs Edmonds believes that a fair unimproved value of the "Carrington" land is $1,550 per m² - or $2,500,000.
         The valuation under appeal was made by departmental registered valuer George William Lindberg who describes the nature of the "Carrington" land as being of moderate elevation, level with Albert Street at its frontage and rising steeply to a terraced area near the front of the "Carrington" building.
         Mr Lindberg told us that the structural improvements on the land were developed under the conditions of a previous Town Plan which restricted the gross floor area (GFA) to 2,515 m² (23 units ranging in size from 93 m² to 116 m²).  Mr Lindberg points out that under the provisions of the Town Plan effective at the date of valuation (1.10.97) the "Carrington" site had the potential to yield 6,448 m² of GFA, or about 60 units of similar size to the existing units.
         Mr Lindberg has relied for his valuation of the subject land upon the analyses of three sales of sites in Albert, Alice and Margaret Streets, but I do not feel the need to discuss this sales evidence here as there has been no challenge to it by the appellants, nor is there reference to sales evidence within the ground of appeal.
         Mr Lindberg does not consider his valuation of the "Carrington" land to be out of line with that of other sites in Alice Street.  His valuation of "Old Mineral House" land takes into account that this building is listed on the State Heritage Register.  Further, the valuation of "The Gardens" land takes into account that it is 3.4 times larger than is the subject land, has a built GFA of 9,960 m² and if vacant had a potential of 21,940 m² GFA.  The "Park Royal" site is 4.49 times larger than is the subject land with a potential GFA of 28,988 m².  "Quay West" is almost twice the size of the "Carrington" land and the site was developed to a full potential of 12,816 m² GFA in 1995.  Mr Lindberg stressed that the "Dunnet Body Works" site is quite small – being a little over 28% of the size of the subject land.  As such, it is incapable of multi-unit residential development in its own right.  Mr Lindberg says the minimum frontage requirement for this development in this zone is 40 metres and points out that the "Dunnet Body Works" site has a frontage of only 10 metres.
         Mr Lindberg recognises the disabilities raised in evidence by Mrs Edmonds and has valued the land with the recognition of them.-
         I cannot find that the subject valuation is lacking in relativity with that of the other Alice Street sites referred to in evidence, especially when size is taken into account.  It is well recognised that size is an important element in making unimproved value comparisons.  Other things being equal, the larger the site, the lower unimproved value per unit area (per m²) applies. 

In all the circumstances, I cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellants in accordance with the provisions of s.45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 has been discharged. It follows that the appeal be dismissed, and that the unimproved value of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($3,500,000) for Lots 1-23 on BUP5406 (Lot 1 on RP 176286), Parish of North Brisbane, be affirmed.

CH CARTER
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT