The Valuer-General v Di Primo
[1992] QLAC 38
•30 September 1992
|
BRISBANE
30th September, 1992
Re:Appeal against a decision of the Land Court -
AV90-247.
The Valuer-General
ats
Guistino Di Primo
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is brought by the Valuer-General against the determination of the Land Court which fixed the unimproved value of land owned by the respondent and situated at 175 Flinders Street East, Townsville, in the sum of $150,000. The valuation was made under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The date at which the value is required to be ascertained is 31st March, 1989 (the relevant date). This parcel of land has an area of 764 square metres with a frontage of 8.2 metres to Flinders Street East, a depth of 50.3 metres to Melton Terrace where the frontage is 20 metres. The land is zoned "Tourist Facilities" under the provisions of the City of Townsville Town Planning Scheme and is developed with a shop building to the Flinders Street East frontage. Like the adjoining allotments with frontage to Flinders Street East, the subject is a difficult topographical site. In its unimproved state it had a steep rise from the Flinders Street East frontage to Melton Place. Good vehicular and pedestrian access is available from Flinders Street East with difficult pedestrian access only from Melton Terrace. The Flinders Street East frontage has been excavated for the shop and the rear of the site has been terraced.
It was the case for the appellant in the Land Court that the site had been levelled to a point 17 metres from the front alignment where the shop building ends. The Valuer-General has valued this and all of the sites in this vicinity to a standard depth of 25 metres. The learned Member arrived at his decision as to the appropriate value of the subject land in the following way:-
"8.2m frontage to Flinders St @ $21,000/m $172,200
Less allowance for shallow depth 35% $ 60,270
$111,930
Less cost of excavation of developed site
and retaining wall (as per Mr Eales' valuation) $ 8,900$103,030
Add 624m2 steep rear land @ $75/m2 $ 46,800$149,830
I adopt an unimproved value of $150,000. "
In the Land Court, the valuer for the owner, Mr G.W. Eales, adopted a rate of $18,000 per metre frontage to Flinders Street East and Mr James, the District Valuer, adopted a rate of $21,000 per metre of frontage. Mr Eales made an allowance of 35 per cent for shallow depth; $8,900 for the cost of excavation and a retaining wall; and he valued the balance of the steep rear land of 624 square metres at $50 per square metre. Mr James made an allowance of 20 per cent for shallow depth to 25 metres; the sum of $15,600 for costs of excavation to 25 metres and retaining of rock wall; and adopted a value of $100 per square metre for the 560 square metres of balance land to arrive at his final valuation of $176,000. In the result the learned Member adopted the frontage valuation of $21,000 per metre applied by Mr James. He has adopted the allowance for shallow depth of 35 per cent and the cost of excavation and of the retaining wall as adopted by Mr Eales. For the rear land he has adopted a rate of $75 per square metre. The only issue under challenge before this Court is the allowance for shallow depth, cost of excavation and the cost of the retaining wall.
The case for the appellant Valuer-General is given through the evidence of valuer, Mr S.L. Lagerroth, an officer of the Department of Lands who has carried out his own investigations in the absence of Mr James who has retired from the Department. Mr Lagerroth says he has undertaken his own investigations and considered the contours shown upon the Townsville City Council Sewerage Plan for the allotments fronting Flinders Street East from Denham Street to Wickham Street which includes the subject allotment, a copy of which was tendered in evidence before the Court below and forms part of the record of appeal (p. 135). He is satisfied that if this land was to be developed at the relevant date, a prudent person would excavate to a depth of 25 metres and not to the depth of 17 metres which has actually occurred on the land. Mr Lagerroth discusses in detail in his evidence the implication of the various contour lines and spot levels which appear on the sewerage map from the frontage of the subject to the 5.8 metre contour and how he has applied this information in satisfying himself that the proper depth factor is 25 metres and that the appropriate allowance for shallow depth is 20 per cent. He has accepted the figure of $55 per cubic metre for the cost of excavation which was adopted by the Court below. The cost of the retaining wall at $250 per metre was not contested in the Land Court and he has adopted this figure. For the balance land, he has accepted the rate per square metre which has been applied by the Court to arrive at a final result of $163,000 made up as follows:"8.2m @ $21,000/mf = $172,200
Less 20% S/D to 25 metres = $34,440
$137,760
Less Cost of Excavation to 25
metres and 8.2m x 1/2 of 2.2m x
25m x $55/m3 = $12,403
Retaining Wall: 2.2m x 8.1
@ $250/m = $ 4,455 $ 16,858
$120,902
Plus Balance Land 560m2 @ $75/m2 = $ 42,000$162,902
ADOPT $163,000 "
There is a minor error in his calculation of the retaining wall which Mr Lagerroth points out and that is that he has adopted 8.1 metres as the width which should, on the evidence, be 8.2 metres. This would only require an adjustment of $55 and is of no real significance in the final result.
Mr Lagerroth also tenders particulars of valuations of other parcels in this area. He says that a depth factor of 25 metres has been applied in all of this area and the valuations of these parcels as at 31st March, 1989 were not challenged or disturbed on any objection or appeal.
Evidence was given by the respondent, Mr Di Primo, who tendered a number of documents which mainly dealt with the difficulties he is experiencing in conducting his business in the building upon the subject land. The lack of trade is causing him great financial hardship with demands for payment of Land Tax and rates. He says that his brother gave him $16,000 to repair the upstairs area of the shop but it was necessary for him to expend this money to rectify drainage problems. He says that the building has been declared under the Heritage Building Protection Act 1990 and he believed that the Government would reduce the value of the property because it cannot be developed to its full potential. He provides some information on the possible cost of excavation of the rock from the whole of the land. He speaks of the difficulties in parking in Flinders Street East and of the listing of the property with real estate agents for sale without success.
We sympathise with the appellant concerning the financial difficulties which he faces. It has been difficult for him to argue his case with his restricted grasp of the duties placed upon the Valuer-General under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 in that the Valuer-General must look at each and every parcel in the City and arrive at a value of each parcel of land at the relevant date, assuming that the improvements upon the land did not exist. The Valuer-General cannot, under the Act, reduce a valuation upon the grounds of impecunosity or other matters which are personal to the owner.
We have considered the evidence in the Record of Appeal in the Court below and we now have the benefit of the additional evidence given by Mr Lagerroth and are satisfied that the valuation approach which he has adopted is sound and we accept it.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the decision of the Land Court is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at One hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars ($163,000).
(W.C. Lee) J.Judge of the Supreme Court
(D.J. Barry)
President of the Land Court
(R.E. Wenck)
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0