Thurley v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 113

[1995] QLC 113

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

29 September 1995

Re:     Appeal against a valuation -
  Redcliffe City Council.
  AV95-167.
Valuation of Land Act 1944.

MJ Thurley and Others
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N

(Hearing at Redcliffe)

This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, of the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 77237, parish of Redcliffe, in the sum of $148,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 1 January 1995.
           The appellants are contending for a valuation of $92,000 based on grounds going to relativity. 
           Lot 2 is a rectangular-shaped parcel of 617m² situated at 138 Hornibrook Esplanade, Clontarf.  The lot has a frontage of about 16.8 metres.  It is zoned "Residential C".  The lot prior to this valuation contained a building providing two flats.  It was vacant at the relevant date for valuation purposes but has subsequently been developed with two units of brick construction, both overlooking the Esplanade. It is agreed between Mr MJ Thurley, who appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the owners/appellants and Mr TS Alexander, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, that under the zoning a maximum of four units might be constructed on the site, although it is readily agreed that a purchaser may develop the land in the manner in which it has been developed by the existing owners.
           The appellants are in Court on grounds which go to former relativity of this lot with values applied to neighbouring lots.  The subject lot is an inside lot, one lot removed to the west from the intersection of Maine Road and Hornibrook Esplanade.  The corner site which is also zoned "Residential C" is used for commercial purposes (shops) and was formerly valued (1993 Annual Valuation) at $102,500.  This site for the purposes of this Annual Valuation is valued at $165,000.  The lot has an area of 615m².  The subject site which adjoins was formerly valued at $92,000 and for the purposes of this Annual Valuation is valued at $148,000.  The next three lots (Nos. 136, 134 and 132) are valued respectively at $94,000, $92,000 and $95,000, which sums are a rewrite of values applied as at 1993 and consistent with the sum of $92,000 formerly applied to the subject site.  It is agreed that the last three sites were in 1993, and have continued to be, used for single unit residential dwelling house purposes notwithstanding the zoning of the lots as "Residential C".  The reasons for this are as follows:

(a)Under s.17 of the Act, any land used exclusively for single unit residential purposes must be valued as such and without regard to any potential in the land for a higher and better use, for example, for multi unit purposes.

(b)The evidence of Mr Alexander who has been responsible for valuing the whole of the frontage lands of the peninsula for the purposes of this Annual Valuation, said that sales of land for single unit residential purposes demonstrated no increase in value between 1993 and January 1995.

In explaining the reasons why the subject site should increase in value when formerly the land was used for the same purpose for which it is now used, he said that in 1993 the market displayed no difference in value between these types of lots for single unit or multi-unit purposes.  For the purposes of the current valuation, he said that the market showed a difference which has been applied in valuing the subject land.
           In view of the exceptions contained in the provisions of s.17, no purpose can be served by further consideration of the values applied to Lots Nos 136, 134 or 132 on Hornibrook Esplanade.  The valuation of the subject land in view of its use as multi-unit land falls to be determined under general rules applying to market value, that is, the land must be valued for its highest and best use.  There is no disagreement as to this use.  The question is its value. 
           Mr Alexander put details of two sales before the Court in support of his assessment of value.  These are of land of comparable zoning.  I propose to discuss the second sale first which is used in support of the first sale.  Sale No. 2 is of a 678m² parcel situated at 49 Margate Parade, Margate.  It is zoned "Residential C".  It sold in April 1994 for $245,000 with a residence, clearing and fencing.  The home was removed and a block of six units put on the site.  The sale analysed to a value of $245,000.  The applied value is $237,000 which is equivalent to a value per square metre of $350.  The sale land overlooks the Esplanade and beach to Moreton Island.  There is no disagreement that the location and aspect of the sale land is superior to the Esplanade aspect of Clontarf.  Sale No. 1 is of Lot 6 on RP 51637 situated on the corner of Hornibrook Esplanade and Young Street, Clontarf, to the west of the subject lot.  This lot has an area of 551m².  It is zoned "Residential D" and sold in July 1994 for $160,000.  At the date of sale the lot was improved with a residence, clearing and fencing.  The home was removed and a new single unit residential dwelling constructed on the site.  The sale analysed to an unimproved value of $155,000.  Both Mr Alexander and Mr Thurley agree that the sale land has the same aspect and is comparable with the subject land.  However, as the sale lot is a corner site with no fill requirements, Mr Alexander saw it as superior to the subject site.  For the sale land, a value of $155,000 or $281 per square metre, is applied as vacant land compared with the application of a rate per square metre of $240 to the subject site.  Sale No. 2 is a superior lot but has an applied value of $350 per square metre.  The only difficulty I have with this evidence is the use made of the first sale.  However, in view of the values (based on sales) applied to single unit residential sites neighbouring the subject land, it is obvious that the vendor had priced Sale No. 1 as multi-unit land and that the purchasers were prepared to pay that value to acquire it for redevelopment for single unit residential purposes.  Accordingly, I see no reasons to disturb or disregard the application of this sale.
           In the circumstances I find that there are no grounds to alter the applied value.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

(DM White)             
  President of the Land Court