Van Amstel v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 135
•8 October 1996
|
BRISBANE
8 OCTOBER 1996
In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll No.: 2750
Local Government: Gold Coast - Albert
(AV95-171)
Rudo and Frouwke A Van Amstel
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Coolangatta)
D E C I S I O N
The respondent has, under the provisions of the Valuation of LandAct 1944, placed a valuation of $200,000 on land owned by the appellants as at a relevant date 1 January 1995. The appellants say that the land ought to be valued at $122,000 and lodged an appeal based on the following grounds:
“1.The valuation is out of relativity with valuation of adjoining property and with sales of other property.
2.The property is situated away from the centre of Beenleigh and away from the main development area.”
Mr. Rudo Van Amstel appeared and gave evidence in support of the appeal whilst Peter Dudley Grennan, a registered valuer in the employment of the Department of Natural Resources (which includes the former Department of Lands) provided his valuation in support of the respondent’s figure.
The subject land is located at the corner of George and Gordon Streets in what Mr. Grennan described as the “western fringe of the Beenleigh Central Business District area”. The land has an area of 809 m² with a frontage of about 20 m to George and about 40 m to Gordon Street. Easy access is available from both streets which are sealed and have kerbing and channelling. George Street is the more significant of the two being an arterial road. Angle parking is available along the George Street frontage of the subject land whilst parallel parking is available along the Gordon Street frontage.
The subject land is zoned “Comprehensive Development” in the town planning scheme for Albert Shire effective at the relevant date of the valuation and was developed with single storey concrete block shops designed for eight separate tenancies.
The appellants main basis of valuation is a property located in Soudan Street adjoining the subject land on its southern boundary, the basic property according to Mr. Van Amstel having been valued by the Chief Executive as at 1 January 1995 in the amount of $47,500. Mr. Van Amstel said that the basic land has an area of 989 m² and comprises two lots and that by reference to this basic property the valuation placed on the subject land is too high.
Mr. Grennan said that the valuation on the Soudan Street property is, in fact, $60,000, however, this is not a matter of importance as Mr. Grennan also explained that this basic property was valued as if it were used for single unit residential purposes and therefore attracted a lower statutory valuation than its market value by virtue of an application of the provisions of s.17 of the statute. If I consider the valuation of this basic property at either $47,500 or $60,000 it is clear to me, that, on the description of the property that I have, this value is substantially lower than all of the other basic property evidence put before me. This supports Mr. Grennan’s evidence that the land was valued for single unit residential purposes. It was Mr. Van Amstel’s evidence, however, that the basic property had been used for commercial purposes by a naturopath for an excess of eighteen months and therefore was able to be compared with the subject land.
Quite clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to have regard for the valuation placed on the Soudan Street property in considering this appeal. The fact that the Chief Executive was apparently in error in applying the protective provisions of s.17 of the Act when placing a valuation on the Soudan Street property is something I must have regard to. I cannot simply disregard such a significant fact as to do so would, if I used this property as a basis, have the effect of placing a residential value on the subject land: a quite erroneous outcome.
Mr. Van Amstel also referred to a property which adjoins the subject in George Street, that is, lots 8 and 9 on RP 8004 which was valued by the Chief Executive at $182,500 that is $225 per m² approximately. Mr. Grennan said that the subject property’s valuation by the Chief Executive is consistent with this basic property in that the subject is on a corner and enjoys and utilises the advantage of that position. Good exposure is available from the subject property across Gordon Street to a large block which has been developed as a McDonald’s fast food outlet, whereas the basic property is an inside lot and does not enjoy such a level of exposure. Mr. Van Amstel’s response to this proposition was to say that the “exposure doesn’t mean a thing”. I cannot accept his expressed view on this. It is apparent from the evidence that the subject property is superior to Mr. Van Amstel’s second basic property.
A further comment on this second basic property was made by Mr. Van Amstel in that he expressed the view that the valuation placed on that basic property was too high.
Section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act provides as follows:
“Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered.”
It was held in Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41 that this section (then section 12(7)) creates a presumption that a value struck by the Valuer-General (now the Chief Executive) is correct. Clearly this applies to the valuation placed on a parcel of land which is the subject of an appeal, however, the presumption also applies to applied valuations such as those referred to in the relativity properties included in Mr. Van Amstel’s statement. Whilst an appellant in Mr. Van Amstel’s position may not cause these applied valuations to actually alter, as he is not in a position to lodge an objection or appeal (vide Kilcoy Shire Council v Brisbane City Council (1970-71) 124 CLR 60), it would be open to him to adduce relevant evidence to attempt to show them to be unsuitable as a bases for valuation. In such an exercise the appellant must discharge the burden of proving that which he asserts to be the case. Mr. Van Amstel did not do this.
The third basic property referred to by Mr. Van Amstel is located on a corner on the opposite side of George Street from the subject and removed further from the Beenleigh Central Business District. Mr. Van Amstel provided no comparative comment concerning the application of this basic property, however, it was Mr. Grennan’s view that this basic property was on the extreme fringe of the Beenleigh Business District and that the valuation placed on that land by the Chief Executive at $162,500 or $213 per m² was in correct relationship with the figure placed on the subject land.
The valuation evidence from the Chief Executive’s side included three sales, the first of which took place in June 1994 for $260,000 and involved a property of 883 m² zoned “Comprehensive Development” located directly opposite the subject land on the other side of George Street. Mr. Grennan analysed the sale price down to an unimproved value of $242 per m² which he applied at $227 per m². He said in evidence that this sale was his main basis and in his valuation wrote that the sale was closely comparable to the subject land though on the better side of George Street. The sale is an inside lot and is narrower and deeper than the subject land, such features showing that the subject land is superior. Unfortunately, Mr. Van Amstel did not know this property and provided no comment on it.
This was not the case, however, with regard to Mr. Grennan’s second sale which is located in York Street, Beenleigh, has an area of 945 m² the sale taking place in July 1994 for a sale price of $245,000. Mr. Grennan analysed the sale price down to an unimproved value of $249 per m² applied by him at $210 per m² following the deduction of improvements in the form of a highset timber dwelling at a figure of $10,000. It was Mr. Van Amstel’s understanding that the house had been sold for removal at $45,000: information supplied to him by third party. Mr. Grennan’s evidence on this issue is to be preferred, however, as he had a conversation with the purchasers who said that the house had been given to the builder of the Medical Centre which was developed on the land after purchase, or to a surveyor. It is unclear as to whether there was a quid pro quo, however, I will adopt Mr Grennan’s analysis for present purposes.
Mr. Van Amstel expressed the view with respect to Mr. Grennan’s second sale that it was substantially superior to the subject being located far closer to the centre of Beenleigh near a busy shopping area and having the advantage of a car park nearby. Evidence concerning the car park is unclear as no direct evidence was given concerning it, however, even assuming the proximity of car parking to the sale property, the situation of that sale cannot in my appreciation of the evidence be described as being superior to the subject. George Street is clearly a more significant commercial thoroughfare as is York Street and whilst City Road which is removed one allotment only from the sale property is, at its George Street end, the commercial centre of Beenleigh, the sale block enjoys no exposure to that street nor is direct access available to that land from City Road.
Mr. Grennan’s third sale is located on the corner of James and Crete Streets, has an area of 1432 m², is zoned “Comprehensive Development” and sold for $330,000 in August 1994. The land which was unimproved excepting for clearing at the sale of date has since been developed and is leased to the National Australia Bank. Mr. Grennan analysed the sale to a figure of $329,000 or $230 per m² which he applied at $210 per m². In his valuation he wrote that the sale is inferior to the subject land due to the sales location on a road of lesser exposure than George Street and that adjoining land used by the Local and State Governments, that is Court House, Library, Council offices and Police Station, do not compliment the commercial activity of the sale land. Mr. Van Amstel said that James Street is one of the busiest streets in Beenleigh and the installation of traffic lights near the sale land indicates the volume of traffic that would utilise James Street, such traffic coming from Beaudesert, Tamborine Village and Mt. Tamborine. He says that James Street is “far far superior” to George Street but that given that the sale land is larger than the subject, he thinks that a similar value ought to be placed on the subject. This would produce a valuation of about $170,000.
I think that Mr. Van Amstel overstates the significance of traffic flow along James Street as the presence of traffic is only one factor in evaluating the position of a piece of land. I accept the comparison made by Mr Grennan.
The valuation evidence provided by Mr Grennan is the better evidence placed before me. Mr Van Amstel’s evidence does not move me to allow the appeal. The valuation of the Chief Executive in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000) is affirmed.
RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
1
0