Van Amstel v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 39

[1998] QLC 39

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

20 March 1998

Re:                 Determination of Unimproved Value -
  Local Government:  Gold Coast - Albert
  Ref. AV96-86 and AV97-172.

Rudo and Frouwke A van Amstel  
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

These are appeals against determinations by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $200,000 ($250 per square metre) for a parcel of land described as Lot 1 on RP 154613, Parish of Boyd, County of Ward, as at the relevant dates of 1 January 1996, and 1 October 1996. The land is situated at the corner of George and Gordon Streets, Beenleigh, contains an area of 809 square metres and is zoned "Comprehensive Development" under the provisions of the Albert Shire Council Town Planning Scheme which was gazetted on 24 February 1995.  The land is designated "Central Business District Use" under the Beenleigh Development Control Plan 1 - Preferred Dominant Land Uses.  It is improved with a row of single storey shops of concrete block construction, designed for eight tenants.  The appellants contend within their notices of appeal for unimproved values of $120,000 (as at 1 January 1996) and $180,000 (as at 1 October 1996).
           Mr van Amstel furnished evidence in support of the appeals.  He says that the subject valuations are out of line with a number of other valuations within the Beenleigh Central Business area.  Without listing all of the unimproved value comparison parcels presented to the Court by Mr van Amstel in this decision, the most relevant comparison blocks appear to be:

No 50 George Street - 809 square metres - unimproved value $182,500 - or      $226 per square metre.

This site adjoins the subject land on the east, comprises two regularly shaped lots, and is similar in area, frontage and depth.  It is, of course, an inside lot without the advantage of being, like the subject land, a corner site. 

No 58 George Street - 935 square metres - unimproved value $180,000 - or $193 per square metre.

This site is closer to the main business intersection in Beenleigh, but is of irregular shape with rear access to Soudan Street.  It has proportionately less frontage to George Street than has the subject land.

No 60 George Street - 721 square metres - unimproved value $157,500 - or      $218 per square metre.

This land again has proportionately less frontage than the subject land to George Street, and again extends to Soudan Street at the rear.  Mr Van Amstel says that the valuation of 60 George Street is too low, and should be higher.

No 51 George Street - 1566 square metres - unimproved value $280,000 - or $179 per square metre.

This is a corner site as is the subject land, and is very much larger than it.  The sale land also has a proportionately lesser frontage to George Street and a greater depth.

No 11 Soudan Street - 989 square metres - unimproved value $47,500 - or        $48 per square metre as at 30 June 1996.
           and
           Unimproved value of $120,000 - or $121 per square metre as at 30 June            1997.

This land adjoins the subject property at the rear and is also a corner lot with a frontage to Gordon Street.  There is a dwelling house erected on this site which is used for business by a naturopath.  It transpired in evidence from the Chief Executive during the case that the Department had originally valued this land as land used exclusively for the purpose of a single unit dwelling house, and the concessional valuation was removed after knowledge about the use of the dwelling house was obtained by the Department. It is for this reason that its unimproved value was increased from $47,500 to $120,000.  Mr van Amstel concedes on the basis of this evidence, that the appellants' 1 January 1996 valuation estimate of $120,000 should be increased to $180,000.
           Valuation evidence from the Chief Executive was called from Departmental Registered Valuer, Andrew John Dalgarno.  Mr Dalgarno was not responsible for the valuations under appeal, but he has reviewed them and he is satisfied that they are fair and reasonable.  Mr Dalgarno considers there to be no valuation relativity problem within the area, and says that the subject valuations are not lacking in relativity with the valuations cited by Mr van Amstel.
           I am satisfied that the subject valuations are not anomalous with those referred to in evidence by Mr van Amstel, especially when elements of comparison such as frontages, depths, situation and corner influence is considered.  That ordinarily would be the end of the matter.  But the Court was somewhat surprised to learn during Mr van Amstel's case that my learned colleague, Mr Scott, heard and determined the unimproved value of the same parcel of land as at the earlier relevant date of 1 January 1995.  Mr Scott's finding in a written decision was also for an unimproved value of $200,000.  I say I am surprised because Mr van Amstel made no reference to this decision in his written submission placed before the Court.
           Both appeals are dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 154613, Parish of Boyd, is determined at $200,000 as at both relevant dates of 1 January 1996, and 1 October 1996.

(CH Carter)      
  Member of the Land Court