Youngson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2001] QLC 69
•18 July 2001
LAND COURT BRISBANE 18 July 2001
[2001] QLC 69
Re:Appeal against annual valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Property ID No: 1203383 Local Government: BCC-Taringa (AV00-373)
Margaret A and Ronald T Youngson v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
D E C I S I O N
Background:
This matter relates to land at 3 Martin Lane, Indooroopilly, and described as Lots 23 and 24 on RP 23386, Parish of Indooroopilly. The subject land is located about 6 kilometres radially from the Brisbane GPO, and is a corner parcel at the corner of Lambert Road (109 Lambert Road) and Martin Lane. Access to the land is good, primarily from Martin Lane, and all normal utility services are available. Both Lambert Road and Martin Lane are bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling.
The subject land is zoned Residential A under the City of Brisbane Town Plan of June 1987, and current at the date of valuation of 1 October 1999. Under that plan the subject land is classified as part of the “Heritage and Character building areas”, designated by amendments to the Town Plan of 6 October 1995 and 28 July 1997. The land is currently part of the “low density residential area” of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 of 30 October 2000, and is designated as Part of a Demolition Control Precinct. The City Development Plan 1999, a prelude to the Brisbane City Plan 2000, was on display at the date of valuation of 1 October 1999. The key issues are the impact of traffic and other environmental issues, the impact of planning, relativity and comparison of sales.
On 27 March 2000 the chief executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $250,000 (the valuation at 1 October 1998 had been $175,000). Following an objection the chief executive confirmed that figure on 1 July 2000. The appellants had objected claiming an unimproved value of $170,000.
Following refusal of their objection the appellants then appealed to the Court claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $190,000. Ronald T Youngson, a registered valuer, appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr J O’Rourke, Principal Legal Officer appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Dennis John Rylands, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation.
The Nature of the land -
The subject land is a regular shaped corner parcel of width 20 metres to Lambert Road, and depth 50 metres along Martin Lane. The land is of medium elevation, rising about 5 metres from Lambert Road, and is not subject to flooding. The subject land is located in a prestige locality surrounded by good quality homes. The subject land has a weatherboard dwelling (circa 1930), which has been recently extended towards Martin Lane.
The subject land looks across Lambert Road to the north-west to a small open space park, behind which is the grounds and facilities of the Taringa Soccer Club. The Soccer Clubhouse is located at the north-western corner of the soccer grounds, which are in a general low spot in the topography of the area.
In order to provide privacy, the appellants have constructed a concrete block wall and retaining wall, and protecting trees along the Lambert Road frontage. Mr Youngson advises that the filling, boulders, wall and trees cost in the order of $5,000 for the concrete block wall, and about another $500 for the boulder wall and a further two metres of filling (about 100 cubic metres).
Environmental issues -
There are two main environmental issues which the appellants argue cause major disabilities to the subject land:
2.1Impact of traffic -
The major impact argued by Mr Youngson is the very heavy nature of traffic along Lambert Road, particularly during peak hours. Mr Youngson argues that Lambert Road is in fact a major traffic route for traffic to and from the University of Queensland, and also an alternative traffic route for commuters to the city from the western suburbs. Mr Youngson provides daily traffic counts from the Brisbane City Council for 1986 and 1988. Mr Youngson argues that traffic numbers have increased considerably in subsequent years.
The traffic patterns disclose that of the in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day passing to and from Clarence Road along Lambert Road, two thirds of those pass the subject land in Lambert Road, while about one third passes along Harts Road to the south of the subject land. Those figures support Mr Youngson’s opinion that Lambert Road is a very busy connecting road.
Mr Rylands agrees with that conclusion, noting also that Lambert Road is particularly busy with parents transporting children to the large private school (St Peter’s Lutheran College) close by to the east of the subject land. The impact of noise, pollution and glare from traffic lights are all agreed to have a major impact upon the land, and Mr Rylands argues that he has allowed for that in his valuation.
2.2Impacts of the soccer club -
The impact from the soccer club immediately to the north-west of the subject land occurs both from noise from the participants, and also from lights and glare from nine sets of floodlights surrounding the two playing fields. The soccer club is a large active organization with use of the grounds and facilities extending for six nights of each week during the season, up until 10 pm each evening. The glare from the floodlights penetrates the trees along Lambert Road, such that internal rooms within the dwelling on the subject land required the blinds to be drawn for most of the time.
Mr Youngson argues that the noise from players and supporters during games and training, and also patrons of the clubhouse dining room, all are major intrusions. Mr Youngson argues that the noise is accentuated by the loud speakers used by the soccer club to broadcast music and advertising during games. Mr Rylands concedes that he had not visited the area at night during games or during training, but feels that such broadcast may not necessarily be aggressive, although he concedes it would be irritating or annoying.
However Mr Rylands argues that the land is to be valued under section 3(1)(b) as if it was vacant land. Accordingly he concludes that any new building which might be then erected upon the vacant land could accommodate the impacts of the noise and glare from the floodlights in its design. From that observation Mr Rylands would appear to be conceding that the intrusions from the soccer clubs are disabilities which need to be addressed, and for which he has allowed in his valuation.
Planning Issues -
A key concern for Mr Youngson is the current designation of the existing dwelling on the subject land as “Character Building”. From personal enquiries with officers of the Brisbane City Council (“the Council”), Mr Youngson is of the opinion that the existing dwelling could not be relocated or demolished. As such he therefore concludes that the subject land has a disability for further development something akin to “Heritage Listing”. Mr Youngson is aware that Heritage Listing of a property is seen to restrict the use of the land, and he refers to Court precedents directing that such restrictions must be allowed for in any valuation of property (Valuer-General v. Queensland Club (1990-91) 13 QLCR 207; and Ballow Chambers Ltd v. Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 422).
To support that conclusion, Mr Youngson advises that he had been required to amend the recent extensions to the dwelling in 2000, in order to maintain the “Character” of the existing dwelling in the new works. The reason given for him for that requirement in the building approval by the Council was that the dwelling is designated as a “Character Building” for preservation. Mr Rylands suggests that direction from the Council building department was not likely to have been seen as necessary under planning legislation. Mr Rylands notes that there has been no planning application lodged for approval in 2000 by the appellants.
Mr Rylands disagrees that the dwelling could not be moved, noting that he had personally discussed with subject land with a senior planner of the Council, Mr Greg Jones. Mr Jones had personally inspected the subject dwelling and concluded that the Council would not have refused or prevented demolition of the dwelling, under any application to waiver the need for town planning consent to remove the building. However Mr Jones was not available for examination, and I have only the personal recollection of Mr Rylands and Mr Youngson to assist me on that matter.
Mr Rylands advises that Mr Jones agreed that the subject dwelling was a house that could be classified as a character house, but it was only one of two such character style houses in that part of Lambert Road. Mr Jones had explained that the key criteria for designation as a “Character Building” for preservation, related to the presence of a “streetscape” to that effect. Mr Rylands advises that the importance of the ‘streetscape” in character buildings
followed directions from the Courts about 1995, when the Town Plan was amended to include the “Character Buildings” provisions.
Mr Rylands further advises that while the subject land is currently within the Demolition Control Precinct under the Brisbane City Plan 2000, his advice from Council offices is that the new forthcoming Local Area Plan for that area is intended to remove that area from the demolition control requirement. Mr Rylands argues that would also include Munro Street to the rear of the subject land. Mr Rylands advises that the Council treat each “character building” application individually on the merits of each case.
To support his advice that the Council now intended to prevent demolition of “character buildings” Mr Youngson notes newspaper reports of cases where owners have been prevented from demolition of such houses. However a reading of that reporting would suggest that the Court decision in favour of the Council related more to the failure by the owner to abide by the planning approval issued by the Council, rather than any definitive direction by the Court in respect of the “character building” designation. There was no specific precedence on that matter identified by either the appellant or the respondent.
In respect of the planning policy on “Heritage and Character Building” both parties were familiar with Planning Policy 7.33 of the Town Plan. Mr Youngson also sought further support for his conclusion that the subject dwelling could not be removed in the experience of an adjoining property to the rear of the subject land in Munro Street. That dwelling on Lots 1 and 2 on RP 122577 was refused permission to be removed or demolished as it was a “Character Building”. The owners had to retain the façade of the outside of the building, which Mr Youngson agrees has been seen as an example of a Spanish Mission style (circa 1930).
Mr Youngson further argues that if “streetscape” is an important criteria there is a character house adjoining the subject land in Lambert Road, and another highset Queenslander style adjoining to the south at the corner of Martin Lane and Munro Street. Mr Rylands disagrees noting that dwellings on the opposite side of Martin Lane are of brick construction, and not in keeping with a “character building” streetscape.
Relativity -
To support his valuation Mr Rylands draws support from parcels adjoining the subject land in Lambert Road, which he notes reflects unimproved values for Lots 21 and 22 of area 1,014 m2 at $225,000, and Lot 20 of area 506 m2 at $170,000. Mr Rylands note that both of those parcels suffer the same disabilities as noise and lights from the traffic, and also the soccer club, but do not have the advantage of the corner location of the subject land.
Mr Rylands further notes that unimproved values are even higher in Munro Street to the rear of the subject land, where those lots are further removed from the traffic noise and lights. The parcel immediately adjoining at the corner of Martin Lane and Munro Street (Lots 35 and 36 of area 984 m2) is valued at $320,000, and the adjoining parcel now Lot 1 on SP 116319 of area of 1,518 m2 is valued at $480,000. (Exhibit 4) There has been no objection from any of those owners, and Mr Rylands argues those values support the unimproved value of the subject land at $250,000.
In explaining how he assessed the valuations, Mr Rylands explained that he had formed the opinion that relativity had been inappropriate in that area. Accordingly Mr Rylands had personally manually changed quite a few properties in the area, including the subject land, in order to better reflect true relativity, and he had individually valued each parcel in the area. Because of those individual assessments some parcels in Indooroopilly had increased by up to 100 percent in some areas.
Mr Youngson agrees with those comparisons, but also seeks relativity with his Sale 2 at 53 Lambert Road ($145,000), which he argues has similar problems with traffic noise along Lambert Road. Mr Youngson notes that Sale 2 adjoins a large colonial house that has “character building” features.
Comparison of Sales -
To support his estimate of the unimproved value, Mr Youngson argues only sales of lands designated as “heritage” or “character buildings” should be considered. He provides the following sales of such properties, all with comparable utility services available:
· Sale 1 – (103 Lambert Road – Lot 21 and 22 on RP 23386). This is the adjoining improved parcel of area 1,014 m2 which is zoned Residential
A. The sale has similar slope as the subject land, and is also impacted by similar traffic noise, and also noise and lights from the soccer grounds. The sale is developed with a similar “character house” (circa 1930) which has been recently refurbished. Mr Youngson estimates the
added value of the improvements including a new swimming pool and paving at $131,855.
The sale sold in April 1999 for $315,000, from which Mr Youngson concludes the unimproved value of the land at $183,145.
· Sale 2 – (53 Lambert Road – Lot 1 on RP 68987). This is an improved parcel of area 812 m2 which is zoned Residential B R1. The regular shaped parcel was developed with a timber medium set dwelling of floor area about 110 m2, and possibly of post-1945 construction. Mr Youngson provides an added value of the improvements at $55,050.
The sale sold in February 1999 for $215,000, from which is concluded an unimproved value of the land at $159,950. Mr Youngson notes that its applied unimproved value at 1 October 1999 was $145,000.
· Sale 3 – (50 Hunter Street – Lot 7 on SP 114567). This is a sale of vacant land of area 700 m2 of Residential A land. The sale falls gently from Hunter Street to the north at its rear boundary. The sale is hatchet shaped, and sold in June 1999 for $200,000.
· Sale 4 – (52 Hunter Street – Lot 6 on SP 114567). This is a 450 m2 vacant Residential A near regularly shaped parcel.
The sale sold in February 2000 for $220,000.
Sales 3 and 4 are adjoining parcels, and are located in a prime residential area removed from busy Lambert Road. Neither parcel is noted as “character housing”, and neither are impacted by the soccer ground. Mr Youngson sees Sales 3 and 4 as in a far superior location than the subject land.
Mr Youngson argues that his Sale 1 is the most relevant sale as it was well tested in the market place, and has similar disabilities with the subject land. Because the improvements had been heavily renovated Mr Youngson argues that it was basically in a new condition at the sale. Using the nearest replacement rates applicable from Cordell Cost Guide, and applying only 10 percent depreciation and obsolescence factor, Mr Youngson determines his added value of the improvements. Mr Youngson gets some assistance from his Sale 2, but notes that was Residential B R1 land, although it is currently used and valued as a single unit dwelling. Mr Youngson notes that there are some home units across Lambert Road from Sale 2 which would have an impact on the sale as a single house site.
To support his valuation, Mr Rylands provides the following sales of Residential A vacant land.
· Sale 1 – (144 Waverley Road, Taringa - Lot 2 on RP 63224). This is a 668 m2 regular shaped parcel, below road level, and one lot removed from a traffic round-about at the intersection of Waverley Road and Taringa Parade. There is a bus stop at the door of the sale, and subsequent to sale an old dwelling has been moved onto the site. The
sale is smaller and inferior to the subject land, and is located in an inferior location.
The sale sold in December 1999 for $150,000, was analysed at $148,000 and has been applied at $150,000.
· Sale 2 – (52 Hunter Street - Lot 6 on SP 114567). This is the same sale as Mr Youngson’s Sale 4, and Mr Rylands has spoken to the builder of the new residence who states that retaining and levelling costs to level the site totalled $30,000, in addition to which piling is now required. The sale is smaller and far inferior to the subject land.
The sale sold in February 1999 for $220,000, which was analysed at
$219,000, and has been applied at $200,000.
· Sale 3 – (26 Dennis Street – Lots 20 and 21 on RP 23407). This is an 809 m2 regular shaped parcel of low to medium elevation, subsequently developed with one large house. The sale is in a superior position but is smaller in area. It was primarily purchased with a chamferboard dwelling in March 1999 for $319,000, and was resold in February 2000 for $337,000. After allowing an extra $5,000 for demolition, and less improvements, the sale was analysed at $341,000, and was applied at
$280,000 (1/10/99) and later at $300,000 (1/10/2000).
· Sale 4 – (9 Carnoustie Court – Lot 44 on RP 187366). This is a 1024 m2 moderately sloping parcel of medium elevation, located in a cul-de-sac close to the Long Pocket Golf Course and well below road level. Overall the sale is seen as superior to the subject land.
The sale sold in January 1999 for $329,000, which was analysed at
$328,000, and has been applied at $305,000.
· Sale 5– (20 McCaul Street, Taringa – Lot 47 on RP 49358). This is a 713 m2 elevated regular shaped parcel falling steeply from front to rear. The sale is in a good quality area, is smaller than the subject land, but seen overall as similar.
The sale sold in November 1998 for $260,000, was analysed at
$259,000, and been applied at $249,000.
Mr Rylands concedes that Waverley Road at his Sale 1 is not as busy as Lambert Road, but argues that area of Taringa is an inferior quality location to the subject land. Mr Youngson argues that Mr Rylands Sales 3 and 4 are in far superior and more prestige localities, and comparisons with those areas provide no fair relativity. He notes also that all of Mr Rylands five sales are unaffected
by the heavy traffic experienced on Lambert Road, while Mr Rylands argues that even though his Sales 1 and 2 do not suffer from the same traffic problems as the subject land, both of his sales would hear the traffic noise along Lambert Road.
Mr Rylands notes that his Sale 3 (26 Dennis Street) is a late sale, and is supplied only as a support sale. However he argues that Sale supports the unimproved value of the subject land at $250,000. Mr Rylands also concedes that his Sale 1 is the most comparable in relation to traffic noise, although he agrees noise is less at his Sale 1 than at the subject land. Mr Rylands concedes that the existing retaining wall on the subject land may have reduced the noise levels when he visited the subject land.
Mr Rylands rejects the use of Mr Youngson’s Sales 1 and 2 as those are improved sales with all of the problems of accurately assessing the added value of the improvements. Mr Rylands also argues that comparisons with Mr Youngson’s applied value of his Sale 3, (190,000) would not support his estimate of the subject land at $190,000, as Sale 3 is a hatchet shaped parcel with less privacy than the subject land.
In comparing parcels of 1000 m2 in the general Indooroopilly area, Mr
Rylands argues that values of the order of $250,000 to $300,000 are common. Mr Rylands is aware of a sale at 38 Finney Road, Indooroopilly for $107,500 for 868 m2, but rejects that sale as being hatchet shaped and in an inferior area, with multi-unit developments nearby. He argues that is no comparison with the subject land.
Decision:
The nature of the land -
In respect of the nature of the land there is no difference between the parties, except perhaps the acoustic dampening effect of the current concrete block wall and retaining along Lambert Road. In making his comparisons, and allowing for the intrusive nature of the traffic noise and lighting from the soccer ground, Mr Rylands may have been partly influenced by his perception of the dampened noise level on the subject land. In the absence of that improvement, the noise intensity was likely to have been greater.
In respect of the nature of the traffic along Lambert Road I would agree with both valuers that traffic intrusion at the subject land would be considerably greater than in Waverley Road at Mr Rylands’ Sale 1.
Planning issues -
In considering the potential impacts of the “Heritage and Character Buildings” designation in the Town Plan, I have different understandings of its implementations by Mr Youngson and Mr Rylands. Both appear to have been advised by Council officers, each to a different understanding.
In seeking clarification of that legislation I note that section 7.2.1 of the Town Plan relevant states:
“7.2.1. Council recognises that heritage and character buildings can contribute significantly to a neighbourhood streetscape and should be retained where possible. Accordingly, proposals involving the demolition or removal of existing heritage and character buildings, particularly traditional character housing, will be subject to the consent of Council.”
I note further that Planning Policy 7.3.3 further clarifies the intentions of the Council in respect of heritage and character buildings, where it said relevantly in respect of the aim of the policy in section 1.0 of the amendment of 3 April 1998:
“1.0. Aim of the Policy. Hence, the preservation of the existing housing stock and other existing buildings will be encouraged where they are of heritage significance or important to the visual character of a neighbourhood streetscape.”
Planning Policy 7.3.3 was further amended on 19 March 1999 to read in part:
“2.0 Demolition of any building which is on the Register of Heritage and Character Buildings requires Town Planning consent. Granting of consent for demolition or removal of a building is limited to particular circumstances. A waiver of the need for Town Planning consent may be granted in limited circumstances.
3.0 Streetscape
For the purpose of this policy comprises:
·Topography, land forms and vegetation
·Street arrangements and patterns
·Street widths (including arrangement of carriageways, paths, verges, etc
·Property shapes and sizes
·Street trees and planting
·Various other items in the streets (bus stops, lights and street furniture)
·Housing types and size.
A Character Building is any building which was originally constructed prior to 1940 (whether subsequently altered or not) which is an example of one of more of the architectural styles common within Brisbane prior to 1940.”
In respect of an application for waiver of the need for Town Planning consent, directions provided in section 4.0 of the amended Policy 7.3.3 relevantly states:
“4.0 Application for Waiver. An application for waiver of the need for town planning consent will be assessed by code assessment. Waiver of the need for town planning consent will be granted where:
·the building does not constitute a heritage or character building; or
·the extent of demolition proposed is minor and
- unlikely to have any adverse effect on the heritage significance of the building; and
- unlikely to have any significant adverse effect on the appearance of the building as viewed from the street; or
the building is structurally unsound and not reasonably capable of being structurally sound.”
Those matters were considered by the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland in Mills v. Brisbane City Council [2000] QPEC 49, 25 August 2000, unreported. In that matter the demolition of two old character houses was proposed in Gympie Road. In considering the potential impact of such removal, Quirk J said at page 4:
“Mr Allom conceded that the houses in question are found within a small group of housing of similar age and construction between Howell Street and the corner store at Cremorne Road. It was his opinion however that this group contributed little, in any real sense, to the visual character and amenity of Gympie Road in this locality. He concluded that the removal of the houses will not have any adverse effect on that visual character and amenity. I am satisfied that the assessment of Mr. Allom was well explained and persuasive. I accept it.”
The key to that conclusion was the Court’s acceptance of expert advice that the removal of the two houses would not have an adverse impact upon the visual character of the neighbourhood streetscape. In the current matter Mr Rylands has relied upon the expert advice of the Council’s planner, Mr Greg
Jones, that there would be no significant adverse impact to the streetscape in Lambert Road or Martin Lane if the subject dwelling was to be removed. I accept that advice.
The matter of impact upon the amenity of an area by the proposed removal of a “Character Building” was also considered by the Planning and Environment Court in George Turner and Phillip Usher Constructions Pty Ltd
v. Brisbane City Council & Anor [2000] QPEC 46, 22 August 2000, unreported. However that matter dealt with the redevelopment of a 1.897 hectare site of Residential B land occupied by an old fibro cottage in poor repair.
The major issue in that matter was really the proposed style of the new buildings, and whether they would be out of character with the existing development in the area. The Court noted the Council’s policy in respect of the “Design Code for Houses in the Heritage and Character Building areas”, and concluded at page 4:
“In respect of the impact upon the area’s character, its topography gives the subject land a somewhat ‘self-contained’ quality and it has to be accepted that the impact of what is developed on the land upon the street scapes in the surroundings areas will be correspondingly tempered.”
On balance I believe that the location of the subject dwelling and its immediate similar neighbour to the west, are likely to be seen by the Council as relatively isolated and not an essential part of a streetscape worthy of preservation in line with the policy of the Town Plan.
Relativity -
There is nothing in the relativities with the immediate surrounding parcels to indicate that the applied unimproved value of the subject land is incorrect. If I consider relativity with Mr Youngson’s Sale 2 (53 Lambert Road) I find that parcel does suffer from traffic volumes which are greater than the subject land, as both Hart Road and Lambert Road traffic pass that point. However 53 Lambert Road would be relatively less impacted by activities on the soccer club grounds. On balance the greater distance to 53 Lambert Road, and its smaller size, mitigates against its acceptance, compared to the parcels nearer, and more comparable to the subject land. Mr Youngson also assesses 53 Lambert Road as inferior to the subject land.
Comparison of sales -
In considering the sales evidence I note that Mr Youngson has relied upon two sales of improved properties, which he supports with two sales of vacant lands, while Mr Rylands relies upon five sales of vacant or slightly improved lands. I note also that there is a common sale at 52 Hunter Street.
While I accept that 103 Lambert Road is the most comparable property in respect of the nature of lands, the sale of that property as a developed site is one where the analysis of that sale has certain problems. Mr Youngson is an experienced valuer, and has allowed that it is the added value of the improvements which must be allowed for in assessing the unimproved value of the land. To seek to assess that added value, Mr Youngson has relied upon Cordells Information Services for current building costs of as near as he can estimate comparable building types. To those new costs he allows the depreciation factor of 10 percent.
While Mr Rylands has rejected the use of sales of improved properties as a reliable method of determining unimproved value, there was no evidence to dispute Mr Youngson’s detailed estimate by that method. However I note that the Courts have noted some concern with reliance solely upon an analysis of a highly improved parcel. That for instance was found by the Land Appeal Court in Grazing Selections No. 7147 and 4523C Roma District – applications for conversion tenure (1965) 32 CLLR 262 at 264. While that matter dealt with a grazing property, the lack of full details of the improvements was of concern to the Court.
Now while the Valuation of Land Act 1944 does not specify any particular method of valuation in determining unimproved value, the Courts have given clear direction as to the method most preferred by the Courts. That was perhaps most clearly outlined in P.H. Clough v. Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, where the Land Appeal Court said at page 76:
“It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analysing the value of improvements.
Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has
been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement.”
That was also followed in W.M. and T.J. Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, at 46; R. and M.M. Barnwell v. Valuer-General (1990-91), 13 QLCR 13, at 17; and also in Hans and Else Grahn v. Valuer-General (1992- 93) 14 QLCR 327, at 328.
If I look then at Mr Youngson’s Sale 2 (53 Lambert Road) I find a similar criticism can be made of that analysed improved sale. I note also that the analysed value of Sale 2 by Mr Youngson at $159,950, more than supports the current applied value of that parcel at $145,000.
I turn then to the vacant sales and note the following comparisons:
| Sale | Applied Value | Comparison |
| 1 (144 Waverley Road) | $150,000 | Inferior |
| 2 (52 Hunter Street) | $200,000 | Far inferior |
| 3 (26 Dennis Street) | $280,000 | Superior/smaller |
| 4 (9 Carnoustie Court) | $305,000 | Superior |
| 5 (20 McCaul Street) | $249,000 | Similar/smaller |
I believe 144 Waverley Road is so far inferior in locality as to provide no real comparison, and 9 Carnoustie Court is clearly in a more prestigious area near the golf course. I note the 26 Dennis Street is a late sale in what would appear to be a rising market, and I consider that only as a supporting sale. The key comparisons would appear to be 52 Hunter Street and 20 McCaul Street. On that basis there is nothing to discredit Mr Rylands’ applied unimproved value of $250,000.
The one remaining matter that might be considered is whether Mr Rylands has fully allowed for the intrusion of noise, making any allowance for the presence of the concrete block wall along Lambert Road, and Mr Rylands concession to that effect. (transcript 25). In order to allow any possible benefit in the appellant’s favour, I will allow $5,000 for the possible impact of the wall in reducing the noise levels at the rear of the subject land.
Conclusion:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am persuaded that the appellants have partly proved their case. The unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lots 23 and 24 on RP 23386 is determined at $245,000.
NG DIVETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0