LAND COURT BRISBANE 19 February 1997 Re: Appeal Against
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
[1997] QLC 21 LAND COURT BRISBANE 19 February 1997 Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Valuation Roll No: 21855/40700 - Local Government: Redland Shire (AV96-196) Robert G and Beverley A Brecknell v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N Background: The key issues in this appeal relate to the comparison of comparable sales, relativity, and the basis of valuation per unit area. The appeal relates to a property at 24 Mainroyal Court, Birkdale, in the Redland Shire, and described as Lot 574 on Plan SL12777. The property is occupied by a single unit dwelling and is zoned "Residential A" under the Town Plan of the Redland Shire Council dated 20 February 1988. The parcel has an area of 841 square metres. The property is situated in a cul-de-sac at the western end of Mainroyal Court. There is good access onto the property, with all utility services underground. Mainroyal Court is a paved surface not bitumen surface. The land is less than two kilometres from Cleveland Town Centre and is in the Raby Bay Canal Estate. The land has a canal frontage and is wedge-shaped with a quayline of 37 metres. It has a southerly aspect. The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, on 18 March 1996, valued the property at $197,500 with a date of valuation 1 January 1996. Following an objection, the Chief Executive on 11 June 1996, amended the valuation to $192,500 with effect from 30 June 1996. The variation was to improve relativity with adjoining parcels. The appellants are the third owner of the land since it was developed in Stage 12 of the Estate. Lot 574 was initially sold as a vacant lot in January 1990, for $219,000. 2 Evidence: The appellants contend that the valuation by the Chief Executive is excessive, and not consistent with valuations of other properties in Mainroyal Court, Genoa Court and Kinsail Court when compared on a per-square-metre basis. They also contend that the relativity of the subject in relation to other parcels in Mainroyal Court are not consistent, although the adjoining lots 575 and 573 have the same value. The appellants claim that their estimate of valuation is $165,000, which was determined after considering the characteristics of outlook, position, canal frontage (quayline) and aspect. They advise that they had used the per-square-metre approach as a check against other features as they saw no other logical approach to estimating the market price. In respect of "outlook" the land has views to the south towards a public park and jetty, towards a bridge across Ross Creek, and road traffic along Shore Street East. The land also overlooks the Cleveland Bowls Club, which has night bowls twice a week during summer. The traffic and Bowls Club activities cause a detriment to the land in respect of noise and glare. In respect of "position" the appellants believe that boating access to Moreton Bay is an important feature in determining valuations in the canal estate but that the subject land is both superior and inferior to other sites for access to the main channel (Ross Canal). For this reason they contend that the position would be valued neutral in the determination of the valuation. The matter of vehicle access was considered as a lesser factor, although the appellant claimed that as the land is at the end of a cul-de-sac there are problems with lack of parking in the street without blocking access to other lots, and traffic turning at the end of the cul-de-sac causes problems. The appellants believe that "aspect" is a matter of personal choice, and has little impact on the valuation. They acknowledge that a western aspect is generally inferior to a northerly, easterly or southerly aspect, mainly because of glare from the canals in the afternoon. Other matters which are detriments to the land is the quantity of rubbish that passes from Ross Creek and is deposited onto the abutments of Lot 574, and the distance to the Cleveland Shopping Centre and the Railway Station. The appellants also provided evidence that they are currently part of a legal action by residents of Mainroyal Court against the developer, Civic Projects, and the Redland Shire Council in respect of subsidence on their property. This, they claim, is a further detriment to the land. 3 The respondents used a comparison of sales of comparable land as their basis for the determination. The appellants conceded that the developer, Civic Projects, after five years of marketing the canal estate, had a sound understanding of the prices that are likely to be obtained for parcels in the estate. This involves an overall assessment of the following characteristics in order of priority: • Quayline (canal frontage). • Aspect - in priority order northerly, southerly, easterly and westerly. • Views of the water. • Area of the lot. The respondent has based his valuations and relativities in line with the developer's asking prices. In comparing the subject to two parcels in Genoa Court (Lots 560 and 574), the appellants sought relativity, bearing in mind the greater quaylines of those parcels. However, the history of the initial sale of those two parcels which were the last sold in Stage 12, reveals some reservations about the parcels in the marketplace, suggesting that Lots 560 and 574 were both inferior parcels. Both Lots 560 and 574 were initially listed for sale in January 1990, at $219,000 each. Lot 560 was finally sold in October 1991 for $165,000, and Lot 574 was sold in May 1991 for $195,000. The respondent compared three sales in arriving at his valuation: Sale 1 -(Piermont Place - Lot 796 on CP887346) Residential A - Area 904 square metres. Larger quayline. ($230,000). Sale 2 -(Sternlight Court - Lot 19 on C6125) Residential A - Area 799 square metres. Smaller quayline. ($187,500). Sale 3 -(Bonaventure Court - Lot 632 on SL813284) Residential A - Area 1141 square metres. Larger quayline. ($220,000). Sales 1 and 3 are comparable canal blocks at the end of a cul-de-sac with large quaylines and similar aspects to the subject. Both are seen as superior to the subject. Sale 2 has a western aspect with a smaller quayline and is seen as inferior to the subject. In assessing the value of improvements on each parcel for filling and revetment walls, the respondent adopted quantities and costs supplied by the developer from their records of the actual development costs. This would seem to be a most practical approach. In response to the appellants' claim for a comparison with the improved property at Lot 575, which was sold in April 1996 for $417,000, the respondent suggested that he had not considered it relevant to use a sale of improved land in view 4 of the availability of adequate vacant land sales in the area. The respondent claimed precedent in a number of cases and in particular: Dewar v. The Valuer-General (V79-974) (1980-81) Shire of Pine Rivers 7 QLCR (LAC) at p.112. Decision: While it is agreed that comparison with improved properties is acceptable in certain cases, the preferred method of valuation is by comparison of comparable vacant sites: WM and TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at p.46: "The best basis of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels of land. " This precedent has also been adopted in: •(i)Hans and Else Grahn v. The Valuer-General (City of Redcliffe) (AV90-472/473)(1992-93) 14 QLCR at p.330; and •(ii)PH Clough v. The Valuer-General - Caboolture Shire - (1981-82) 8 QLCR at p.76. In view of the availability of suitable sales of comparable vacant sites within the Raby Bay development, I am persuaded that the Chief Executive has adopted the most appropriate method of determining the valuation of the subject. The sales evidence provided by the respondent provides a range of sales of both superior and inferior land to the subject, and the value applied to the subject would appear appropriate. In the matter of relativity between parcels in Mainroyal Court, I believe that the subject (Lot 574) and the adjoining parcels (Lot 575 and Lot 573) are all superior lots to others in Mainroyal Court in view of their superior aspect, outlook, position and increased quaylines. I believe that the relativity of the parcels in Mainroyal Court is appropriate in view of the sales of similar parcels in Raby Bay. In the matter of valuing the parcel on a per square metre basis, I believe that the land is best valued as a residential site, and a unit area basis for such purposes is not a suitable method of comparison. The onus of proof that the Chief Executive has not valued the property correctly is on the appellant - Brisbane City Council v. The Valuer-General (Shire of Esk) (1977-78) CLR 41: "Unless it can be demonstrated that the Valuer-General, in making a valuation, has acted on a wrong principle or made a serious error of fact, the valuation by the Valuer-General is presumed to be correct. " 5 Conclusion: After having considered the whole of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the appellants have proved their case. The appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed. (NG Divett) Member of the Land Court .