Austin v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [2001] QLC 11

LAND COURT BRISBANE 9 MARCH 2001 Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations Valuation of Land Act 1944 Valuation Roll No: 70 Local Government: BCC-Sherwood (AV99-397 and AV00-125) Suzanne D Austin v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N Background: These matters relate to successive valuations of land located at 6 Queenscroft Street, Chelmer, and described as Lots 180 to 182 on RP 29355, Parish of Oxley. The two valuations were heard consecutively. The subject land has an area of 1,821 m² and is approximately 800 metres north of a local shopping centre, and 1.5 km south- west of the large regional shopping complex of Indooroopilly Shoppingtown. The Chelmer Railway Station is 100 metres south of the subject land, and primary schools are within close proximity. The subject land is zoned as "Residential A" under the Town Planning Scheme of the Brisbane City Council of 13 June 1986 current at the relevant dates of valuation of 1 October 1998 (AV99-397) and 1 October 1999 (AV00-125). The key issues are relativity, comparison of sales and the impact of the railway line. Access to the subject land is good from Queenscroft Street, which is a bitumen sealed dual carriageway with concrete kerbing and guttering. Chelmer is a well- established residential suburb predominantly developed with single or two-storey homes aged between 40 and 80 years. Under the "Character Housing" policy exercised by the Brisbane City Council, dwellings constructed since 1946 are now being replaced by quality brick and tile dwellings predominantly two storeys in height, generally in keeping with the pleasant ambience of the area. However, older "character houses" such as the subject property, are tightly constrained as to whether the land can be subdivided. Generally speaking older houses on larger parcels tend to be required to be retained as a single homesite. All normal utility services are available. [2001] QLC 11 -- 1 of 15 -- 2 On 8 March 1999 the Chief Executive issued a valuation for 1 October 1998 at $195,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that figure on 16 June 1999. On 27 March 2000 the Chief Executive issued a valuation for 1 October 1999 at $215,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed the latter valuation on 1 July 2000. The appellant has now appealed those figures claiming the unimproved values should more properly be $145,000 (1 October 1998) and $135,000 (1 October 1999). Leave was granted at the hearing on 7 November 2000 for the appellant to argue for unimproved values of $130,000 at each relevant date. Mr P Austin, a registered valuer, appeared and gave evidence for the appellant. Mr K Fisher, Counsel of Crown Law, appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Daniel O'Connor, the departmental registered valuer now accepting responsibility for determining the two valuations. The Evidence: (1) The Nature of the Land - The subject land has a total frontage to Queenscroft Street of 30 metres and a depth of 60 metres. The land has a medium elevation, with limited views across surrounding properties. The land is only 30 metres from the actual railway line, and is subjected to rail noise from passing trains. The actual railway line is about 2 metres below the subject land. The local Chelmer Public Hall is located immediately opposite the subject land, which is basically at road level. The surrounding lands to the east fall about 3 metres towards the east, and lands to the rear fall about 1 metre to Bridge Street to the north. Flood mapping indicates that the subject land was just above the 1974 flood line (Exhibit 6). During the 1974 floods large areas of Chelmer to the east of the railway line were inundated, with floodwaters also extending under the railway bridges in places across Honour Avenue to the west. The higher ridge along Laurel Avenue remained above flood level. The subject land is developed with a large two-storey character style Queenslander dwelling which has been extensively refurbished, with double garage and synthetic grass tennis court and landscaping. The subject land sold as an improved property for $355,000 on 20 February 1999. There is a newer dwelling (10 years) to the east of the subject land, and an older dwelling to the west, adjoining the railway line. -- 2 of 15 -- 3 (2) Comparison of Sales - Mr Austin argues that there have been no recent sales of large vacant homesites in Chelmer, with sales of vacant lands being restricted to smaller lots, often as a result of subdivision of larger parcels. The adjoining land to the west of the subject land was recently subdivided to provide a rear battleaxe parcel which was retained by the owner, and the older dwelling on the front new lot (950 m²) is now being sold for $250,000. The cost of providing services to the rear parcel was $40,000, including some acoustic barriers to the railway line. However, that subdivision occurred subsequent to the relevant dates, and is not for consideration in the current matters. Mr Austin provides the following sales of vacant lands, all zoned "Residential A"  Sale 1 - (20 Crawford Street - Unknown to Robertson - Lot 17 on SP 101983). This is a 500 m² inside parcel located about 600 metres south of the subject land, and not directly impacted by either the railway line, or busy Oxley Road. The sale is seen in a superior locality, but is much smaller and is overall inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in November 1997 for $118,000, was analysed at $118,000, and applied at $105,000.  Sale 2 - (49 Richardson Street - Queensland Government to Nguyen - Lot 8 on RP 911766). This is a 551 m² parcel, about 1 km south-east of the subject land, not directly impacted by the rail or road traffic, is opposite a park, and seen as in a superior locality. The sale is superior to Sale 1 but overall inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in November 1997 for $102,000, which was analysed at $102,000, and applied at $90,000.  Sale 3 - (53 Richardson Street - Queensland Government to Carr - Lot 10 on RP 991766). This sale of 660 m² is near Sale 2, is on a corner, and is superior to Sale 2, and inferior to the subject due to size. The sale sold in December 1997 for $78,000, which was analysed at $78,000, and applied at $68,000.  Sale 4 - (148 Chelmer Street - Duff to Milne - Lot 9 on RP 826087). This is a 455 m² parcel, about 500 metres south-west of the subject land, and west of the railway line. This is a good inside lot in a superior locality. The sale is seen to be out of line with the market, but is overall superior to the subject land. The sale is supported by an adjoining sale at 150 Chelmer Street for $198,000. The sale sold in July 1998 for $214,000, which was analysed at $214,000, and applied at $136,000 (63%). -- 3 of 15 -- 4  Sale 5 - (49-53 Appel Street - Queensland Government to Carr - Lots 5 to 7 on SP 103272). This is a 1,378 m² parcel adjoining the railway line, about 650 metres south of the subject land. The three parcels have subsequently been developed with single-unit dwellings, two of which were sold privately, and the third sold back to the Queensland Government for $180,000. The overall sale is seen as inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in May 1998 for $145,000, which was analysed at $129,000, and applied at $43,000 for each of the three separate lots.  Sale 6 - (71 Glenwood Street - Peacock to Brown - Lot 87 on RP 75439). This is a 607 m² parcel about 800 metres east of the subject land. The sale is seen as overall superior to the subject land. The sale sold in August 1999 for $210,000, which was analysed at $210,000, and has subsequently been applied at $146,000.  Sale 7 - (47 Plumridge Street - Page to McNicol - Lot 1 on RP 71795). This is a 1,012 m² improved parcel with an old dwelling, about 600 metres south of the subject land, and opposite Sale 5. The sale is opposite parkland, and is further removed from the influence of the railway line. The sale is inferior to the subject land as individual lots, which were subsequently subdivided into two lots after the removal of the old dwelling. At the date of sale the land really represented two small allotments, as the dwelling could be sold for removal and the land subdivided. At the date of sale the unimproved value was $130,000. The sale also has better access to sewerage than the subject land. The sale sold in April 1999 for $238,000, which after subdivision was analysed at $224,000, and has been applied at $112,000 for each of the two new lots. To support his valuations Mr O'Connor provides the following sales of vacant lands:  Sale 1 - (20 Crawford Street - Stafford to Robertson - Lot 17 on SP 101983). This is a 500 m² level lot, about 250 metres east of the railway line. Access and services are similar, and the sale is less elevated than the subject land, but is less exposed to railway noise. The sale is seen as inferior to the subject land and is a common sale with Mr Austin. The sale sold in November 1997 for $118,000, was analysed at $117,000, and applied at $105,000 (1/10/98).  Sale 2 - 8 Hargreaves Avenue - Searle to Page - Lots 1 and 2 on RP 64280). This is a 941 m² level lot at street level, about 750 metres east of the subject land, well removed from the railway line, and east of busy Oxley Road. The sale is less elevated, and is seen as inferior to the subject land. The sale has the potential for subdivision into two -- 4 of 15 -- 5 470 m² lots, but has subsequently been developed as a single residence site. The old dwelling was a post-war house and not subject to character housing restrictions. The sale sold in November 1997 for $185,000, which was analysed at $180,200, and applied at $115,000 (1/10/98). Mr O'Connor argues that relativities in that location are low in relation to market evidence. He contends that if Sale 2 was to be resurveyed into two new lots, each of about 470 m², such parcels would have an unimproved value of $80,000 per lot. As a single house site under s.17 concessions, it is Mr O'Connor's opinion that the unimproved value of Sale 2 should be $136,000. It is also Mr O'Connor's opinion that subsequent to further market support of single site values, then he intends to review the current relativities in that area.  Sale 3 - (27 Leybourne Street - Pike to Richards - Lots 3 and 4 on RP 60300). This is an 809 m² improved parcel containing two level residential lots, about 750 metres south-east of the subject land. The sale is located east of Oxley Road in an older part of Chelmer, which is lower in elevation, and is seen as inferior. The sale is further removed from noise of the railway. The sale has subsequently been developed as two individual lots with the existing dwelling (not a character dwelling) sold for removal. The sale sold in March 1998 for $175,000, which was analysed at $170,900 and has been applied at $112,000 (1/10/98). Mr O'Connor argues that the separate lots of area 405 m² have an analysed value of $85,450 each, and would have an applied value of $76,000 per lot. He contends that as a single residence site of 809 m² the sale should have a concessional value under s.17 of $130,000. As separate 405 m² parcels, each are inferior to the subject land.  Sale 4 - (47 Plumridge Street - Page to McNicol - Lot 1 on RP 71795). This is a common sale with Mr Austin's Sale 7. Mr O'Connor analyses the sale at $236,200, and it has been applied as a single residence site at $224,000 (1/10/99). The sale was subsequently subdivided into two 506 m² lots, which Mr O'Connor analyses at $118,100 per lot, and sees each separate lot as inferior to the subject land.  Sale 5 - (143 Verney Road East, Graceville - Fletcher to Collett - Lots 12 and 13 on RP 29411). This is an 810 m² less elevated parcel with dual frontage to Verney Road East and Connors Street. The sale is 200 metres east of the railway line, east of Oxley Road, and is further removed from railway noise. The sale is inferior to the subject land, and has been assessed as two individual 405 m² sites each at $105,000. -- 5 of 15 -- 6 The sale sold in April 1999 for $245,000, which was analysed at $238,500, and applied as a single site at $210,000 (1/10/99).  Sale 6 - (46 Glenwood Street - Shackley to Bright - Lot 46 on RP 75439). This is a 703 m² less elevated site, 500 metres east of the subject land, well removed from the railway line, and east of Oxley Road. The sale is inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in April 1999 for $148,000, which was analysed at $141,500, and applied at $96,000 (1/10/99). Mr O'Connor feels the unimproved value should more properly be $125,000.  Sale 7 - (78 Hargreaves Avenue - Page to Minto - Lots 1 and 2 on RP 64280). This is a resale of Mr O'Connor's Sale 2. The sale sold in August 1999 for $235,000, which was analysed at $234,200, and has been applied at $127,000 (1/10/99). The sale is inferior to the subject land, and has been used only to demonstrate the buoyant nature of the market during and subsequent to the relevant period. Mr O'Connor argues that as separate 470 m² lots each would have a notional unimproved value of $88,000 per lot, but as a single site with s.17 concessions, an unimproved value of $150,000 would be appropriate. In their assessments Mr Austin has compared his Sales 1 to 5 for the 1/10/98 valuation, and checked them with his Sales 6 and 7 to demonstrate, in his opinion, that there has been no change in the market at 1/10/99. Mr O'Connor adopts his Sales 1 to 3 for 1/10/98 and his Sales 4 to 7 for the 1/10/99 valuation. Mr Austin provides evidence of his purchase of the subject property for additional information only. He does not rely upon the sale of the subject land as part of his basis for comparisons, however, he argues that his estimate of the added value of improvements on the subject land at $225,000, supports his conclusion of an unimproved value of $130,000. Mr O'Connor argues that Mr Austin's Sale 5 should be rejected as a reliable sale, due to the nature of that sale. Mr O'Connor argues that sale was disposed of quickly by the Government, and does not satisfy the Spencer test. Mr O'Connor argues that nearby sales support that Sale 5 is out of line. Mr Austin rejects that advice, noting that the respondent has subsequently valued those parcels at $43,000, in spite of the knowledge of the nature of that sale. Mr O'Connor advises that those unimproved values are out of line, and should be about $56,000. In respect of changes in the market between the 1 October 1998 and 1 October 1999 valuations, Mr O'Connor notes that his Sale 2 (78 Hargreaves Avenue) sold in November 1997 for $185,000, and resold again in August 1999 for $235,000. It is -- 6 of 15 -- 7 noted that the resale was subsequent to the relevant date of 1 October 1998, however Mr O'Connor argues that the market is generally increasing at about 10% per year. Mr Austin agrees that sale would indicate a rise in the market in that period. However, a concern of Mr Austin lies in the method used by the respondent in applying the analysed rates of the various sales. Mr Austin argues that the lower valued sales tend to be applied at about 80% of the analysed rates, while the dearer sales are only applied at about 60% of the analysed rate. Mr Austin argues that in his opinion, there is insufficient evidence of sales to support any increase in the unimproved value of single homesites such as the subject land, at the later date of 1 October 1999. He concedes there has been some increase in value of lands that have been later subdivided, but he argues that is a difference market for comparison purposes. Mr O'Connor argues that there is a market in that locality for purchasers to acquire larger lots, and subsequently subdivide and develop into two smaller lots. It is those sales to which he has directed his attention in comparing the subject land. Mr O'Connor notes also that his Sale 2 (78 Hargreaves Avenue) is indicative of a trend developing in lands near the river at Graceville, where purchasers are paying a premium for larger lots for a single residence. He argues that trend would appear to be running counter to the normal market for residential purposes where larger sites do not attract pro-rata increases for size. Mr O'Connor argues that in the very attractive market segment along the Chelmer Peninsula, the price paid is tending to align with a per m² basis, rather than the normal pattern of values for residential sites. However, he has not applied a per m² basis for the subject land. Mr O'Connor advises that he has made some allowance for the noise of the railway, which he believes is not as intrusive as argued by Mr Austin. Mr O'Connor argues that if the subject land was not impacted by noise from the railway line then, in his opinion, the value would be considerably higher. A key issue for Mr Austin is that any comparisons with the subject land must be considered on a single site basis, with no potential for further subdivision under s.17. He argues that Mr O'Connor's sales reflect some higher potential , not evident in the subject lands, due to the character nature of the existing dwelling. (3) Relativity - Mr Austin argues that relativity in the area suggests that there is not a large variation in the unimproved values of lots as a consequence of increased size only, all -- 7 of 15 -- 8 else being equal, when those parcels are used for single residence purposes under s.17. To support that conclusion Mr Austin supplies the following comparisons: Parcel Area Unimproved Value at 1/10/98 36 Laurel Avenue 602 m² $260,000 31 Laurel Avenue 1,479 m² $270,000 42 Laurel Avenue 1,022 m² $305,000 46 Laurel Avenue 1,022 m² $320,000 35 Laurel Avenue 1,636 m² $310,000 37 Laurel Avenue 1,692 m² $270,000 43 Laurel Avenue 2,469 m² $380,000 148 Chelmer Street (Sale 4) 455 m² $136,000 Mr Austin argues that those relativities are in conflict with relativities of the subject land and the adjoining parcels in Queenscroft Street as follows: Parcel Area Unimproved Value at 1/10/98 12 Queenscroft Street 607 m² $98,000 2 Queenscroft Street 1,991 m² $175,000 6 Queenscroft Street (subject) 1,821 m² $195,000 26 Bridge Street 1,249 m² $100,000 Mr Austin also seeks support of his argument in relativities adjoining his Sale 5 as follows: Parcel Area Unimproved Value at 1/10/98 37 Appel Street 865 m² $97,000 39 Appel Street 473 m² $73,000 49 Appel Street 454 m² $43,000 51 Appel Street 455 m² $43,000 53 Appel Street 469 m² $43,000 Mr Austin argues that those comparisons indicate that perhaps relativities are inconsistent in the locality, and should be revised. He agrees that Laurel Avenue is a very prestigious area, but argues that relativities cannot simply be separated as being on either side of the railway line. Mr Austin notes that there are also valuable properties adjoining the river in Rosebery Terrace on the same side of the railway line as the subject land, due mainly to the views across the river. Mr Austin argues that Chelmer cannot merely be divided into a high area and a low area. Mr O'Connor disagrees with Mr Austin, arguing that sales evidence over a period of years has supported that the impact of flooding has divided Chelmer into high value and lower value sub-market areas. Mr O'Connor, however, does agree with Mr Austin about the older relativities which demonstrate considerable inconsistencies, a matter he is progressively addressing. Mr O'Connor advises that he will undertake a major revision of all -- 8 of 15 -- 9 relativities in Chelmer for the next revaluation at 1 October 2000. As a general note, Mr O'Connor also advises that recent sales of smaller lands which actually abut the railway line, also support the current application of $195,000 for the subject land at 1 October 1998, and $215,000 at 1 October 1999. He notes that values between Oxley Road and the river to the east are due to be increased by about 15%. Mr O'Connor argues that the large difference with the adjoining parcel to the rear at 26 Bridge Street ($100,000) makes allowance for its inferior access to Bridge Street and the heavier traffic in Bridge Street. Mr O'Connor also notes that recent sales would appear to support that there is now not any significant differentiation between lands that were flooded in 1974 and those above the flood. He notes that lands on the higher lands in Laurel Avenue attract a relatively higher price, but there has also been an increase in the lower lands west of the railway line. Mr O'Connor argues that as a general guide, based upon his experience in the area, the market indicates that larger parcels are likely to attract values varying from 60% for an increased size to double the area of a smaller parcel, to 100% for a size three times the area of a smaller parcel. Decision: (i) The Nature of the Land There is general agreement between the valuers in respect of the location, topography, and general nature of the subject land. However, there is difference between them in respect of the level of impact caused by the close proximity of the railway line, and the noise exposure to the subject land. Mr O'Connor concedes that noise has an intrusive impact, but he argues that is now more accepted by the marketplace as demonstrated by sales of parcels even adjoining the railway reserve. Mr Austin disagrees, noting that any marketing of a property in close proximity to a railway line is a matter of concern to prospective purchasers, and therefore it must detract from the value to a prudent purchaser. However, Mr O'Connor argues that he has allowed for the impact of noise upon the subject land in his valuation of $195,000 (1/10/98). It is also noted that the potential for flooding is a factor which has long influenced market expectations in that locality. However, as Mr O'Connor advises, market perceptions are tending to place lesser significance upon potential flooding with the passage of time since the major floods in 1974. Whatever the market's opinion of flood risk, the flood mapping provided demonstrates that the subject land -- 9 of 15 -- 10 was likely to have experienced some water on site at the height of the 1974 flood, perhaps as a result of backup against the railway line. The market's perception of flood risk is probably influenced by the period of time since the last inundation (26 years), and the authority's prediction that maximum flood heights are likely to be lessened by several metres as a consequence of water management practices upstream of the city. That, of course, will depend upon any future flood rains, and their areas of precipitation into upstream catchments. Whatever the physical reality, an analysis of market prices, in Mr O'Connor's opinion, reflects a changing attitude to flood influence, and is therefore likely to result in changing relativities in the locality, where flooding has been a major impact upon prices. Separate to the flooding potential, it is agreed that the higher lands along Laurel Avenue, together with some selected properties along the river in Rosebery Terrace, are generally superior localities to the subject land. (ii) The Method of Valuation - Both valuers agree that the preferred method of assessing unimproved value is by comparison with sales of vacant or lightly improved lands (PH Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, at 76; NR & PG Tow v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, at 381; WM & TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, at 46; and also Hans and Else Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, at 329). However, there is difference between the valuers in respect of the interpretation of the market in that locality. Mr Austin argues that there is a paucity of sales of large vacant sites sold for purposes of a single residence site. It is his argument that as the subject land is to be valued under s.17(1) as a site for a single dwelling house, then any potential for higher use or for subdivision is to be ignored. Mr O'Connor does not dispute that fact, and has drawn his comparisons for the 1 October 1998 from three sales including: Sale Area Unimproved Value at 1/10/98 Comparison 1 500 m² $105,000 (90%) Inferior 2 941 m² $115,000 (64%) Inferior 3 809 m² $112,000 (65%) Inferior Mr Austin seeks comparisons with his sales: -- 10 of 15 -- 11 Sale Area Unimproved Value at 1/10/98 Comparison 1 500 m² $105,000 (89%) Inferior 2 551 m² $90,000 (88%) Inferior 3 660 m² $68,000 (87%) Inferior 4 455 m² $136,000 (64%) Superior 5 1378 m² $129,000 (3 lots) Inferior or $43,000 (1 lot) In considering the type of sales for comparison purposes, Mr Austin argues that the "character nature" of the existing dwelling upon the subject land is a further reason why comparison should only be made with the sales of lands either vacant, or with no potential for higher subdivisional use. On that basis he argues it is not appropriate to adopt sales where an old dwelling exists, but which can be removed because of its lack of any "character". It is his reasoning that any such sale (as in Mr O'Connor's Sales 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7), must include some element of higher potential in order to achieve a vacant site. Mr O'Connor has sought to apply concessions in respect of s.17 to his Sales 2 and 3, compared to their analysed values, if they were to be considered as two separate sites after the subdivision. For example, he concludes his Sale 2 would have separate analysed values of $90,250 per lot for each 470 m² parcel, and then be applied at $80,000 each. He then concludes that the s.17 concession application as one site should be $136,000. This he compares to a "bulk holding value" for the two parcels at $160,000. Mr O'Connor has applied $115,000 (64%) of the analysed sale price. A similar application of his Sale 3 is adopted where, as separate parcels after subdivision, each 405 m², was seen to have an analysed value of $85,450, and a notional individual assessment of $76,000. Mr O'Connor has applied a concessional valuation for s.17 purposes of $112,000 (65%) of the analysed price. In considering the 1 October 1999 valuation Mr O'Connor has again compared three sales where those sales have subsequently been available as two separate smaller parcels. On each of those sales he has analysed the value of each lot, and then applied a concessional valuation. The fourth sale (Sale 6) is compared as a single site. Sale Analysed Value Concessional Value Comparison 4 $118,100 (506 m²) $112,000 (95%) Inferior 5 $119,250 (405 m²) $105,000 (88%) Inferior 6 $141,500 (703 m²) $96,000 (68%) Inferior 7 $234,200 (941 m²) $127,000 (54%) Inferior (Applied) -- 11 of 15 -- 12 Mr O'Connor argues that his Sale 7 (which is a resale of his Sale 2) is, in his opinion, currently undervalued. He argues that the current applied concessional value of $127,000 should more appropriately be $150,000 (64%) for a single site purpose. In his comparisons with his Sales 1 to 3 Mr Austin has clearly made allowance for the larger size of the subject land. Each of those sales were seen to be in a superior locality and not impacted by the railway, but overall inferior due to size. I believe Mr Austin accepts the impact of size, but argues that there is no comparable sale of larger parcels for s.17 purposes, upon which to assess how much should be allowed for the extra size. If I compare Mr Austin's Sale 4, I conclude that parcel to be superior in locality near to Laurel Avenue, which is an agreed select area. I note also that an adjoining sale at 150 Chelmer Street sold for $198,000 as a vacant site. On that basis it is hard to understand the applied unimproved value of $136,000 extant on Sale 4, and I would agree with both valuers that the application of that sale should be revisited. For the purpose of this exercise I get little assistance from the current applied value. It is noted that the sale is seen to be out of line from a relativity perspective, but not necessarily from a sale price basis. If I consider Mr Austin's Sale 5, I accept Mr O'Connor's evidence that the circumstances of that sale would raise warnings about whether the vendor was over anxious at the time. While the sale was obtained at public auction, the values obtained, and the subsequent negotiation by the Government to purchase a dwelling built upon one of the subsequently subdivided parcels, suggests that the sale should be treated with some caution. I note also Mr O'Connor's evidence that relativities in that area are also inconsistent. On those bases I will ignore Sale 5. If I then consider Mr Austin's Sales 6 and 7 used for his 1 October 1999 valuation, I note that Sale 7 (47 Plumridge Street) is common with Mr O'Connor's Sale 4. Mr Austin has analysed that sale at $224,000, and Mr O'Connor has analysed the sale at $236,200. After subdivision, both Mr Austin and Mr O'Connor see the smaller individual lots of Sale 7 as inferior to the subject land. There is some difference between the valuers in respect of Mr Austin's Sale 6 (71 Glenwood Street) and Mr O'Connor's Sale 6 (46 Glenwood Street). Both sales are located about 200 metres apart, and east of the subject land. However, 46 Glenwood Street is agreed to be of lower elevation than 71 Glenwood Street, which is also nearer to the river. Mr Austin sees 71 Glenwood Street at $146,000 as superior, and Mr O'Connor sees 46 Glenwood Street applied at $96,000 as inferior. -- 12 of 15 -- 13 However, Mr O'Connor argues that the current application in that area of Glenwood Street is undervalued, and he argues a more realistic application of 46 Glenwood Street should be $125,000 (increase of 30%). If Mr O'Connor's conclusion was to be accepted, then a similar increase to the unimproved value of 71 Glenwood Street ($146,000) would result in an amended application of $189,800. On Mr O'Connor's hypothesis, the existing unimproved value of the subject land at $215,000 would vary from Mr Austin's comparison. (iii) Relativity - A key difference between the valuers is their reliance upon relativities in the area. While Mr Austin seeks to rely upon relativities in certain areas to support his conclusion that increased size for single residence purposes does not support higher prices compared to smaller parcels, he does concede that relativities appear to be inconsistent. Mr O'Connor admits that the old relativities have now proved to be inconsistent, and in fact have now changed with the differing market perception of the impact of flooding. Mr Austin argues that an owner should be able to rely upon relativities with surrounding parcels as the basis for a fair and reasonable for liability to Government charges. If I consider the matter of relativity, I note the decision of R & MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13, where the Land Appeal Court said at p.16: "We are conscious that it is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, if the valuations are soundly based. It is, however, untenable to adopt a value for one parcel on relativity with another which has no sound basis." The Land Appeal Court went on to say at p.17: "It has been well recognised over the years that previously established relativity in unimproved values can and does change from valuation to valuation. If there was no justification for a change in relativity, the valuer's task would be very simple in that all that would be required to establish value would be accomplished by the use of an adjusting formula. This, of course, is undesirable." The matter of inconsistency in relativity was also addressed in ML & ME Tighe v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV97-402), 2 October 1998, to be reported. In that matter the respondent had been faced with the need for a major revision of relativities in the Yeronga area under s.28(1)(g) of the Act, which states: -- 13 of 15 -- 14 "28.(1) No alteration shall be made in the valuation of any parcel of land during the period during which any annual valuation relating to the area in question is in force or, in the case of an annual valuation which has not come into force, during the period between the issuing of an annual valuation notice under part 4, and the date of the valuation coming into force - (g) unless, in the opinion of the chief executive, circumstances affecting the valuation of the land are such as to render an alteration necessary or desirable for preserving or attaining uniformity in values between that valuation and subsisting valuations of other comparable parcels of land;" The intentions of the Act are for the Chief Executive to "preserve" or "attain uniformity" in values. Because of the known inconsistencies in values in the locality, the Chief Executive has set out to "attain" fresh uniformity in the values, which in the normal course of events would appear to have been disturbed. A similar exercise would appear to be confronting Mr O'Connor in the current matter, and I believe reliance upon relativities, which have some doubt cast about their reliability, must be taken with some caution. Indeed, that principle was followed by the Land Appeal Court in LR & MM Bignell v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV92-65), 4 March 1996, unreported, where it concluded at p.20: " This is a case which can be described as one in which the use of the principle of the relativity of similar neighbouring blocks should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant (if not) ideal sales evidence. It is the case in which it is preferable to correct an inaccuracy with respect to the subject land rather than to make an inaccurate assessment in order to secure uniform error. (R & MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13 at 16-17, H & E Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 327 at 328-9). The consequences, if any, of this judgment for the owners of neighbouring blocks is a matter for the respondent to address." For the above reasons, I reject relativities as a useful comparison in this matter, and I will rely upon comparisons of sales as the preferred basis. On balance, the evidence reveals that the comparisons of sales generally do not disagree with Mr O'Connor's conclusions. There is the variation with Mr Austin's comparison with his Sale 6 (71 Glenwood Street) for the 1 October 1999 valuation. However, other evidence supports that there has been an increase of about 10% between 1 October 1998 and 1 October 1999. That supports an increase from $195,000 to $215,000. I believe the appellant has not demonstrated any error in Mr O'Connor's approach. -- 14 of 15 -- 15 Conclusion: Having considered the whole of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the appellant has proved her case as required under s.45(4) of the Act. The appeals are dismissed, and the unimproved values of Lots 180 to 182 on RP 29355 are confirmed at One Hundred and Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($195,000) (1 October 1998) and Two Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($215,000) (1 October 1999). NG DIVETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 15 of 15 --