Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLAC 22

LAND APPEAL COURT BRISBANE Re: Determination of unimproved value - Valuation of Land Act 1944 City of Brisbane - Division of Stephens V92-65 BETWEEN: LEONARD R BIGNELL and MICHELLE M BIGNELL Appellants and CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS Respondent JUDGMENT Delivered this Fourth day of March 1996 THE COURT: Introduction This is an appeal by Leonard R Bignell and Michelle M Bignell (the "appellants") from the decision of the Land Court on the matter of the determination of the unimproved value of the land contained in Valuation Roll No 13721, Parish of Yeerongpilly. The land is located at 17 Astolat Street, Yeronga. The decision appealed against was made in September 1993. It was one of several decisions given by the Land Court in respect of values applied by the respondent to land within the division of Yeronga. The then owner of the subject land, being aggrieved by the decision, appealed to this Court by notice of appeal filed on 5 November 1993. The appellants, who later acquired the subject land, have exercised their right under section 46 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the "Act") to carry on with the appeal in their names. The relevant valuation is required to be ascertained as at 31 March 1990, being the date fixed for that purpose by the respondent's predecessor (the Valuer-General) under what is now [1996] QLAC 22 -- 1 of 19 -- 2 section 37 of the Act. The Valuer-General determined the valuation of the subject land in the sum of $130,000. The determination was affirmed by the Land Court. On appeal to this Court, the appellants contend for a figure of $95,000. Grounds of appeal The notice of appeal to the Land Appeal Court set out more detailed grounds of appeal than those specified in the notice of appeal to the Land Court. At a directions hearing on 18 July 1995, the appellants sought leave to amend the grounds of appeal by substituting the original grounds of appeal to the Land Court. Leave was granted. Thus the appeal came before this Court on the grounds that, in arriving at his valuation of the subject land, the Valuer-General failed to comply with the Act insofar as: (a)he had not been consistent and had failed to preserve uniformity of values between this valuation and subsisting valuations of other comparable parcels of land in the area; (b)he had not retained relativity of valuations of all land in the area; (c)he had not applied proper valuation principles in arriving at his valuation. The appellants bear the burden of proving any ground of appeal. -- 2 of 19 -- 3 Preliminary issues A number of preliminary issues were raised. Most concerned whether evidence additional to that presented to the Land Court could be admitted in these proceedings. The appellants first applied to adduce further evidence in the form of a valuation report by a registered valuer, Mr David R Thomas (the "first report"). The report was attached to an affidavit dated 25 July 1995. No valuation evidence was given to the Land Court on behalf of the then owner of the subject land. After the hearing before the Land Court, section 44(13)(a) of the Land Act 1962 was amended by the Land Act 1994 to provide: "The Land Appeal Court may admit further evidence only if - (i)it is satisfied that admission of the evidence is necessary to avoid grave injustice and there is adequate reason that the evidence was not previously given; or (ii)the appellant and respondent agree to its admission." The application was heard on 18 July 1995. A differently constituted Land Appeal Court considered submissions about whether section 44(13)(a), as amended, applied to this appeal and, if it did, whether the additional evidence should be admitted. In a written judgment delivered on 24 August 1995, the Court (Fryberg J, Mr White and Mr Neate) held that section 44(13)(a) applies to an appeal to the Land Appeal Court by way of a rehearing under the Act. A majority of the Court (Mr White and Mr Neate) was satisfied that the admission of the first report was necessary to avoid grave injustice and that there was adequate reason that the evidence was not previously given. Accordingly, the Court agreed to admit the evidence and directed that: (a)the appellants be given leave to adduce valuation evidence in the form of the valuer's report prepared by David R Thomas, registered valuer and annexed to his affidavit in these proceedings dated 25 July 1995; (b)the appellants are not entitled to examine Mr Thomas in chief except by leave of the Court but must take all reasonable steps to ensure that Mr Thomas is present and available for cross-examination (if any) by the respondent when the matter is listed for hearing at 10.00 am on Thursday 21 September 1995; -- 3 of 19 -- 4 (c)the respondent has liberty to apply, at the hearing, to call valuation evidence in response to the valuer's report prepared by Mr Thomas; (d)if the respondent intends to apply to call valuation evidence, a written statement of that evidence: (1)must be provided to the appellants or their legal representatives; and (2)must be lodged in the Registry of the Land Appeal Court, not later than Monday 11 September 1995. At the commencement of the hearing on 21 September 1995, the appellants applied to admit into evidence what was described as a supplementary report by Mr Thomas (the "second report"). The report was annexed to an affidavit dated 14 September 1995 and was provided to the respondent on 15 September 1995. The second report differed from the first report in both the approach taken to the valuation and the figure said to be the unimproved value of the subject land at the relevant date. It did not come within the terms of the directions previously made by the Land Appeal Court. The appellants sought to have the second report admitted on either of two bases. First, it was submitted, the report was supplementary to the first report and, with the leave of the Court, it could be admitted in the course of examination in chief pursuant to direction (b) above. In the alternative, they applied for its admission under section 44(13)(a) on the same grounds as the application for the admission of the first report. The respondent, while conceding the relevance of the second report, opposed its admission. This Court, being differently constituted from the Court which admitted the first report, agreed to apply the reasoning of the majority in the decision of 24 August 1995. Having heard submissions from both parties, and being satisfied that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the admission of the second report, we agreed to its admission. We reiterate the observation then made that the decision was reached having regard to the unusual facts of this case and should not be seen as a decision of general application. -- 4 of 19 -- 5 As a consequence of the decisions on preliminary issues, expert valuation evidence was given orally and in written reports by a valuer called by each party, namely Mr Thomas and Mr Ian Geoffrey Savage, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Savage made the valuation which is the subject of the appeal. Determining the issue - the arguments Each party argued, in essence, that the unimproved value of the subject land should be determined relative to the unimproved value of comparable blocks. The issue between the parties was which other blocks should be considered for that purpose. The appellants submitted that the subject land should be compared to three nearby blocks that were sold in an unimproved or lightly improved state in the period relevant to the date of valuation. Mr Thomas did not attempt to analyse the sales themselves. Having regard to their understanding of the effect of section 33 of the Act, the appellants accepted the unimproved value which the respondent's predecessor, the Valuer-General, applied to each block. Working with those figures and comparing the respective features of those blocks with the subject land, Mr Thomas estimated that the subject land should be valued at $95,000. The respondent submitted that the value of the subject land should be determined relative to the values of the adjacent block to the south, the adjacent block to the north and the next block to the north. Those values had been set by decisions of the Land Court or the Land Appeal Court and, it was submitted, provide the appropriate basis for comparison with the subject land. The respondent submitted that, if that approach is taken, the subject land should be valued at $130,000. In determining which approach to take, regard must be had to relevant principles. The decision of the Land Appeal Court in Grahn v The Valuer-General 1 summarises those principles, drawing on the decision of the High Court of Australia in Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General2 and the decisions of the Land Appeal Court in cases such as WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General 3 and R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General. 4 The 1(1992) 14 QLCR 327 at 328-9. 2(1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283. 3(1983) 9 QLCR 44. 4(1989) 13 QLCR 13. -- 5 of 19 -- 6 propositions stated in Grahn (adjusted to adopt the renumbering of sections in the Act and omitting citations) are as follows: (a)It is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Act of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, so long as 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. (b)The best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels of land. (c)Section 33 of the Act creates a presumption that the value in money terms shown by the Valuer-General in his notice of valuation is correct. (d)Once it is shown that: (1)in making the valuation the Valuer-General acted upon a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact; or (2)the valuation was made by a method fundamentally erroneous, the presumption created by section 33 is rebutted. (e)Whilst maintenance of correct relativity is of considerable importance for rating valuations, the use of the principle of relativity should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant (even if not ideal) sales evidence. (f)If possible, the Valuer-General should obtain uniformity between different blocks in the same land category or type, but should do so (preferably by reference to sales of comparable land) by correcting inaccuracies rather than by making an inaccurate assessment in order to secure uniform error. The authorities just summarised clearly establish that, if probative sales evidence is available, it should be used in preference to relying on the existing relative values of similar neighbouring blocks. -- 6 of 19 -- 7 The evidence on which the appellants relied was not, strictly speaking, sales evidence. It was evidence of the figures which the Valuer-General had applied as the unimproved value of three blocks sold near to the relevant date of valuation. The appellants did not lead evidence which analysed those sales for the purpose of determining the market value of each block in its unimproved state. There was no suggestion that, in making those valuations, the Valuer-General acted upon a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact nor that the valuations were made by a fundamentally erroneous method. Indeed, the respondent expressly conceded that those valuations were correct. The sales evidence in relation to the three blocks shows that the figure applied by the Valuer-General to each of the sale blocks is significantly lower than the analysis of each sale would suggest it should be. For that reason alone, it is to the appellants' advantage to rely on the applied figures when making a comparison with the subject land. Mr Needham, counsel for the appellants, submitted that, although it had never been satisfactorily explained how this "arcane process" was done, fairness and equity required that the same process be applied to all blocks in the area. Accordingly, he submitted, it was more appropriate to start with the Valuer-General's figures and make the comparison with the subject land, rather than to make a separate analysis of each sale to determine a value for the subject land and then to deduct an amount calculated by applying some arbitrarily chosen percentage in an attempt to bring the valuation of the subject land into proper relativity with comparable blocks.5 Mr Savage agreed in evidence that, in determining the unimproved value of similar blocks in the area, the three sales relied on by the appellants provided the best basis for valuation. He said that, when making the original valuation, he also would have considered sales evidence about other, more distant blocks. No evidence was given with respect to those blocks. Nor was there any suggestion that, if such evidence exists, it would have been crucial to the determination of this appeal. Mr Savage said that he had relied on two of the sales in making the original valuations6 and only became aware of the relevance of the third7 at a later date. But he accepted all three as the primary guide to the unimproved value of the subject land and he accepted that the valuations applied to the sale blocks were correct. 5Citing Barton and Elliott Pastoral Co v The Valuer-General (1958) 15 The Valuer 176. 62 Feez Street and 94 Rome Street South, Yeronga. 720 Grimes Street, Yeronga. -- 7 of 19 -- 8 There was no dispute about the relevance of evidence about those three blocks to the matter in issue. The only differences between the parties involved the significance to be accorded to the relevant features of each of those blocks and the subject land. Although it may seem inevitable that this Court should adopt the appellants' approach, there remains an issue about what weight, if any, should be given to the previous decisions of the Land Court and Land Appeal Court, and what regard (if any) should be given to the valuation of similar neighbouring blocks in Astolat Street. Mr Needham submitted that the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Gibson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands 8 and the decisions of the Land Court in Coote v The Valuer-General9 and Perlowski and Gregan v The Valuer-General10 should be disregarded when determining the present appeal. He argued that, because the various parties in each of those cases had not called valuation evidence, the issue of valuation was not truly joined between the parties in any of those cases. Because each case was decided in the absence of properly tested valuation evidence from both parties, the Courts decided the cases on an evidentiary basis different from that before this Court. There was no suggestion that the Courts had incorrectly applied the law. Indeed, it was implicit in Mr Needham's submission that, in the absence of properly tested evidence, the Courts had done no more than given effect to the statutory provisions concerning the onus of proof11 and the presumption of correctness of the respondent's valuation.12 Because a Court could not, in the absence of evidence, form its own opinion about the valuation of a particular block, neither the confirmation nor a variation of the respondent's valuation should be accorded any more weight than the respondent's valuation. The decisions were efficacious in making an order binding on the parties to each appeal but, it was submitted, the decisions have no probative value in these proceedings. 8V92-64, unreported decision dated 9 June 1995. 9AV91-859, unreported decision dated 26 June 1992. 10V91-1073, unreported decision dated 4 September 1992. 11Valuation of Land Act 1944 section 56(2). 12Ibid section 33. -- 8 of 19 -- 9 Mr Paterson, counsel for the respondent, submitted that, for two reasons, this Court should have regard to those decisions for the purpose of ascertaining the unimproved value of the subject land. First, a decision of either the Land Court or the Land Appeal Court is the result of a contest about a valuation. He agreed, however, that the amount of weight to be given to such a decision would vary depending on whether the matters in issue were directly and fully contested by the parties. Second, Mr Paterson submitted, a prudent vendor, being aware of those decisions with respect to the adjoining and nearby blocks, would accept $130,000 for the subject land and not $95,000. Neither party referred to any authorities concerning the weight to be given to previous decisions of the Land Court or the Land Appeal Court concerning valuations. Since hearing the arguments of counsel we have considered some decisions on the matter by the Land Court13 and the Land Appeal Court.14 As the Land Appeal Court succinctly stated in 1966, Land Court determinations, even in uncontested cases, are admissible "but the weight to be given them will vary in different cases and obviously is not the same as the weight given to determinations in contested cases".15 13Settlement Farm Leases and Grazing Selections, Dalby District (1961) 29 CLLR 31 at 37-8, In re Sheep and Cattle Holding Rents - Roma District (1963) 30 CLLR 116 at 118-19, Re Determination of Unimproved Values for Conversion Purposes - Grazing Selections - Mackay District (1967) 34 CLLR 84 at 90. 14Re Settlement Farm Leases Nos 10448 and 10449, Dalby District (1963) 30 CLLR 136, Re Grazing Selections Nos 6011 and 6012, Blackall District (1966) 33 CLLR 265, Re Grazing Homesteads Nos 7695 and 6726, Roma District (1966) 33 CLLR 307 at 309-10. 15Re Grazing Selections Nos 6011 and 6012, Blackall District (1966) 33 CLLR 265 at 266. -- 9 of 19 -- 10 In our opinion, the appellants' submission is correct. Mr Savage stated in evidence that no relevant expert valuation evidence was called on behalf of the appellants in the Coote, Perlowski and Gregan and Gibson cases. He explained, however, that some of these cases were heard in conjunction with other cases and that some valuation evidence was considered in General Comments and Observations made by the Land Court. The judgments of the Land Court and of the Land Appeal Court in those cases indicate that there was no true joining of issue on valuation between the parties. We accept that the decisions properly disposed of each appeal in accordance with law. However the process by which they were reached means that they have relatively little weight when compared with valuations based on sales evidence from the relevant time. Where does that leave the valuations of the neighbouring blocks relied upon by the respondent? There is no issue before this Court about whether those valuations were based on a wrong principle or should be reviewed on any other ground. Mr Needham was at pains to stress that this case should not be resolved by reference to those properties. Whether they were or were not valued correctly is, in his submission, irrelevant. What has to be decided in this case is the proper value of the subject land by reference to sales evidence about comparable unimproved properties. We agree. If a proper valuation of the subject land makes it inconsistent with the relative values of neighbouring blocks then so be it. The question before this Court is "the correct valuation of the subject land, not the correct valuation of an area".16 More significantly, the approach to be taken means that the appeal is dealt with as a hearing de novo. Neither party relied on any evidence given to the Land Court. The record of those proceedings is not in evidence. The issue must be resolved by reference to evidence in these proceedings by Mr Thomas and Mr Savage. This may be the first case of more than three dozen appeals against the 1990 valuation of land in the Division of Stephens in which the issue between the parties has been properly joined. Ironically, it is also the last in that series of cases. Determining the issue - the evidence Although they did not formally disavow the first report of Mr Thomas, the appellants in effect disregarded and placed no reliance on it. The report analysed the value of the property by a method which Mr Needham described as not supported by authorities. The first report did 16Gibson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands, V92-64, unreported decision dated 9 June 1995, at 6. -- 10 of 19 -- 11 not address what Mr Needham submitted is "the basic issue in this case, the comparison between the relevant sales and the subject property." It is of "peripheral interest". He submitted that the better method (and one which led to a lower figure) was that applied in the second report. Apart from its utility in describing the features of the subject land, we have also given no weight to the first report. Mr Savage's valuation report estimated the unimproved value of the subject land relative to the value of neighbouring blocks in respect of which decisions of the Land Court or Land Appeal Court had been made. By inference, those decisions were said to be founded on the sales evidence which informed the Valuer-General's valuations. It will be apparent from the foregoing reasons that we do not favour the method adopted by Mr Savage. We have given little weight to those parts of his report. The evidence of Mr Savage is, however, relevant to determining the unimproved value of the subject land when compared with the three sale blocks. We turn now to consider the evidence concerning the features of the subject land and the three sale blocks and the comparisons of the subject land with each of the sale blocks. -- 11 of 19 -- 12 The subject land The subject land is Lot 8 on RP 54102, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly. It is an almost rectangular block with an area of 878m2. Its topography can best be described as comprising a moderate crossfall (approximately 1 to 1.5 metres) from north to south and a gradual fall from the street frontage towards the rear of the block, where the western quarter falls moderately to the adjoining narrow block of land through which a gully runs. The total fall is approximately 6.5 metres. The block is exposed to the western sun, and has good natural drainage. Its moderate elevation provides a limited outlook to the south-east. As a consequence of the cross fall, an elevated house built across the front of the block would be near ground level at the northern end and a car could be driven under the house at the southern end. The subject land is on the western side of the street, and is the fifth block to the south of the intersection with Kadumba Street. The land is zoned Residential A and is surrounded by land zoned Residential A. Three blocks of land adjoin the subject land, one each on either side and one at the rear. There may be some market advantage in being on the river side of Kadumba Street, which follows the top of a ridge. Blocks on the eastern side of Astolat Street are zoned Residential B (R3). Some of the blocks opposite the subject land are of a size that would allow town house development. No such development has taken place to date. Mr Savage thought that such development of those blocks would not have been economically feasible in 1990 and that the land was too desirable as residential land to have units built on it. He conceded, however, that the zoning of that land may be taken into account by some prudent purchasers of the subject land. Access to the land is obtained by Astolat Street, a relatively narrow, bitumened and kerbed street which falls moderately steeply from the intersection with Kadumba Street to a cul-de-sac to the south. Services available to the land include electricity, water, sewage and telephone. The land is used for a single unit residence. -- 12 of 19 -- 13 There are substantial and attractive houses on the blocks at the corner of Astolat Street and Kadumba Street. Other houses closer to the subject are more modest and are approximately 40-50 years old but are well maintained and give the area an attractive appearance. Houses are built near to the front of each block and so, because of the width of the street, are closer to each other than houses fronting, say, Grimes Street and Rome Street South. Sale 1 - 2 Feez Street, Yeronga The land is an irregular but almost triangular shaped block with an area of 549m2. It is level at the street frontage, with a north-easterly aspect and a slight crossfall to the south. The land falls gradually for about 0.5m from the street frontage to the rear. The land is zoned Residential B (R3) and is surrounded by land with that zoning. Town house development is permitted on blocks so zoned where they have a minimum area of 800m2. Three town houses could be built on a block of 800m2, with one town house unit for every additional 250m2. Consequently, the land does not have potential for such use. Because of its shape and corner location there are only two adjoining blocks, each of which has sufficient area for town house development. The land faces Feez Street but is virtually on the corner of that street and Kadumba Street. The land (with some fencing) was sold on 9 April 1990 for $83,000. It was assessed by the Valuer-General as having an analysed unimproved value of $77,350 and an applied unimproved value of $65,000 (a reduction of almost 16%) which is half the figure applied to the subject land. Although this was one of the sales on which Mr Savage relied in making the original valuation, each party placed less reliance on it than on the other blocks. The parties agreed that, although it has good topography, the land was inferior to the subject land. The factors that make it inferior include its smaller size, irregular shape (which makes it awkward for single unit residential purposes), proximity to Kadumba Street (which carries relatively heavy, noisy and fume generating vehicular traffic, particularly in peak hours), inferior outlook, and its different zoning. Mr Thomas agreed that traffic noise has "a significant effect" on residential land, and that quieter streets, such as Astolat and Rome Streets, are "more desirable". -- 13 of 19 -- 14 Sale 2 - 94 Rome Street South, Yeronga The land is a hatchet shaped block. It has an area of 1065m2, some 100 m2 of which comprises the 2m wide "handle". That strip and an adjacent strip of land with similar dimensions provides access from the street to the main part of the block, and the neighbouring block to the south. The strip has an easy slope from the road to the house, rising slightly at first, then falling to the bulk of the block. The main area of the block is rectangular in plan, with a moderate fall from west to east and a crossfall from north to south. Over its 50m length, the block falls from 20m AHD to 10.6m AHD at the east (or rear) of the block. The garage and the top floor of the two storey house are at ground level at the end of the driveway. Decking extends out to the east overlooking the land which slopes down to the river. The land has a bushland outlook to the east over treed private property. Its eastern boundary adjoins land through which flows a gully or depression (the head of which extends into the north west and north east of the sale land), south to the Brisbane River. That land also runs near to the western boundary of the subject land. The adjoining blocks to the north are more elevated and overlook the land. Blocks to the north of the subject land are also more elevated than the subject land, but the rise is more moderate and there is much less difference in relative elevations of those blocks (approximately 1m) compared with the difference between the sale land and its northern neighbours (approximately 3-4m). The potential impact on privacy of the differences in elevation between the Rome Street properties is moderated by trees between the houses, so that higher neighbours do not look directly onto all of the sale land. The slope also shades the sale land from some sunlight, particularly sunlight from the west and perhaps some winter sunlight. The land is zoned Residential A. Because of its shape, the block adjoins 5 other blocks along a side boundary and one at a corner. All surrounding land is zoned Residential A. Although the narrow means of access from the street may be considered a detriment in some areas, hatchet blocks are not uncommon in the immediate vicinity of the subject land. Attractive dwellings have been constructed on some of those blocks. Hatchet blocks are also favoured by some purchasers because of the privacy which they offer. -- 14 of 19 -- 15 The land was sold on 23 May 1990 for $120,000. The Valuer-General analysed an unimproved value of $118,000 and applied a value of $100,000 (a reduction of slightly more than 15%). The sale 2 land is some 187m2 (or 21%) larger than the subject land, but much of that additional area is taken by the driveway. The land is steeper than the subject. The views to the east of the sale land are similar to the views to the west (or rear) of the subject land, some 50 metres to the south of the sale land. In Mr Thomas's opinion, Rome Street South is superior to Astolat Street for its standard of housing, topography and market value. The value of the subject land should be "slightly less" than the sale land because the sale land is in a better address, it is more elevated than the subject and is more level and wider (at least, where the front of the house is built) and it has "a better atmosphere" than the subject land. Mr Thomas agreed that the cost of extending services to a hatchet block may be a consideration. The actual cost would depend on the location of such things as sewer lines.17 In any case he did not think that the additional cost would be "tremendously significant". Indeed he expressed the opinion that other factors would override that consideration. Mr Savage considered the sale land to be a good measure of comparison against the subject land. In his opinion, it is inferior to the subject because of the inferior topography and outlook of the sale land, the limited options for building a house on the land (compared with the greater flexibility for construction on the subject land), the shading from the rise to the north, the larger number of neighbours, the fact that some neighbouring blocks overlook the sale land, and the long driveway to the land (including, though little stress was put on it, the fact that, in order to have vehicular access to the land, the neighbour's strip of land must be used). Sale 3 - 20 Grimes Street, Yeronga The land is a rectangular block comprising two parcels of land (Lots 26 and 27 on RP 37281) with a total area of 1214m2. It is larger than an average suburban allotment, but it is used for single unit residential purposes. There is a gradual, even rise from the street frontage 17According to Mr Savage there is a stormwater drain near the eastern boundary of the block. -- 15 of 19 -- 16 to the rear. The land has an easterly aspect (though not as attractive as blocks to the south of Kadumba Street), and faces modest housing on the opposite side of the street. A well maintained block of five flats is located one property removed from the land. Good access is available from Grimes Street, which is broader than Astolat Street and runs northwards from the intersection with Kadumba Street. Grimes Street is not a through road and is a relatively quiet street. The land lacks the benefit said to be enjoyed by blocks to the south of Kadumba Street towards the river. The land is zoned Residential A and is surrounded by land with the same zoning. Land on the eastern side of the street is also Residential A. The land was sold on 26 June 1990 for $140,000. The Valuer-General analysed its unimproved value at $146,000 (apparently allowing $7,000 for the removal of the house) and applied a value of $100,000 (a reduction of more than 31%). It is apparent that, although the land comprised two blocks at the date of sale it was used for single unit residential purposes before the sale and (following removal of the old house) a large single residence has been built on it since the sale. Mr Thomas suggested that the sale price reflected the potential of the land to be used as two blocks for two residences. In Mr Savage's opinion, the fact that the land comprised two blocks made no difference to the sale price. Had the block been one parcel it would have attracted the same price. Any premium in price was a result of its generous size, not the potential to later sell it in two parcels. That view was confirmed by the use to which the purchaser put the land, maximising the potential of the block for a single residence. Although he conceded that there were two potential markets for the land (which, in theory, may have set the market price by competing with each other), his opinion that the land was really a single unit residential block was supported by comparing the sale price of the sale land with the sale price of the smaller, hatchet shaped Rome Street South block. Mr Thomas described the sale land as "markedly superior" to the subject land in size, topography and elevation. He acknowledged, however, that the Astolat Street address is considered to be superior, and said that the value of land in Grimes Street is less than that of the subject. -- 16 of 19 -- 17 Mr Savage considered the sale land to be superior to the subject in terms of the area and topography, but inferior in terms of its situation, taking into account such factors as the absence of the river influence, the proximity of the block of flats, the outlook to modest housing (including dwellings constructed by the Housing Commission) and the general quality of nearby housing. In cross-examination he conceded that a purchaser would be more favourably impressed with the outside appearance of houses on the western side of Grimes Street than most of the houses in Astolat Street. In his opinion, houses on the eastern side of Astolat Street gave a more attractive impression than those on the eastern side of Grimes Street. Previous and changing relativities of sales properties Mr Needham attempted to support his clients' case by reference to the change in relativities in the valuations of the sale blocks from those applied at the preceding valuation date and the valuations as at 31 March 1990. Mr Savage did not dispute that the valuations had changed as follows: 19891990% change Subject land $56,000$130,000+ 132 Sale 2 $62,000$100,000+ 61 Sale 3 $72,000$100,000+ 39 He readily acknowledged that he had deliberately changed the relative valuations. But he did not know how many years earlier the previous relativities had been set nor what relevant factors (if any) had changed between the dates of valuation. There was no clear evidence on the point, although some of the change may be attributed to the perceived increase in value of land on the south or river side of Kadumba Street. We need express no view on that matter. The only matter to be determined is the unimproved value of the subject land at 31 March 1990. Conclusion and order Having regard to the evidence, we have concluded that the subject land should be valued only slightly higher than the blocks described a sales 2 and 3. We consider that the valuation of the subject land should be reduced by the amount of $20,000. -- 17 of 19 -- 18 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 a 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.18 The consequences, if any, of this judgment for the owners of neighbouring blocks is a matter for the respondent to address. 18R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13 at 16-17, H and E Grahn v The Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 327 at 328-9. -- 18 of 19 -- 19 The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Land Court is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land as at 31 March 1990 is determined to be one hundred and ten thousand dollars ($110,000). FRYBERG J JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT GJ NEATE MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT CF WALL MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 19 of 19 --