Briggs v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1995] QLC 28

LAND COURT BRISBANE 28 April 1995 Re: Appeal against a valuation. Caloundra Local Government (AV94-548) Malcolm V Briggs v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing at Maroochydore) DECISION This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands of the unimproved value of Lot 545 on Plan M93012 Parish of Mooloolah in the sum of $60,000 for the purposes of the annual valuation of the area as at 30 June 1993. The appellant is contending for an unimproved value of $30,000 on grounds going to the effects of traffic noise emanating from the Nicklin Way at Minyama to which Lot 545 has a side boundary. Otherwise the lot has a frontage to Churinga Street which is a bitumen sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling. The lot is situated about six kilometres south-east of the Maroochydore Post Office and is within walking distance of shopping facilities etc. The lot is zoned residential A and is used for this purpose by the appellant. He purchased the land some years ago and is desirous of selling the lot in order to move away from the Nicklin Way. He paid $108,000 for the site which he said was below the price of other lots away from the road but improved at the time with comparable-type residences. He said that the site was put to auction in 1993 with a reserve price of $150,000 but was not sold. Advice he has received from real estate agents is to the effect that highway noise has a depreciating effect on value. Ms JR Manners, registered valuer in the employ of the Department, wrote the valuation on behalf of the Chief Executive. She agrees with Mr Briggs that noise has an effect on value. The question is what allowance should be made for this disturbance. Ms Manners looked for evidence in the marketplace to support her opinion of these effects. However, there are included in the exercise other offsetting factors when considering noise effects. Such factors included the size of the subject lot which is 1304m2 and the fact that it adjoins parkland. The summary of the valuation of [1995] QLC 28 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Ms Manners reads as follows - "Unaffected Site value $100,000 (adjoining park) With allowance for $ 80,000 Nicklin Way frontage less fill 2608m3 @ $6/m3 $15,648 less clearing $ 500 $ 16,150 Unimproved value $ 63,850 Adopted value $ 60,000 " Evidence of sales at Minyama of lots of the order of 600m2 with no highway frontage nor park adjacency reflected values of the order of $60,000. Sales of inside residential allotments of around 700-800m2 in the Mountain Creek estate when compared with lots of larger size (1423m2) and with park adjacency showed a premium of the order of 40 per cent for size and park adjacency. Sales of lots at Wurtulla on and off the Nicklin Way of small sized lots (500-600m2) demonstrated a depreciation factor of about 14 per cent for Nicklin Way frontage. Thus the calculation follows by allowing 20 per cent in the subject case (after deriving an unaffected site value of $100,000). The end result of $60,000 in the opinion of Ms Manners is conservative when the subject lot as a site of 1304m2 with park adjacency is put beside sales on the Nicklin Way at Wurtulla of around $48,000/$49,000 for lots of 500-600m2 with no park adjacency. Such comparisons would in her opinion yield an unimproved value for the subject land in excess of that applied. With this reasoning I agree. On consideration of the evidence which appears to me as being as good as conclusive on all relevant points of comparison, I find that the onus cast on the appellant of proving that the applied value is incorrect has not been discharged. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Chief Executive is affirmed. President of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --