Fenelon v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1994] QLC 270

[1994] QLC 270 Re: Appeal against a valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - AV93-500. Brian C Fenelon and Joan E Fenelon v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 22 July, 1994 This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, disallowing an objection by the appellants against the valuation of their residential lot situated at 45 Devenish Street, Sunnybank, for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31 March, 1992. The appellants are contending for a value of $100,000 (in market figures). The sum was derived by the appellants and summarised by Mr Brian C Fenelon in evidence by working forward from sales prices set by the developer when lots in Devenish Street were sold. A copy of the plan of subdivision is attached as annexure "A". I will confine my consideration of the evidence to five lots - these are Lots 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, which sold at these prices and are currently valued in the sums as follows: Lot 21 - Lot 22 - Lot 23 - Lot 24 - Lot 25 - $ 60,950 $ 53,000 $48,500 $44,950 $44,950 $133,000 $121,000 $121,000 $121,000 $124,000 % increase 118 128 149 170 176 The size, shape and dimensions of each lot may be gleaned from attachment "A". From these selling prices Mr Fenelon adjusted values upwards according to the average of increases shown by values applied by the Department for the purpose of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31 March, 1990 (146.51%), then allowed for a 10% reduction in value as his reflection of the stagnant market applying between -- 1 of 4 -- 18 /9 2C 21 22 I-it'I:>,::.• 34 P.P ~1 O.tf-'9on_e ~¾ 35· 3 178°4/ P\Jt,.. ~~- '~a"'·54·= " m ') . OAT/IM. ;3 1!32 <oO, c«w,1/ · ,· B!,J• 54 20 •O) 0·004.w'. ... 2 : , 22 "'"' -o,., , ~ 21 5 I ~~ 8/0m'· ,.. 803. "'· ' 21 lt 21 ,. 36 191716 /0 ~ 135380 37 I\) ~ h ~~ti ~?~39 ~1::)1'\~ - ~ ,,.._ ~'-'>:i: ""' \Ji~:-i, <:::):.,, ,;i, tt._l"',:::i· ~~ ~"~ r--- " M,.., ' 208!}2° ___ 5 .; h 33 . ' "' ~ ~ - • • ,,,,.,.,,, ' ~ 8 2 w ':'.8542 ~(Ji@~~ m ui B36m·, ai,0,54,- •• · , ' 771 m' 76 m ~ q(rt w m ~ l9 7 Cl\ , 1J1 7 - 5 0 771 m ~ ~ o ':ii 0 (9"' .,. w w" ,,,., "' ·O <>o C:. "' 23 · ' · "' m O "' '.l · ~ o 29 "' '0, . $ • <h <,; <h -0 'l 27 N 28 ~ ' ~ , 2 2 u:,~ -~J> <:i:, • ~ ~ 26 . ~ :I( > •• o~•s4 " 4'(JI ..._ ~~ .. ~ ~ • 5'30 r ·. "' ) R.P /6B887 ~ O.P; 6B,,t,;?>_9.----'r.> ~ ~ S<J , u, , ,0 1.'2 ,,':, f (21422 --o- --- -- N,. • -" • 20 ·~ •• ,- • 15 V) ~ .,. ~ ) \ ,4 l ~~K 45°55' -·.:: ~ 3·7.3B g ~ -t,.'t\) '-~ 'J • 21 21 -l""°= . ;,,.,ol,.·I 8·0.9 10 2.SC 10 7< 2 ee,• 54' ~ff c~ \ ~ 0 17 •. ,-_., . . o.i ~d 1s1 2,s Ao ,,,n ,;.½o· STREET o.~,1~ •m, ':IPJk> *,, ,. ::,· J~~ 27.5·-40·· DEVENISH NEW <,::<p '11-~1..s ·····-,;:-c.·~ 09.31'30' ,r ... a . ~--~I' ··-2·· .., I . . 2C ~ I . . 6, - .... ,-,.~ =-;- . ~ :2· . 246B m 2 20-1.0---~ ~,:- ·5117 /4376 19 r ,ai,~..,_ \Y, -~ . ~"- ~ \)~._ E 0·-:,:, 35~•54• 10 76 4-0 ·- l:l~ I!'> l;l"' ·---~ B 1 t'1. .• :f o1,,• c:<-- c1io-i., .. ~-7 "~L.; -0xii· ~ ,~' 103·9 m 2 ~- 37·!76 w·1t,.. lll!!.J.; ~ ~ U) In ~/V! ~ ~ . ,, 8 .2 . ..,, I\}!~ l::i 832mw •755 --1·737 'Qi ~- ni~ ~- m2 27·53! 20 '{ 20 17.. ~ ~ 734 m2 20 -~~ ~;:, ~f;\ . JO~~ ---~~ -z.~·~•201"' I'\"\~ ~~::- !'I :::,- {12 ~ Q ~~ -.. ~ Htjll lμ/,i,q ..,,,,"'b "- ·. r ~t'\ ~ . : ~ - l31'J.t; 14 I 159 II P -~ R_ . • ,.r:,. q~ !J4l/4~' - -. ----1 -1- C- ~ - ,, / .a . - - ~ ·. -·-· ~ /YU ,>::L.6 ..15,"_.;-<... .• - - s~ l!..J7c 7'.. ,!)/GI)/.E-Z 7Y. 16 Otu 15 to do-:. o:i o0 -.:..i Q::, • ,., ,t..8 734 m 2 t''736mi:'v-. , /6 R.P. .. •·· NililinM. /6 r:,B,.,,~ ~: ~~ '\I ,.._ . ~ i'ti '<i/7 :"') g 1:\:-ii " "'~"' l:\lll ~~ (i,v, . lb-.J 18 ~ -' . ill ~ ~ 17 /688B7 324•13·40• 2·4-62 14 ;i:,, z ztr:l :x: C: ~ tr:l -;i:,, -- 2 of 4 -- '. 2 1990 and March 1992. The reason for the latter adjustment is that particular buyers have dropped out or substantially dropped out of the market in the locality. More to the point, the principal argument rests upon the change in relativity in value which has occurred since the lots were purchased from the developer. Comparative values were considered on a per square metre basis. Mr R B Cranstoun, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, wrote the valuation. He led evidence of two sales within the suburb which are situated respectively in Sunnybrae Street (S1) and Dunedin Street (S2). S1 is a regular shaped lot of 809m 2 which sold in March 1991 for $135,000 in a vacant cleared state. S2 is also of regular shape. This lot comprising 1012m 2 sold in March 1992 in a vacant cleared state for $125,000. The sale lots are valued for the purposes of this Annual Valuation in the sums of $120,000 and $122,000 respectively. Sale 1 is of smaller area than S2 and has access from the east via a half width road. Sale 2, although having a larger area, is below road level with a narrower frontage than Sale 1 and greater depth. In this instance, Mr Cranstoun is of the opinion that the additional area, apart from other points of comparison between the sale lots, adds little to the value of S2 for reasons that the additional area is rear land. The similarity in value as he sees it between the lots is reflected in the applied values. The sales evidence supports his opinion that as at March 1992 a level of value is reflected by sales and thus any excursion into prior values in general or of increases in value would serve no useful purpose. I agree with this reasoning. An application of the sales evidence would, in my opinion, support the value applied to the subject land. Returning then to the evidence of Mr Fenelon on relativity, the thing which concerns him is that with Lots 22, 23 and 24 being valued in the same sum, no consideration could have been given to the size differential - it being assumed that this was the principal factor which caused the lots to be sold at different prices. The area differences are in fact not great. Whilst Lot 22 has an area of 854m 2 much is taken up with the access strip. It adjoins a park which some purchasers may prefer and others not. Lot 23 is of irregular shape. Lot 24 has an oblique frontage. The topography of the area is one of a gentle fall from north-west to south-east. No doubt with these distinguishing features, if one were to embark upon an infinite comparison, some adjustments (minor in my opinion) could be made. So minor, that I would -- 3 of 4 -- 3 hesitate to say which of the lots might be preferred by the hypothetical purchaser. For example I can see nothing in the evidence which would distinguish Lots 23 and 24 to the extent they were distinguished when initially sold - a difference of $3,550. There has to be more in that than the difference in size - 7m 2 • There is evidence that Lot 25 was the lot first sold from the estate and that the purchaser received some consideration for doing so. Mr Cranstoun said that it is common when winding up an estate to find the last lots sold at discounted prices. In considering these issues, I have referred to principles laid down by the Land Appeal Court. That Court has repeatedly said that if bona fide sales of comparable parcels support the new valuation, fqrmer relativity and consideration of increases in values are irrelevant. See Re Appeals against the determinations of the Valuer-General - Shire of Manto (1984-5) 10 Q.L.C.R. 32; Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 Q.L.C.R. 378; and Grahn v Valuer-General (AV90-472) 20 November, 1992 (to be reported). After perusing the evidence I am left with the conclusion that values and relativity as applied by Mr Cranstoun are reasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed. (0.M. White) President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --