Abbondanza v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 324

J Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane, Division of Stephens - AV91-827 BC & JL Abbondanza. v. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th June, 1992. This appeal is -against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unmproved value of $85,000 for Portion 786, Parish of Yeerongpilly, containing an area of 809 m 2 • This is a "Residential A" zoned site situated at 124 Kadumba Street, Yeronga. The determination of the unimproved value is to be made as at 31st March, 1990. The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $60,000. Michael Lionel Tighe appeared for the appellant as authorised agent. Mr Tighe tendered to the Court a statement prepared by the appellants and he agrees with the contents. The appellants contend that the subject property does not have river views or any city views. They describe Kadumba Street as a major thoroughfare for the residents of Yeronga. It services many vehicles daily and the noise and exhaust emitted from these vehicles have an adverse affect on the subject property. The property is also situated on a bus route. The positioning of [1992] QLC 324 -- 1 of 4 -- - Page 2 - a bus stop across the street has reduced the privacy associated with the property. Another problem with the parcel is that it is situated directly across Kadumba Street from St Sebastian's Primary School. Between the hours of 8.30 a.m. - 9.00 a.m. and 3.00 - 3.30 p.m. there is a high incidence of traffic outside the Abbondanza's front door. This makes it extremely difficult and somewhat dangerous to drive a vehicle out of the carport In addition there is a reduction in security of the property when the house is left unattended during these hours. The appellants say that the subject land is affected by two easements which run along the full length of two of the property's boundaries. The first easement is situated along the western boundary and the second easement is situated along the southern boundary. Both these easements are the cause of relatively high levels of noise on the subject allotment as a result of vehicles servicing adjoining properties. Mr Tighe describes the traffic situation outside the subject property as being dangerous. Mr Tighe feels that the valuation of the subject land is at odds with that of 37 Grimes Street, Yeronga which contains an area of 607 m 2 and which has been valued by the Valuer-General at $60,000. This site is off a busy road in a secluded and private location although not as big as the subject site. Mr Tighe also referred to the valuation of Lot 2 on RP 122687 situated at 23 Feez Street containing an area of 759 m 2 which is valued by the Valuer-General at $66,000. By comparison the Feez Street site has no street disadvantages concerning traffic. It is an isolated site unaffected by easements and with inferior access. The comparison site in Feez Street does not have the problems with vehicular entry and the schools. -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - Another property referred to in evidence by Mr Tighe is a site at 36 Kadumba Street which is valued at $61,000. This site is not far from the shopping centre. The valuation under appeal was made by registered departmental valuer Ian Geoffrey Savage who describes the nature of the subject land as being elevated below road level with a southerly outlook. It has an easy fall from the north western frontage to the rear south eastern corner. Mr Savage has valued the land having regard to the analyses of three sales. Lot 2 on RP 115205, Parish of Yeerongpilly (Matthews to Wikman) - analysed unimproved value $77,350 - applied unimproved value $65,000 - is considered by Mr Savage to be an inferior block because of its smaller area of 549 m2 and inferior shape. Lot 3 on RP 107692 (Weinglass to Griffin) - analysed unimproved value $118,000 - applied unimproved value $100,000 - is considered by Mr Savage to be a superior block due to its size. Lots 26 and 27 on RP 37281, Parish of Yeerongpilly (Vance to Maxon) - analysed unimproved value $146,000 - applied unimproved value $100,000 - is regarded by Mr Savage to be a superior site due to its larger size. Mr Savage commented in evidence that some sales r~ferred to by Mr Tighe during the presentation of the appellants' case were improved with dwelling houses and as such were not a reliable as a basis of valuation. With this contention I agree. Mr Savage commented in evidence that the site at 36 Kadubma Street, being east of the subject land and although not having any problems with the school, would be subject to more passing traffic than the subject land. It is in a "Residential B" area which he regards as being less attractive than the subject -- 3 of 4 -- - Page 4 - "Residential A" area. Mr Savage says that the valuation of the site at 36 Kadumba Street is low. He recommended to Senior management that the figure should be increased to $75,000 or $80,000. He says the same about the site at 37 Grimes Street which is valued at $60,000 but which valuation he considers also should be increased. Similarly the site at 23 Feez Street should have been increased to preserve relativity, from $66,000 to $80,000 or $90,000. It is this type of evidence which led me to the conclusion reached in my general comments and observations that the relativity in the area should be closely examinated when the lands in the Yeronga area are revalued for the 30th March, 1992 relevant date valuation. This decision should be read as one with the attached general comments and observations. Since I have indicated a preference for the use of analysed sales evidence as a basis of valuation, then the evidence of Mr Savage must prevail in this case. He is familiar with the disabilities outlined in the statement by Mr Abbondanza ie . the traffic problems, the disability with the easements and the problems with the traffic at the school and claims his valuation makes sufficient allowance for them. On the basis of the sales evidence I cannot see that a well informed hypothetical seller of the subject site at relevant date would be prepared to accept less than $85,000 for it. It follows then that the appeal be dismissed, and that the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved of $85,000 for Portion 786, Parish of Yeerongpilly be affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the land Court. -- 4 of 4 --