Coote v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 316

, ,. . Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane Division of Stephens - AV91-859 Marion Coote V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th June, 1992. Marion Coote has appealed against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $150,000 for Lot 6 on RP 54012, Parish of Yeerongpilly containing an area of 1206 m2• This is a "Residential A" zoned site situated at 11 Astolat Street, Yeronga. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 31st March, 1990. The appellant contends within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $70,000. Michael Lionel Tighe appeared as authorised agent for the appellant. Mr Tighe said he had no written material to submit and he did not propose to give sworn evidence in the matter. Mr Tighe submitted that the appellant is an 87 year old widow living on her own and is unable to attend the Court. Mr Tighe submitted on the appellant's behalf that the increase in the valuation of the subject property [1992] QLC 316 -- 1 of 4 -- ' . . - Page 2 - as between the 1989 relevant date valuation and 1990 relevant date valuation was 158%. By comparison he refers to the valuation of a property owned by Hinchy (Valuation No. 13716) at 22 Astolat Street which was increased by a factor of 54%. However the Valuer-General has recently revalued the Hinchy property to $100,000 and this increased value represents an increase of 92%. Mr Tighe submitted on behalf of the appellant that this is one of the glaring anomalies in the rate of increase in valuations in the area. He was set to rely on the rate of increase in the valuation of the Hinchy property, but the recent increase in the value of that property has disturbed his preparation for the Court. He says as a result of the recent decision by the Valuer-General to increase some of the property valuations in the area, there is going to be some ill feeling amongst landholders as it is a tightly knit community. Mr Tighe submitted that the property under appeal is the subject of soil movement. There is a house with high cement steps at the rear some three metres high. The plaster in the house reveals considerable movement of the foundations. Mr Tighe did not elect to give sworn evidence in the matter nor for that matter did registered valuer Ian Geoffrey Savage who made the valuation under appeal. This is understandable since it was agreed between the parties in an earlier case that the general tenure of the evidence presented in all the cases would be considered when the Court considers each individual case. Mr Savage describes the nature of the subject land as being a medium elevated block (street level) with a south easterly aspect and restricted suburban outlook to the south. The front half of the block has an easy cross slope falling to the south west. The rear half falls moderately towards the gully which cuts the -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - northern corner of the block and runs just outside the rear boundary. Mr Savage had made the valuation under appeal having regard to the analyses of three sales - Lot 2 on RP 115205, Parish of Yeerongpilly (Matthews to Wikman) - analysed unimproved $77,350 - applied unimproved value $65,000 - is considered by Mr Savage to be an inferior block to the subject land because of its smaller size, inferior shape and restricted outlook. Lot 3 on RP 107692, Parish of Yeerongpilly (Weinglass to Griffin) - analysed unimproved value $118,000 - applied unimproved value $100,000 - is regarded by Mr Savage to be also inferior to the subject site because of its smaller area, inferior topography and restricted outlook. Lots 26 and 27 on RP 37281, Parish of Yeerongpilly (Vanze to Maxon) analysed unimproved value $146,000 (applied unimproved value $100,000) is also regarded by Mr Savage to be an inferior parcel to the subject land. Mr Savage comments that the subject site is superior because of its superior position since the sale site is situated in what he regards as inferior residential location. It was submitted from the bar table by the Valuer-General that the soil foundation problems suffered by the subject property would also be suffered by Lot 3 on RP 107692. This decision is to be read 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's valuation prevails. Certainly the subject land seems to be one of the better residential sites in the area due to its size and relatively good shape. It certainly seems to have a considerable advantage over the sale sites referred to in evidence by Mr Savage. On this basis I cannot see that a valuation of $150,000 for it is excessive or unreasonable. -- 3 of 4 -- - Page 4 - Accordingly the appeal fails , and the determination made by the Valuer-General in the sum of $150,000 for Lot 6 on RP 54012, Parish of Yeerongpilly, is affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --