Cowin & Anor v Valuer-General [1992] QLC 283

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Brisbane City Council. AV91-1041. George W. ai=ld Dudley J. Cowin V. Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 1st May, 1992 The appellants are the owners of a parcel of land situated at 40 Villiers Street, New Farm, being rectangular in shape with a frontage of about 30 metres to Villiers Street and an area of 2909 square metres. The land is zoned "Residential B - R3" in the town planning scheme. For the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General issued a valuation of the land in the sum of $420,000. The appellants objected against the valuation. Their objection was disallowed. They have appealed that decision and are contending for a value of $350,000. It is agreed that on redevelopment an area of about 175-180 square metres of frontage would be lost to road. Nevertheless the site ·under the zoning could accommodate 10 units. The valuation made on behalf of the Valuer-General and supported in Court by Mr G.W. Lindberg ignores the land which would be lost on redevelopment. Under the zoning laws the permissible gross floor area (GFA) is 1230 square metres. The applied value is the result of an application of a value of $340 per square metre of GFA. As a unit site the value is equivalent to a price of $42,000 per unit. Mr G.W. Cowin who represented the appellants said that in August, 1990 a firm of valuers placed a value of $300,000 on the site ($30,000 per unit). At the present time a real estate agent whom he consulted expressed the opinion that the site would fetch in the vicinity of $350,000 to $370,000 or $35,000 [1992] QLC 283 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 to $37,000 per unit. In addition to the matter of loss of land on redevelopment (which had been accounted for in the valuation of the Valuer-General) Mr Cowin gave evidence of a drainage pipe crossing the property diagonally at the rear and possessing an inlet grate adjacent to one boundary. He expressed the opinion that the existence of a primary school adjoining could have a depreciating effect on value. Mr Lindberg, whilst conceding that the underground drain could present some problems and additional costs on redevelopment, were the development to go over that area, expressed the opinion that most likely the area could be avoided as he would expect development to cover the frontage area where the land is elevated. He was of the opinion that the effect of the existence of the school would depend on the particular buyer. He said that sales of "R 3" land were not available in the valuation period. His valuation was derived from sales of land zoned "R 4" which permits of higher density - 60% GFA as compared with 45% GFA for "R 3" land. These sales, briefly, are as follows: S. 1 - Bowen Terrace - 1366m 2 - 23.2.90 - Sale price $337,000 - GFA 777m 2 - Analysed unimproved value $320,000 - Applied value $310,000= $400 per m 2 of GFA. S. 2 - Oxlade Drive - 931m2 - 18.5.89 - Sale price $290,000 - GFA 517m2 - Analysed unimproved value $298,500 - Applied value $270,000 = $520 per m 2 of GFA. S. 3 - Kent Street - 1029m2 - 8.7.89 - Sale price $244,000 - GFA 618m2 - Analysed unimproved value $227,000 - Applied value $215,000 = $350 per m 2 of GFA. By comparison he values the subject land at $340 per m 2 of GFA. The last sale he suggested as the most comparable of the three sales. _It is nearer the valley but has some service industries close by which Mr Lindberg considers would impact on unit buyers. Generally the comparability between the subject land and the sale lands is such that finite comparison is unnecessary. From that base the rise in values has been demonstrated through the sales. The subject land was in 1989 -- 2 of 3 -- , . ... f 3 valued at $270 ,000. For that date the sale lands were valued as follows - S. 1 - $195,000 - Applied value 1990 - $310,000 = rise of 60%. S. 2 - $140,000 - Applied value 1990 - $270,000 = rise of about 90%. S. 3 - $140,000 - Applied value 1990 - $215,000 = rise of about 50%. The value applied to the subject site reflects an increase of about 55%. Mr Lindberg said that although the subject site was zoned "R 3" he would expect that the rise demonstrated by the sales would flow on at a comparable rate. In view of the fact that the only difference in the zonings is one of density, the opinion of Mr Lindberg has weight. The sales evidence which followed the determinations of the 1989 valuations is the only real evidence before the Court of market value since that date. The latest opinion on _value which is that expressed by Kuceli real estate is an opinion given this year and for that reason (more particularly when between 1989 and 1990 values were rising) should be put aside in preference to sales which occurred closer to the relevant date. In consideration of all the circumstances I have concluded in applying correct valuation principles to the evidence that the appeal must be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General is affirmed. Acting President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --