Fanton v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 166

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Caloundra. AV91-208. J.I. and D.M . Fanton V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th November, 1991 Mr and Mrs Fanton are the owners of Lot 240 on RP 164090, parish of Bribie, containing 674 square metres. In the revaluation of the lands in the City of Caloundra as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General valued this land at $62,500 but allowed an objection and amended the valuation to $60,000. Mr and Mrs Fanton have exercised the right of appeal to the Land Court against this valuation and contend to a value of $52,000. The subject land is situated at 2 Blarney Street, with frontage also to Crusader and Anderson Streets. All of the streets have bitumen carriageways with concrete kerbing and channelling. It is zoned Residential A and has erected upon it a dwelling house. Evidence was given by Mr J.I. Fanton in support of the grounds of appeal and he first deals with relativity with valuations placed on the adjoining parcels. Lot 241 fronts Anderson Street and Lot 250 fronts Blarney Street. He says that the subject land had a previous valuation of $401 000 and has been increased to $60,000 (50%). Lot 241 had a previous valuation of $40,000, has been increased to $52,000 (30%} while Lot 250 was previously $36,000 and has a [1991] QLC 166 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 new valuation of $43,000 (19%). He says that the valuation of the subject has increased significantly more than these parcels and it is apparent to him that the relativity established by previous valuations has not been maintained and there seems to be no objective reasoning for the change. He makes reference to two sales which he says are the most recent sales known to him. Lot 244 sold in August 1988 for $36,000 while Lot 250, already referred to, sold in June 1989 for $48,000. He says that the valuation placed on the subject land cannot be substantiated by the actual sale price of similar allotments in the near vicinity. Mr Fanton says that when they purchased their allotment it was a vacant parcel of land with a steep embankment existing along the entire Blarney Street frontage. The embankment in that state was totally unusable land and constituted about 10 percent of the area of the allotment. To enable the embankment to be utilised a reinforced concrete block retaining wall up to 2.4 metres high at the north-west comer of the allotment was constructed at a cost in excess of $11,000 in 1986. The wall and the associated filling works have improved the property but as it is a structural improvement some account should be taken of that expense when an unimproved capital value is assessed. He comments on the sales used by the Valuer-General as a basis of valuation. Lot 286 on RP 168877 has an area of 696 square metres, is located at 20 Anderson Street and sold in December 1989 for $75,000. He says that the . views from this allotment are vastly superior to the views obtained from the subject land. It is on the southern and higher side of Anderson Street and that side of Anderson Street has always been considered more prestigious than the opposite or southern side. The second sale is of Lot 129 on RP 164090 containing 584 square -- 2 of 5 -- 3 metres at 3 Anderson Street which sold in December 1989 for $55,000 and has been valued by the Valuer-General at $50,000. Mr Fanton says that on the general evidence available to him and to others in the area this was a high sale. In support of the value of $52,000 for which he contends, it is his submission that the relativity previously established with Lot 241 should be maintained. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Valuation Manager, Mr G.J. Dunn, who describes the subject land as being well-elevated with extensive distant views of the ocean and Mooloolaba sky-line. He says the views cannot be built out because of the shape and slope of the block. The sales which he has noted in his written valuation show him the values to be applied to a sale of a superior allotment and an inferior allotment. He says the property at 20 Anderson Street is well elevated and overlooks the subject with similar views. It does not have corner or rear access but is overall superior. The property at 3 Anderson Street is a smaller allotment on a corner, it has very limited views restricted by the adjoining house and is overall inferior to the subject. He sees the valuation of the subject land lying between the values applied to these sale properties. Mr Dunn acknowledges that he has changed relativity with the values applied on the previous occasion. He says that the sales evidence supports the conclusion that allotments from which views can be obtained will command higher prices than other allotments. In changing the relativity with Lot 241, he formed the opinion that the views from this allotment had been partly lost following the construction of a home on another allotment. He says that he was not aware of the extent of the views to be obtained from Allotment 250 as mentioned by Mr Fanton. He had formed the opinion that the views were obscured by the buildings -- 3 of 5 -- 4 on Lots 238 and 239. It was put to him that he is in error in his opinion of lack of views from Lot 250. He concedes that this could be possible and if the views were more extensive than assessed by him it would necessitate an increase in the valuation on Lot 241. On the question of the wall which has been constructed, Mr Dunn says that it was quite possible to erect a home upon this allotment and a retaining wall was not essential for that purpose. The matter of the slope could have been dealt with by battering the land as has been done on the adjoining Lot 250 and other allotments which fall to the street. He agrees that by constructing the wall it was possible to obtain more useable land area at a better level. On the evidence before me I am unable to conclude that the costs involved in the construction of the wall were essential to enable the allotment to be developed for a single dwelling house. I accept that other allotments have been developed without such an expenditure and while the cost may well have been justified in the layout of the grounds themselves, such expenditure is a matter of personal preference and it is not appropriate to have regard to such expenditure in arriving at an unimproved value of the allotment itself. Mr Dunn properly fulfilled his function in that the valuations should be looked at afresh at each relevant date. He says that allotments with views might lose those views when buildings are constructed at strategic points and it is appropriate to make allowance for this change when it occurs. He has changed the relativity between the subject land and Lot 241 because he believed there had been a change in the views to be obtained from Lot 241. It is not appropriate to reduce the valuation of the subject land to the level of that valuation when Mr Dunn -- 4 of 5 -- 5 says that if he has erred in hrs appreciation of the views from that allotment, then his valuation is wrong. The remedy is for that valuation to be reviewed to make allowance for superior views. The sales advanced by Mr Dunn support his conclusion that the appropriate value for the subject land lies between the values applied to the sales and I find that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation and the appeal fails. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 5 of 5 --