Burton & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 269

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Pine Rivers Shire Council. AV90-515. •.-:- Darryl A Burton and Carole J. Burton V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 3rd May, 1991 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of an area of land held by the appellants in Strathpine, being an "L" shaped area comprising two lots - Lot 25 with frontage to Harvey Street and Lot 27 with frontage to Dorothy Street - in the sum of $82,500 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1989. The parcels are each of 607 square metres and are developed with eight flats of two-bedroom and one- bedroom size over the total area. The land is zoned "Residential A". However, the valuation is made under the provisions of Section 12 (1A) of the Act which enables the Valuer-General to value the land unimproved but capable of development to the extent to which it is developed at the date of valuation. The appellants who are familiar with the process of valuation for rating and taxing purposes, having appealed the decision of the Valuer-General previously, have estimated the value of the block at $50,000. They were represented by Mr Burton. Lot 27 is at the southern end of Dorothy Street and is bordered on the side (southern boundary) by Coulthardts Gully which in tum forms the rear boundary of Lot 25. When developed, a quantity of fill (agreed at 840 cubic metres) was placed along this boundary. Lot 25 has a frontage to Harvey Street. It is one lot removed from the corner. On that intersection with Dorothy Street, the Local Authority has installed a traffic calming device by narrowing the carriageway and raising the level thereof. The raised section of the carriageway extends along the frontage of Lot 25, leaving [1991] QLC 269 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 about 1.8 metres free of the works. Access to the flats and the garages is from Dorothy Street. The evidence of Mr Burton is that Coulthardts Gully floods and backs up Dorothy Street. Although the land itself is not flooded (due to the filling) the backup water can prevent access to the garages. This occurs infrequently, the last occasion being on the Anzac Day flood in 1989. The appellants have also incurred expense in replacing filling and securing the sewer .main which traverses the property under Flat 5. Mr Burton says it is difficult to let Flat 8 which fronts Harvey Street and he put this difficulty down to traffic noise in drivers negotiating the traffic calming works. While he agrees with the quantity of fill put on the blocks, he questions the allowance made by Mr G.J. Dunn, Valuation Manager in the employ of the Department of Lands, Division of Valuations. The only relevant basic valuation material contained in the evidence of Mr Burton is that found in the sale of a parcel of 2732 square metres at 26 Samsonvale Road which, for the purposes of this valuation, is valued at $120,000 or $44 per square metre. This property is seen by Mr Burton as a superior property to the subject lots, being zoned "Residential B" under which the land could be used for either strata title units or townhouses. He believes that if the sale land is worth $44 per square metre, the subject land would be worth no more than $50,000 or $41.19 per square metre. The valuation of Mr Dunn is made up as follows: 1,214 sq. m. x $80 per sq. m. Less 840 c.m. x $11/c.m. Less 5% access problems on Lot 25 Less allowance for sewerage trench problems Say $82,500 = = = 97,120 9,240 87,880 2,428 85,452 3,000 $82,452 -- 2 of 4 -- 3 In dealing with the allowances, Mr Dunn obtained quotes from quarry sources within 6 kilometres of the site. The quotes were in the range of about $5 to $7 per cubic metre delivered on site. He adopted $7 per cubic metre and allowed $4 per cubic metre for compaction. There is no better evidence before the Court and the quantity is not in dispute. This allowance must ac(lordingly be accepted. ".~.: Access to the development on the lots is from Dorothy Street. This access was settled as the preferred access when the development was effected and prior to the traffic calming works being placed in Harvey Street. Were the land unimproved at the relevant date and the development allowed to occur, the existing form of development would, it seems, remain the preferred development. Access can still be got from Harvey Street and is taken when furniture is delivered or removed. The noise and nuisances from such works appear on the evidence to be the only real valuation consideration when Harvey Street is considered. The impact of this disturbance is taken by Flat 8. On the assumption that Mr Dunn's primary value of $97,120 is correct, the value per flat site is $12,140. The allowance he makes of 5% of the value of four sites ($48,560) or about $2,500, if transfered wholly to the flat site suffering the noise, the depreciation becomes about 20% - $12140 divided by $2500 = 4.856 = about 20%. This is the only real measure of depreciation put before the Court and I accept it. The final allowance is one which Mr Dunn is of the opinion is reasonable when the effect is endeavoured to be gauged by the effect knowledge of the problem would have on the mind of a purchaser of the land in an unimproved state, knowing that the problem existed. His reasoning is preferred to that of Mr Burton. I come then to the primary value. Mr Dunn said that the subject land and other lands developed in Harvey Street for the same purpose have been valued generally on sums derived from an application of the value of $80 per square metre. The value was taken from sales. The sales used for direct comparison purposes are both of large parcels - Sale 1 being of an area of 2732 square metres and Sale 2 of 2032 square metres. Both parcels were of land zoned :i -- 3 of 4 -- 4 "Residential B" which is a multi unit zoning. Sale 1 is the sale referred to by Mr Burton. The sale land is in Samsonvale Road. It is much larger in size than the subject land and is situated on a major arterial road of four lanes separated by a median strip with no break along the frontage of the sale land. In the opinion of Mr Dunn the sale land is inferior to the subject land - size b.~mg an element in this consideration. The sale land was bought by the Queensland Housing Commission. According to Mr Dunn about 9 to 12 units would be permitted on the sale land under Council By-laws but he says that the Queensland Housing Commission may obtain a higher density. The evidence on this issue however is unclear and no useful purpose would be served by endeavouring to pursue a comparison in terms of value per unit. The sale has the support of Sale 2. I am unable on the evidence to hold that the sales have been incorrectly applied. One final matter should however be mentioned. Mr Burton questioned the use of Section 12(1A) in the manner in which it has been used by applying the value reflected by the sales to the subject land as two separate parcels of land of 607 square metres rather than the sales being applied to the land as one site of 1214 square metres in which event the owners would be given some benefit because of the increased size. An amalgamation of the lots has not occurred. The construction is over both lots. The units are separately let. The circumstances do not meet the criteria of either s. 14 or s. 15 of the Act and there is no other power specifically enabling the Valuer- General to value the lots as one lot. The method adopted by Mr Dunn is accordingly within the provisions of the Act and valid for the purpose. On .... ~.. consideration of air the circumstances, I am unable to find that the valuation is incorrect. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --