Copson & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 277

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Brisbane Oty-AV90-748. P.G. & J.M. Copson v. The Valuer-General DECISION lAND COURT, BRISBANE. 10th April, 1991. This appeal is against the Valuer-General's valuation of $105,000 as at 31st March, 1989, for land situated at 17 Karumba Street, Carina Heights, described as Lot 228 on RP 153939, Parish of Bulimba, containing an area of 878 square metres. The appellants contend for a valuation of $70,000. It is their opinion that the increase in value over the previous valuation is unrealistic and does not accord with information produced by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland relative to the local real estate market. The valuation of the subject property increased by 142% while the valuation on a large property of 1.292 hectares adjoining increased by only 50%. Mr Copson gave evidence to the effect that the subject site was very steep in its unimproved state and had been expensive to develop, requiring retention and filling. He said that when the site had been purchased it was available at a lower level of value than comparable land in nearby localities. He holds the view that the surrounding development and the only available access through an inferior quality residential estate to the north detracts from the desirability of the site and its consequent market value. The privacy of the site is affected by a group title development on the larger site adjoining, the access to which is along the northern and western boundaries. Large reserve areas nearby are in unkempt condition and he believes them to be a fire hazard. Mr Copson says the available views are restricted. Bus transport in the locality has suffered in recent times from reduced services. [1991] QLC 277 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 The appellants had engaged the services of a private valuation firm to report on the unimproved value of the property, but as at 30th June, 1990. The relevant date in this matter is 31st March, 1989. The resultant report was tendered in support of the appeal but the valuer responsible was not called to support the opinions expressed. Consequently, with the valuer being unavailable for examination, his opinions, which in any event relate to a date later in time, are of no assistance in this matter. Nevertheless, Mr Copson, armed with the report, had gone to the trouble of investigating the sales material contained therein and as a consequence was able to provide his own opinions relative to that evidence. The report provided details of eight vacant land sales, five of which had taken place in a time span relevant to this matter. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr A.C. Horne, registered valuer, who had carried out the valuation under appeal. He describes Karumba Street as a bitumen sealed cul-de-sac with concrete kerbing and channelling and earth formed footpaths, providing good access. The land is described as being slightly below street level at its frontage and having "a fair fall to the rear of the block". There is also a slight cross fall to the north. Mr Horne obtains his basis of valuation from four sales. Two of these are of sites, in Pine Mountain Court, of 1416 square metres and 1162 square metres which were sold in March and May 1988 for $150,000 and $130,000 respectively with relatively minor improvements. Values applied to these blocks as at 31st March, 1989 were $141,000 and $127,000 respectively, reflecting their superiority over the subject land, although Mr Horne is of the opinion that the subject land enjoys a more exclusive location. Mr Copson sees these blocks as having panoramic views, not comparable to the subject land. The third sale in Mr Home's basis is a vacant lightly improved 706 square metre site in Gyranda Street which sold in April 1988 for $100,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $99,000 which value was applied to that site. Mr Home says the -- 2 of 4 -- 3 sale land has moderate easterly views superior to the subject land but being located in a narrow one-way street has inferior access. Again Mr Horne sees the location of the subject land as more prestigious and sees the sale property as being inferior on an overall comparison. Mr Copson says that the approach to the subject land through a Housing Commission area makes its location inferior. Mr Horne's fourth sale is a site of 743 square metres fronting Gyranda Street also but gaining access via the narrow Potter Lane. It sold in January 1989 for $54,000 with an analysed value of $53,500 and an applied value of $52,000. It is described as having inferior access, steeper slope, limited views and as being overall inferior to the subject land. Mr Horne knew of most of the sales referred to in the valuation report obtained by the appellant, none of which altered his opinion as to the correct value of the subject. I was invited by both parties to view the locality of the subject land and the sales evidence generally. This has been done and has been of assistance. The task before the Court is to determine the unimproved value of the land at the relevant date. Some of the matters raised by the appellants, such as increases over the previous valuation and statistical records of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland relative to real estate trends and the Consumer Price Index, are of little assistance unless related specifically to the level of unimproved value as indicated by the sales evidence. I have indicated that the opinion of value expressed in the valuation report tendered by the appellants is of no assistance and many of the sales quoted in that report are not of comparable land. The best evidence of value is provided by sales of land, in unimproved or lightly improved state, capable of comparison with the subject land. It is fair to say, while there are no sales quoted by either the appellants or the Valuer-General, which are similar in all respects to the subject land, cogent comparisons are possible between some. The Pine Mountain Court sales are seen to be of land -- 3 of 4 -- .. 4 significantly superior to the subject land in terms of desirability, and value. The land in Potter Lane is, in contrast, significantly inferior. The Valuer-General's sale of Lot 70 in Gyranda Street is the closest comparison available while one of the appellants' sales, Lot 31 in Mc Gahan Street for $83,000 in October 1988 and inferior to the subject, is of some assistance in the overall comparison process. The appellants also refer to a sale in nearby Devonshire Court, being Lot 7 on GTP950 which sold in August 1988 for $90,000, to an adjoining owner. This is a much larger site with significantly inferior access and while difficult to compare with the subject land, that sale will have a bearing on another appeal in Karumba Street and the general levels of value applied by the Valuer-General. Now the subject land did have originally steep contours, does adjoin the access to the group title development adjoining without formally being a corner, and the entrance to Karumba Street is of necessity through an area of significantly lesser quality residential development, all of which factors might be expected to have some deleterious effect on market value. The dominant positive features, are, however, the exclusive pocket of cul-de-sac residential development and the elevated position, even though the views available from the subject land are not expansive. With particular consideration to the Gyranda Street sale, I have come to the conclusion that the Valuer-General's valuation pays insufficient regard to the disabilities of the subject site. I will allow the appeal. The valuation of the Valuer-General is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land at 31st March, 1989 is determined in the sum of $95,000. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --