Bona & Anor v The Valuer-Gene:ral [1991] QLC 278

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Brisbane City - AV90-749. TA &E.Bona v. The Valuer-Gene:ral DECISION BRISBANE. 10th April, 1991. This matter was heard in Brisbane on 7th March, 1991, and subsequent to another appeal in Karumba Street, Carina Heights {AV90-748 - P, & J. Co pson v, The Valuer-General). All parties in these proceedings requested that the Court take a view of the locality, the appeal sites and the sales evidence, which has been done. Both decisions are handed down today. The property involved in this appeal is located at No. 18 Karumba Street, at the south-eastern head of the cul-de-sac, is described as Lot 231 on RP 153939, Parish of Bulimba, County of Stanley, and contains an area of 1460 square metres. The Valuer- General's valuation under appeal, as at 31st March, 1989, is $135,000. The appellants contend for a valuation of $96,000. Again in this matter the appellants tender a valuation report from the same private valuer who supplied a report to Mr and Mrs Copson. This time the report refers to the correct date of valuation, but again the valuer was not called to attend the hearing. In these circumstances, with the valuer unavailable to support his written opinions, those opinions are of little, if any, assistance. The land is described by Mr AC. Home, the registered valuer responsible for the Valuer-General's valuation, as being slightly above street level at its frontage and have a "fair fall" to the south and east, being one of six residential blocks located around the top of a hill. [1991] QLC 278 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Mr Bona gave evidence as to the extensive ground improvements which have been carried out on the land necessitated by what he described as an original, very steep slope, involving substantial retention, cutting and filling. He said that due to the very narrow street frontage and cul-de-sac position, the designed internal development had to provide for on-site car parking. He also referred to the deleterious effect of gaining access to Karumba Street via the Queensland Housing Commission residential development to the north; the recently reduced public bus transport services to the locality; noise from the nearby major Creek Road traffic route; poor water pressure; exposure to the south-west and potential for the north-easterly aspect to be built-out. Mr Horne's evidence was that he had taken into consideration the disabilities of the site but in terms of value saw the positive features of the land as being its prestigious hilltop location and expansive views. He had sought out hill-top type sales and his valuation basis, as in the Copson appeal, had been formed from the sales of the two lots in Pine Mountain Court (Lot 116 of 1416 square metres, March 1988 for $150,000 with application of $141,000; and Lot 117 of 1162 square metres in May 1988 for $130,000 with application of $127,000) then the Gyranda Street sale (Lot 70 of 706 square metres, April 1988 for $100,000 with application of $99,000). He describes the Pine Mountain Court sites as having poorer, more difficult and costly access, with storm- water run-off from above. In comparison he says the subject land has slightly inferior views but a more exclusive location. Mr Home advised that Pine Mountain Court is a private concrete driveway with the proprietors of ten lots responsible for its maintenance. He sees the much smaller Gyranda Streets land as being in a less prestigious location, suffering from a narrow one-way access. Although the sale land has moderate views, these are restricted by nearby trees and plantings. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Mr Bona on the other hand sees the views and aspect from Pine Mountain Court as far superior, the private access preferable, and the immediate locality of these sales as more prestigious. He does not know the Gyranda Street sale specifically, but holds the opinion that the location is superior to that of the subject land. Mr Horne also provides a supplementary sale schedule with details of a 1754 square metre site at 35 Castle Hill Street, Holland Park West which sold in January 1989 for $144,000 with an application of $140,000. While in a different locality, it is in a hill-top position which Mr Horne sees as a dominant influence. Mr Bona has no knowledge of this sale or the locality. Mr Bona believes that consideration should have been given to one of the sales included in his valuer's report, Lot 7 on GTP950, 1267 square metres in Devonshire Court. This site was said to have been purchased by the owner of the adjoining Lot 8, in August 1988, for $90,000 as vacant land. It is lower in elevation than part of the subject land but is in very close proximity and with similar steep contour, having in Mr Bona's opinion, superior additional north-easterly aspect. It has private easement access but Mr Bona sees this as advantageous in a prestige area, particularly as the access is off Creek Road and not through the Housing Commission area. Mr Horne had not been aware of the sale prior to the earlier hearing, but did not dispute the accuracy of the details supplied. He did not feel that the sale to an adjoining owner of a lot with in his opinion, far inferior access, disturbed his basis. After viewing the sales mentioned in this matter, I find it difficult to totally agree with Mr Home's submission as to the comparability of location, aspect, views and exclusivity of the Pine Mountain Court lands, or indeed the Gyranda Street land, in comparison with the subject land. There are obvious difficulties in making a value comparison between the subject land and the sale in the geographically removed Holland Park West locality. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 While it is preferable to use sales without possible taint from the influence of adjacent ownership, the logical possible taint in the circumstances of the Devonshire Court sale, may have been to cause an inflated rather than a deflated level of value. The Devonshire Court sale although of a site with access difficulties as compared to the cul-de-sac position of the subject land, is of elevated land with contour requiring significant earthworks for full residential usage, as did the subject land. In the context in which it is being put forward by the appellants, I have formed the opinion that some weight should be given to the evidence it provides. The sale tempers the comparison of exclusivity in terms of the sales used by Mr Horne. I also agree with the appellants that the access to Karumba Street through the Housing Commission area to the north could reasonably have a deleterious effect on the market perception, and consequent value, of these lands in comparison with the sales. In summary the totality of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the Valuer-General's valuation is excessive but not to the degree as claimed by the appellants. The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General set aside and the unimproved value of the land as at 31st March, 1989 determined in the sum of $125,000. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --