Drake & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 259

Re: Appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General. Brisbane City - AV90-202. DJ, & C,M. Drake v. Th e Valuer-General DE C ISION IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 26th October, 1990. This appeal is against the Valuer-General's valuation of $78,000 as at 31st March, 1989, of land described as Lot 9 on Registered Plan 97633, Parish of Y eerongpilly, County of Stanley, containing 1148 square metres situated at 120 Mountain Street, Mt. Gravatt. This property immediately adjoins No.118 Mountain Street, in the ownership of B.V. & J.A Jones, the valuation of which is also under appeal, heard subsequent to this matter, the decision on which is also delivered today. In that matter, the same sales evidence was used by the Valuer-General and detailed reference will not be repeated here. The grounds of appeal in this matter are very similar, related broadly to relativity, sales evidence not in immediate vicinity, lack of valuation support from sales of occupied lots and the particular disabilities of the site in this case limited to the usable site area and lack of water pressure. The appellants also contend for a valuation of $63,000 (which would represent an increase of approximately 70% over the previous valuation). Mr D.J. Drake attended the hearing and gave evidence. He indicated that he had not been in a position to investigate sales evidence but was of the opinion that the valuation of the site by the Valuer-General might represent an improved site value, if ground improvements such as retaining walls, drainage and filling, were included. He provided details of various siteworks, external to the actual building platforms, carried [1990] QLC 259 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 out in development of the grounds. He estimates that the present cost of effecting this work would approximate $31,000. Even so, an area of about 200 square metres at the rear of the property remains unusable due to the steepness and prohibitive cost of development. Mr Drake made specific reference to the valuation of Lot 67 across the road, which he thought was almost of equal value, yet valued at $18,000 less at $60,000. While Lot 67 was smaller in surveyed area, its usable area was similar and it enjoyed views to the north almost as good as the subject. It did not back on to the forest and had a southerly street aspect but Mr Drake did not see the north-easterly street aspect of the subject or the adjacent forest as being of particular advantage. Mr G. Crowley, Registered Valuer responsible for the valuation, gave evidence in both this and the Jones' appeal. He describes the subject as having "a moderate rise above the road level with a moderate cross fall, and falls steeply to the rear". His valuation was based on sales evidence of vacant, lightly improved sites in Barnehurst and Davina Streets, Tarragindi, and Castle Hill Street, Holland Park West. Mr Crowley's research, in his opinion, supported his action in disturbing the previously existing relativity between the elevated Mountain Street sites backing on to the forest which increased in the range of 110% and those not enjoying the forest adjacency, which had increased 70% over the previously existing levels of value. His valuation was carried out on an unimproved basis, in direct comparison with sales evidence. In making this comparison, consideration was given to the comparability of access and probable siteworks involved in typical residential development. In his considerations when disturbing the previously existing relativity, Mr Crowley felt comfortable with the difference between his valuation of the subject at $78,000 and the valuation of $60,000 on Lot 67 opposite, as he saw the features of the subject possessing significantly greater value. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 The costs of developing the subject site, because of its topography and the way in which development has taken place, have been expensive, yet the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the site if unimproved, would have been capable of realising the Valuer-General's valuation if available for sale at the relevant date. As in the Jones' appeal the appellants have not been able to discharge the onus of proving that the valuation is wrong or unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --