Armati v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 275

Re: Appeals against determinations of Valuer-General - City of Townsville. AV90-244/6. Phillip Vincent Armati v. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Townsville) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 27th September, 1990 These appeals relate to valuations made by the Valuer-General for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the City of Townsville as at 31st March, 1989. The appeals are in respect of his determinations of the unimproved value of three adjoining parcels of land which are owned by the appellant and are situated at 21-27 Hale Street. The lots are elevated lots with a southerly aspect overlooking the Central Business District. The land contained in Appeal AV90-244 is on the corner of Hale and Stokes Streets. This land which is described as Lots 3 and 4 on RP 709271, parish Coonambelah, has an area of 1467 square metres and is encumbered by an easement at the rear in favour of the land contained in Appeal AV90-246. The easement was created for the purposes of giving that lot access to a gravel road above Hale Street proper around and to the north above Stokes Street to meet with Victoria Street. The middle block, Appeal A V90-245, which is described as Lot 2 on RP 709271 has an area of 1214 square metres. The easement also traverses the rear of this lot. The third parcel, Appeal A V90-246, is a small triangular shaped parcel with the apex at the rear and containing an area of 556 square metres. This lot has the benefit of the easement but in practical terms it appears on the evidence that it would be of little use for vehicular access purposes if the lot was to be retained and [1990] QLC 275 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 filled in the manner in which it has been retained and filled. Access to this block from Hale Street is via a pathway above Hale Street which ceases on the frontage of the middle block. The lands are zoned "Residential D" which is a multi-unit zoning. They are used for single unit residential purposes and consequently have to be valued under the provisions of section ll(l)(vii) of the Act as land having no potential for any higher or better use. The lands have been in the ownership of the appellant's family for many years and the structures thereon are of the old Queenslander type. The appellant is retired. He has his superannuation in a roll-over and he has part- time casual employment with the Queensland Police Service. I accept his evidence that he is a man of modest means. The thrust of his case seems to be this. He has limited income hence the incidence of rating is significant. He has three parcels of land zoned "Residential D 11 overlooking and within walking distance of the Central Business District. The land is zoned for multi-unit purposes but he says that the viability of a development for that purpose is questionable if consent requires the upgrading of Hale Street which he believes would be the position. The home on AV90-246 (21 Hale Street) is unoccupied. He says that the bathroom has been condemned by the Council and that he would have to restore it before the home could be let. On his evidence he appears to be caught in a situation where he can afford to do little to restore and to retain the structures in an habitable condition whilst on the other hand the likelihood of capitalising on the higher density zoning is, at this stage, in some doubt. This is an issue which he would ask the Court to consider. Added to that and more relevant to the valuation of the land, he highlights the access problems and the development works which went into the lots to retain them. He obtained advices and a quote from consulting engineers on the cost today of replacing the rock walling on the land at 21 Hale Street (AV90-246). These works -- 2 of 4 -- 3 if done today would cost about $23,000 or $349 per square metre. Applying that cost to the works done to the remaining lands, the estimates come out at $38,041 (AV90- 245) and $63,518 (AV90-244). He submits that such estimates should be deducted from the determined values, leaving values of $22,000 (AV90-246), $16,959 (AV90- 245) and a negative sum for the land at 25-27 Hale Street (AV90-244). The valuations were written on behalf of the Valuer-General by Mr S.L. Lagerroth, registered valuer. What Mr Armati said about the blocks in contour and access is accepted by Mr Lagerroth. He does not dispute the extent of rock walling. However, he points out, correctly in my opinion, that were the blocks to be developed today, the retaining need not necessarily be done on the method used when the works were done. Moreover, the primary sales he used for comparison purposes are of steep to very steep land falling from the roadway to the rear of the lots. In these instances he says that development would be set on piers or poles or terraced and that if any level land was sought to be obtained, retaining would be necessary. The sales were of lots in Balmoral Drive and Glamis Street, Castle Hill. The lot in Balmoral Drive sold in February, 1989, for $65,000 whilst the lot in Glamis Street sold for $70,000 in October, 1988. The sale lots are of areas of 862 square metres and 1205 square metres respectively. Mr Lagerroth concedes that the sale lots are in a single unit residential zoned area and that the area is generally a more attractive area than the subject area for that very reason. He agrees that the sale lands have better access from the street and generally a better shape save for the land contained in Appeal A V90-245 which is of regular shape. On the other hand, he says that the sale lots are further from the city and have no level land whatever. On consideration of the relative merits of the lots, he has valued the two larger parcels of the subject land at $55,000 each and the small parcel at $45,000 as single -- 3 of 4 -- 4 unit residential sites. On the assumption which must be made under the Act in valuing the subject lots (that is if viewed as unimproved land and offered for sale as single unit residential sites at the date of valuation with all external features and amenities in place at that date) the argument about contour and area of level land and retaining appears to have been answered by the purchasers of the sale lots. If the method proposed by Mr Armati is to have any weight, the deductions which he proposys should be made, should be taken from a selling price of the lots as retained and filled and not from their value as unfilled lots. The remaining distinguishing features between the subject lands and the sale lands appear to have been well considered by Mr Lagerroth and cannot be put aside on grounds of financial hardship of the particular owner/ appellant. The best that can be done for the appellant on this line of reasoning is to say that the lots have been valued according to the use made of them - no further adjustment is permitted under the Act. On consideration of the whole of the evidence I find that there are no reasonable grounds to disturb the determined values. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the determinations of the Valuer-General affirmed. (D.M. White) Acting President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --