Crooks v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [2001] QLC 9

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 9 March 2001 Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Valuation Roll No: 42114 - Local Government: Caboolture. (AV99-339). James H and Anthony G Crooks v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N Background: This matter relates to land at 68 Mansfield Road, Elimbah, and described as Lot 4 on RP111398, Parish of Canning. The subject land has an area of 5.891 hectares, is located about 3km south-east of Elimbah, and 8km north-east of the Caboolture Post Office. The land is zoned "Rural" under the Caboolture Shire Town Plan of 12 March 1988 current at the date of valuation of 1 October 1998. The key issues are the nature of the land, the impact of flooding and a nearby poultry farm, comparison of sales and relativity. On 22 March 1999, the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $82,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that unimproved value on 15 June 1999. The appellants have now appealed that figure claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $40,000. Mr Anthony G Crooks appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr K Fisher, counsel of Crown Law, appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Desmond Robert Lucas, the Departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation. [2001] QLC 9 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 The Evidence: (1) The Nature of the Land - It is agreed by both parties that the subject land is the lowest parcel in that part of Mansfield Road, and it is subject to periodic flooding across Mansfield Road from lands to the south. The existing fibro dwelling and sheds are located on a slightly higher part on the eastern side of the subject land, and most of the site remains uncleared with gum, ti-tree, bloodwood and banksia. About 30%-40% of the subject land falls below the Q50 floodline. Mansfield Road is bitumen sealed at the subject land, but it is poorly drained, and water crosses the roadway opposite the subject land due to inadequate piping under the road. Surface waters enter at the south-western corner of the subject land adjoining Lot 3 to the west. Because of its low-lying nature it is argued that the land is regularly infested with noxious weeds such as lantana and groundsel, apparently a common problem in the area. However in periods of flooding, access remains open eastward towards the Bruce Highway. The land is serviced by telephone and power, although Mr Crooks advises that power supply is interrupted several times a year for periods up to four hours at a time. During those periods the poultry farm to the east on Lot 4 on RP 139357 has a special arrangement with the power authority to provide a generator to protect the 80,000 chickens held in four poultry sheds. That arrangement does not extend to the subject land, or to any of its immediate neighbours. However, power stoppages are well advertised in the local newspaper, and impacts upon the subject land are typical of other areas in the shire. The nearest town water ends about 200 metres to the west of the subject land. Lands to the south and west are rural residential in nature, and there was an avocado and custard apple farm about 200 metres to the east of the subject land on Lot 1 on RP128300. However that farm has now ceased operations. Mr Lucas advises that rural lands generally have no town water available. Mr Crooks argues that there is an adverse impact upon the amenity of the subject land by the presence of the poultry farm. Apparently every eight weeks trucks transport the chicken manure along Mansfield Road as part of the regular maintenance of the poultry sheds. Mr Lucas agrees with that occurrence but argues that is typical of many areas in the shire, where the poultry industry is widely represented, with associated vehicle movements. There would appear to be no special detriment to the -- 2 of 6 -- 3 subject land from that occurrence. Mr Crooks purchased the land in 1983, the chicken farm is an approved use under the rural zoning of the town plan. In respect of visual intrusion from the poultry farm, it is noted that there is an uncleared heavily timbered parcel (Lot 5 on RP111398) immediately to the east of the subject land, and between it and the poultry farm. That Lot 5 is also higher in elevation than the subject land, and provides a buffer between the properties. It is also agreed that, because of the grey type forest soils of the subject land, it is likely to have an infertility problem for horticultural purposes. However as the appellants only use the site for rural residential purposes, there is no special disability on that basis. The only transport near the subject land is a school bus which terminates to the west of the locality. Because of its relative isolation Mr Crooks argues that theft is a problem, noting that his boundary fence was in fact stolen at one time. However, Mr Lucas argues that such thefts are not uncommon in rural areas, and that there should be no additional allowance made for any greater risk to personal property on the subject land. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I would agree with Mr Lucas. (2) Relativity - Mr Lucas advises that relativity with adjoining parcels has not changed for ten years. Mr Lucas provides a relativity map (Exhibit 3) which demonstrates the following unimproved values: Parcel Unimproved value Lot 5 (to the east) $ 96,000 Lot 3 (to the west) $ 89,000 Lot 2 (to the west) $ 96,000 Subject land $ 82,000 Those values would appear to have made provision for the particular disabilities of the subject land. Mr Lucas further notes that the market for rural lands in Caboolture has not changed since 1995, and has remained depressed in rural residential areas for several years. The original relativities made allowance for the drainage problems on the subject land. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 I note the claim by the appellants that the presence of an adjoining neighbour, who is seen to be a "vexatious nuisance", is a matter that would be considered as relevant to the value of the subject land. However, I note Mr Lucas' advice that it is not a matter for consideration in respect of the unimproved value of the land. I would agree that differences between neighbours can be a vexatious matter for the parties involved, but personal litigation often depends upon the nature of the separate parties. I agree with Mr Lucas that should really be addressed in another place, and is not a matter for consideration. (3) Comparison of Sales - Mr Crooks admits that he has no experience of land values in the area, and provides no sales to support his estimate of the unimproved value. Mr Lucas relies upon sales of vacant or lightly-improved properties, supplying the following sales:  Sale 1 - (Panorama Court, Elimbah - Lot 7 on RP895727) This is a 3,057 square metre parcel zoned "Rural Residential C", located about 375 metres south-east of the subject land, in an established rural residential estate, is more elevated, and with good rural views to the Glasshouse Mountains. The sale is fully serviced apart from sewerage, and represents the smaller rural residential lots in the area. The sale is seen as inferior due to the larger size of the subject land. The sale sold in February 1998 for $59,250, was analysed at $57,250, and applied at $55,000.  Sale 2 - (Bigmor Drive, Elimbah - Lot 10 on RP842789) This is a 2.193 hectare parcel zoned "Rural", located about 1.6km south of the subject land in an established rural residential estate, and closer to Caboolture. The sale falls gently from the road, and has dual access to another road at the rear. Bigmore Drive is bitumen sealed, but there is no kerbing or channelling. There are outlooks towards distant ranges. The sale has better access and services, but is seen as inferior due to the larger size of the subject land. The sale sold in March 1998 for $80,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $76,000, and applied at $74,000.  Sale 3 - (Hamilton Road, Elimbah - Lot 3 on RP84874) This is a 5.845 hectare parcel zoned "Rural", and located about 2.2km south- west of the subject land, and surrounded by other larger rural homesites and some -- 4 of 6 -- 5 farms. The sale is close by the north-coast railway, and is subjected to noise of passing trains, particularly goods trains. The sale has better access to Caboolture, and is more elevated, but is also impacted by seasonal flooding when the road to Caboolture can be inundated. The sale falls to the rear which is very low, but has subsequently had earthworks to develop a trotting track. There are similar services as the subject land, but the subject land is seen as overall inferior due to its lower elevation and flooding problems. The sale sold in October 1997 for $97,000, which after allowing for clearing was analysed at $89,000, and applied at $85,000. In considering the comparisons with the sales I am reminded of precedents of this and other courts, which have long seen such comparisons as the preferred method of establishing unimproved values. That was perhaps best enunciated in PH Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, where the Land Appeal Court said at p.76: "It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements. Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement." On the evidence supplied there is nothing provided by the appellants which challenges Mr Lucas' method or analysis of the valuation. In that respect I am directed to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) which directs in respect of an appeal to this Court, that the appellant is thrust with the task of demonstrating that the respondent has in fact made an error in his valuation. Section 45(4) in fact states in respect of an appeal: "45(4) Such notice shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner." I note also that section 33 of the Act directs: "33. Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief -- 5 of 6 -- 6 executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered." Those directions follow principles established by the High Court of Australia in Brisbane City Council v. Valuer-General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41, at 56 per Gibbs J. Conclusion: Having considered the whole of the evidence I am not persuaded that the appellants have proved their case. The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 4 on RP111398 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of $82,000 is affirmed. (NG Divett) Member of the Land Court -- 6 of 6 --