Campbell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1998] QLC 46

LAND COURT BRISBANE 6 May 1998 Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - Logan City Council - (AV97-205). WJ and EM Campbell v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N This appeal lies against the determination by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $288,000 ($40,000 per hectare) for two adjoining parcels of vacant land situated in Chambers Flat Road, Logan City. The parcels are more particularly described as Lots 10 and 11 on RP 95718, Parish of Mackenzie, and contain an area of 7.198 hectares. The land is zoned "Rural Residential" under the provisions of the Logan City Town Planning Scheme and are designated "Rural Residential" under the Strategic Town Plan, allowing for subdivision into lots with a minimum size of one hectare. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996, and the appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $226,500. William John Campbell furnished evidence in support of the grounds of appeal which are based on relativity with the applied unimproved values on lots adjoining and on both sides of the subject land as at the same relevant date. Details are: Lot 9 - 4.082 hectares - unimproved value $132,000 or $32,300 per hectare. Lot 12 - 4.082 hectares - unimproved value $132,000 or $32,300 per hectare. Mr Campbell says that each of the adjoining lots are directly comparable with each of the subject sites. They have the same frontages to Chambers Flat Road and are of like topography. Mr Campbell told us that each of the comparison lots are improved with dwelling houses, and he can see no reason for the valuation of the subject land being so much higher per hectare than that of the comparison blocks. Mr Campbell told us of the history of the valuations of the subject lots and the comparison sites. In 1991, the subject land was valued at $32,600 per hectare, Lot 9 at $33,100 per hectare and Lot 12 at $30,600 per hectare. In the years 1993/1995, the subject land was valued at $24,300 per hectare, Lot 9 at $27,000 per hectare and Lot 12 at $23,300 per hectare. In 1996, the subject land was valued at $48,600 per hectare. Lots 9 and 10 each were [1998] QLC 46 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 valued at $32,300 per hectare. Mr Campbell contends that there is no reason why the relativity in values per hectare has changed so much for the 1996 and 1997 valuations other than that the valuation of the subject land has been affected by subdivisional potential. But Mr Campbell does not believe that there has been a change in subdivisional potential in 1996 or indeed throughout the 1990s. He says that throughout the 1990s it has always been possible to subdivide all the lots in the area into 1 hectare lots. Mr Campbell does not believe that the subject lots should be valued at the higher rate per hectare at relevant date than Lots 9 and 12. Mr Campbell commented during the course of his evidence that the basic sales relied upon by the Chief Executive for the valuations were not comparable, being in a different location. The valuation under appeal was made by Registered Departmental Valuer William John Crothers. Mr Crothers explained that he valued the subject land and other land in the Park Ridge area within the City of Logan firstly for the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuation, and then also for the 1 October 1996 valuation. He felt at the 1 January 1996 valuation, the valuations were lacking in relativity, particularly for the larger blocks, so he changed that valuation relativity for that valuation. This, perhaps, explains why the valuation of the subject land as at 1 January 1996 was increased by so much. But it is not that valuation ($350,000) which is under appeal here, it is the lower valuation of $288,000. It is Mr Crothers opinion that the subject land has potential for subdivision into one hectare lots. This has been considered in making the valuation since the land is vacant and the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 have no application. Mr Crothers describes the nature of the subject land as being inferior forest country, reasonably level with the road and falling gently to the rear. Mr Crothers has made the valuation having regard to the following sales evidence, all of which lots he says have potential for subdivision: Sale No 1 - Lot 6 on RP 94215, Parish of Mackenzie - 4.286 hectares - Taylor to Lo on 12 April 1995 for $256,000 - analysed unimproved value $206,000 ($48,000 per hectare) - applied unimproved value $189,000 ($44,000 per hectare) - situation Chambers Flat Road (corner Park Ridge Road). Mr Crothers regards the sale land as being inferior to the subject having regard to location, similar with regard to size, but superior with regard to redevelopment for subdivision. He considers overall the sale property is slightly superior to the subject land on a per hectare basis. Sale No 2 - Lot 14 on RP 82892, Parish of Mackenzie - 4.667 hectares - Chang and Others to the Lai Family Trust on 6 June 1995 for $235,000 - analysed unimproved value $215,000 ($46,000 per hectare) - applied unimproved value $196,000 ($42,000 per hectare) - situation Chambers Flat Road. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Mr Crothers considers that this sale land is inferior in location when compared with the subject land but points out that it is smaller. He considers the sale site overall to be superior to the subject land on a per hectare basis because of economy of size. Sale No 3 - Lot 18 on RP 135029, Parish of Mackenzie - 4.862 hectares - Hinton to Ngan Ha Bui and Another on 12 December 1996, for $195,000 - analysed unimproved value $190,000 ($39,000 per hectare) - applied unimproved value $190,000 - situation Koplick Road. Mr Crothers commented in evidence that this land also has a frontage to Beaumont Road along which the Council has taken an access restriction strip. He says that Council's preference in the event of subdivision of land with frontages to Koplick and Beaumont Roads is to access the subdivided lots from Beaumont Road. Mr Crothers regards the sale land to be inferior to the subject land in regard to location and also inferior on a per hectare basis. Mr Crothers does not believe the valuations of Lot 9 and 12 are incorrect as they have each been valued as sites exclusively used for single dwelling house purposes under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act, which provides that for each valuation, any potential for subdivision must not be taken into account. With this latter contention I agree. Mr Crothers told us that there has been no subdivisional activity in the area at the date of valuation. Since the subject land is vacant, there is no doubt that the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act cannot be applied to its valuation. The land has to be valued as for its highest and best use, and in this way the level of value is to be established in relation to the market for land with a similar potential. The only such sales evidence is that provided by Mr Crothers. While I appreciate the appellants' contention that the subject valuation is at odds with that of the neighbouring lots, the comparisons made by them lose some significance in the circumstances surrounding the valuation assessment for the adjoining lots. Since the grounds of appeal are narrowly drawn and encompass the ground of relativity, and that there is no evidence before the Court as to the market value of the subject land on the basis of its highest and best use (potential for subdivision into 1 hectare lots) other than that provided by Mr Crothers, I cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act has been discharged. In addition, while it cannot be disputed that the most comparable lots in a land sense are the adjoining Lots 9 and 12, I cannot find that the location of the sale lots relied upon by Mr Crothers are so remote as to render them non-comparable. But before proceeding to my formal determination, I should add that it has been long established in this Court that reference to percentage increases (or decreases for that matter) in value over the years when the task at hand is to assess unimproved -- 3 of 4 -- 4 value of lands within a local authority area is not a worthwhile ground of appeal. What has to be determined is the unimproved value of a given parcel of land at a specific relevant date, and this is best weighed in relation to analysed sales evidence. The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lots 10 and 11 on RP 95718, Parish of Mackenzie, as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of $288,000 on the basis of the subject land's highest and best use is affirmed. (CH Carter) Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --