Drinkwater v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLC 19

LAND COURT BRISBANE 23 FEBRUARY 1996 In the matter of an appeal against a valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Valuation Roll No: 1344 Local Government: Gladstone AV95-356 Rex C Drinkwater v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing in Gladstone) DECISION This is an appeal against the annual valuation of Lot 14 on RP 608851 Parish of East Stowe, County of Clinton. The land is situated at 9 Welsh Street, Calliope. The respondent assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as at 1 January 1995 to be $22,000. Mr Drinkwater objected. The respondent disallowed the objection and Mr Drinkwater appealed to the Land Court, contending for the value of $16,000. The grounds of appeal were as follows: "Increase (100%) absolutely out of touch with current trends re sale prices, rents. Please refer to original notice of objection (16/3/95). Position has deteriorated since then, as I have had to withdraw said property from sale. Valuation of nearby recent subdivisions whose infrastructure costs (bitumen access roads, power, water, sewerage, street lighting) passed on to the owners/purchasers reflect grossly on long established areas already having same and paid for by many original purchasers themselves as they became available. Unimproved value compilation should consider anomaly." The Valuation of Land Act 1944 provides that an appeal shall be limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal, that the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner, and that any valuation made under the Act by the respondent shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered. The appeal was heard with three other appeals by Mr Drinkwater against the valuation of other blocks. The statutory provisions were discussed briefly in Drinkwater and Schultz v Chief [1996] QLC 19 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Executive, Department of Lands, AV95-313, decision dated 23 February 1996. The observations made in that judgment are adopted in this case. Mr Drinkwater adduced no evidence of sales of comparable blocks of land in an unimproved or lightly improved state. He referred to the sale of a nearby house for $65,000 but, in the absence of information about or analysis of it, the sale can be given no weight. The respondent's valuer, Mr BT Coe, gave evidence of the way in which the valuation was determined and, in particular, referred to sales of 6 blocks of unimproved land in the vicinity of the subject land. The subject land is a rectangular block with an area of 728 square metres. It is above street level and rises to the rear. The elevated position provides a pleasant rural outlook towards the north-west. Access is provided by bitumen formed carriageway. The road is part of the Dawson Highway, and Mr Coe recognised that traffic noise is worse there than in other areas. Concrete kerb and channelling has been installed on the property side of the roadway. Town water, sewerage, above ground electricity, telephone and garbage collection services are available. The land is used for residential purposes. Mr Coe expressly identified three residential areas in Calliope which are relevant for present purposes. The first is an older part of the town which extends from the subject land south and which has older houses that are not of the same standard as the newer areas. Mr Coe was unaware of any sales in the older part of town. The other two areas are Silverdale and Hazelbrook Village. According to Mr Coe, the only sale in Silverdale in the relevant period was a high sale, greater than the 50% increase in values elsewhere in the town. Each sale property was within the new Hazelbrook Village subdivision. All the blocks were similar in size and elevation, and had timber treatment and minor fencing. The two smallest blocks were 660 square metres rectangular blocks. The others were larger (679 square metres, 850 square metres, 967 square metres, 1,012 square metres) but irregularly shaped. Each was zoned Residential A with all services connected. They sold between April and August 1994, all but one for prices in the $28,000-$29,00 range. The largest block sold for $33,000, which Mr Coe considered to be slightly above market. Each was described as superior to the subject due to elevation and surrounding development and all were given an applied unimproved value of about $26,000. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 According to Mr Coe, the sale properties were more appealing in the market place because the blocks were more level and easy to build on, had underground power, had less traffic noise than the subject and were surrounded by new houses. They were valued at about $4,000 more than the subject land which, in Mr Coe's opinion, was a sufficient recognition of the difference in the unimproved values of the respective blocks. Mr Drinkwater described himself as a victim of the development of the subdivided area. In his submission, owners of established blocks elsewhere are penalised with no upgrading of the services to their land. He also said that there has been a substantial increase in traffic past the subject land in the past 4 years and other development in the area (including a proposed swimming pool near the subject land) has been put on hold. His attempts to sell the subject land were unsuccessful. Mr Drinkwater also said that some of the sale blocks had been resold for less than their purchase price. Mr Coe agreed that there had been a recent reduction in the number of sales but said there had not been a reduction in value. No after-date sales evidence was given by either party to support their contentions and, even if it were available, it could not have affected the result in this case. It may be relevant to the subsequent annual valuation of residential land in Calliope. In cross-examination, Mr Drinkwater conceded that the valuation of the subject land as at 30 June 1993 had been $14,800 and that there had been an increase of 50% as at 1 January 1995, not 100% as stated in the grounds of appeal. According to Mr Coe, there had been a 50% increase in the valuation of all residential properties in Calliope. The relativities had been established in 1993 and there was no evidence to cause a change in that relativity. As the Land Appeal Court has stated, it is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, so long as the valuations are soundly based (see R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13, and H and E Grahn v The Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 327 at 328-9). I am not convinced either that the relativity between the subject land and the sale blocks is wrong or that the valuations are not soundly based. The grounds of appeal have not been proved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 GJ NEATE MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 4 of 4 --