Drinkwater v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLC 18

LAND COURT BRISBANE 23 FEBRUARY 1996 In the matter of an appeal against a valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Valuation Roll No: 1621 Local Government: Calliope AV95-355 Rex C Drinkwater v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing in Gladstone) DECISION This is an appeal against the annual valuation of Lot 33 on Plan MPH22991 in the Parish of Langmorn, County of Deas Thompson. The land is situated at 15 Gladstone Street, Mount Larcom. The respondent assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as at 1 January 1995 to be $10,200. Mr Drinkwater objected. The respondent disallowed the objection so Mr Drinkwater appealed to the Land Court, contending for the value of $7,000. The grounds of appeal were as follows: "Firstly please refer to my original notice of objection. (16/3/95) Increase grossly unjustified. Further to that, there is a State, some would argue, country-wide downturn in land, house sales, prices, rents. Am advised by local estate agents and residents endeavouring to sell property, and also rent & re-rent of ongoing down turn. Aspects effecting access, uses, services, of/to said property remain unchanged. Contrary to anticipated "growth", widespr'd media statements, statistics, regularly advise accordingly. Also "situ" of said property should be considered (future potential) in comparison to potential of Calliope, Gladstone, Tannum, Boyne." 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. [1996] QLC 18 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 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 Executive, Department of Lands, AV95-313, decision dated 23 February 1996. The observations made in that judgment are adopted in this case. Mr Drinkwater spoke of rates escalating at a time of low inflation, and argued that the valuation of the subject land and the increase in rates are contrary to a principle of a valuation system which, he submitted, is meant to prevent dramatic increases by annual valuations. Furthermore, he said, services to the land have not been upgraded (and, in the case of the road, had deteriorated). Development in the area had not gone ahead in the way that he had anticipated and there are no visible benefits in the pipeline. Mr Drinkwater adduced no evidence of sales of comparable blocks of land in an unimproved or lightly improved state. He said, however, that a property in the same street had been for sale but remained unsold after three years. By contrast, 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 land in the vicinity of the subject land. The subject land is a rectangular block with an area of 1,012 square metres. It is slightly above street level with a slight cross fall. Access to the land is gained by a bitumen formed carriageway, and available services include town water, electricity and telephone. The property is an easy block to build on and it is used for residential purposes. Sale 1 is a rectangular block with the same area as the subject land. It is also in Gladstone Street, diagonally opposite the subject, but is well below street level and has a moderate slope from the road. The land has benching and clearing, and was sold in October 1992 (more than 2 years before the date of valuation) for $10,000. Its analysed unimproved value was $8,500 and a value of $8,000 was applied to it. Mr Coe described it as inferior to the subject land because of its topography, which makes building there more expensive than on the subject land. Sale 2 is a triangular, corner block with an area of 4,047 square metres, four times the area of the subject. It faces Cannan Street at the intersection with Bottletree Terrace. There is gravel road access to the below street level block, which slopes moderately away from Cannan Street. Mr Coe described the land as inferior to the subject land in many respects but overall it is superior to the subject, mainly because of its size. The land was sold in February 1995, after -- 2 of 3 -- 3 the date of valuation, for $16,491. Its analysed unimproved value was $15,491 and the applied value as a single block without reference to any subdivisional potential was $15,200. Mr Drinkwater thought that the sale price and valuation of the block were fair. There are some questions about the applicability of the sale given the size of the land, the fact that it was an after-date sale and because it was a family sale and Mr Coe had been unable to contact the parties to ascertain if it was sold for market value. Mr Drinkwater did not seek to undermine the sales evidence. Mr Coe said that sale 1 had been used in making the valuation of the subject land as at 30 June 1993 and at 1 January 1995. There was an increase in the valuation of the subject land as at the former date and the valuation had remained unchanged at the latter date. The unimproved values of properties in Mount Larcom (and hence their values relative to one another) had remained unchanged. Mr Coe said that sales 1 and 2 provided the only sales evidence available to him. Mr Drinkwater agreed that sales evidence is the only relevant evidence, and that there had not been an increase in valuations since 1993, but reiterated his assertion that the available services and the amount of foreseeable development did not justify the "savage increases" of 1993. This case is not a review of 1993 valuations. It is confined to the valuation at 1 January 1995. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, the evidence provided by the respondent, and the lack of evidence provided by the appellant, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed. GJ NEATE MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 3 of 3 --