Drinkwater v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLC 163

[1996] QLC 163 LAND COURT BRISBANE 23 FEBRUARY 1996 In the matter of an appeal against a valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Valuation Roll No: 3897 Local Government: Calliope AV95-357 Rex C and Michael A Drinkwater v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing in Gladstone) DECISION Mr Rex Drinkwater and his son Michael own Lot 9 on RP 610975 in the Parish of East Stowe and Auckland, County of Clinton. The land has an area of 4.653 hectares and is located in Calliope Shire. In the annual valuation of the subject land as at 1 January 1995 the respondent Chief Executive assessed the unimproved value of the land to be $56,000. The appellants objected. They argued that the land should be valued at $40,000. The respondent disallowed their objection. They appealed to the Land Court. Their grounds of appeal were, in summary, as follows: The massive increase of 51.3% in the valuation of the subject land bears no comparison to fully serviced, recent subdivisions in town or city areas, particularly where such blocks have the benefit of all weather access along sealed roads, and services (Sewerage, water, power) the costs of which are included in their prices. Access to the subject land has not improved. -- 1 of 5 -- 2 Property sales, values, and rents all indicate the opposite to pre-1995 assumptions or predictions. As valuation figures are on the inverted cone principle, the increase is grossly exorbitant. The chief executive's valuation is in excess of purchase offers. Those offers are lower because of lack of services to the subject land, and because access is still by way of a flood-prone, gravel road. 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 Executive, Department of Lands, AV95-313, decision dated 23 February 1996. The observations made in that judgment are adopted in this case. Mr Drinkwater provided no evidence of sales of comparable land in the year before the date of valuation. Sales evidence was provided by Mr BT Coe, a valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Drinkwater made observations with respect to features of the subject land and the sale bocks. The evidence was as follows. The subject land is situated at Wyndham Road in the rural community known as Beecher about 10 kilometres west of Gladstone. Wyndham Road provides gravel access from the Dawson Highway. A low level crossing on Clyde Creek can be cut by flooding. An alternate route via Jefferis Road over Clyde Creek provides better access but this access can be cut at Clyde Creek after heavy rain. The land comprises mainly gum top box forest flats falling to a gully on the western side of the property. The land is not used. Electricity and telephone are available for connection to the subject. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 Mr Drinkwater agreed with Mr Coe's description of the subject land. He said that the subject land is scrub or bushland and is not used for revenue gaining purposes. There is, for example, no agricultural activity on the land. He stressed the difficulty and at times inability to gain access in wet weather. Access has been cut, on average, 3 or 4 times in recent years for a day or two on each occasion. In prolonged wet weather flooding can prevent access to the land for up to a fortnight. The raising of the crossing on Jefferis Road provides some assistance but not in all circumstances. Wyndham Road is very susceptible to flooding and needs improvement. Mr Coe said that he had inspected the area and was aware of the deep gully on Wyndham Road. But he was not aware that it restricted access in wet weather. In his observations, when the Wyndham Creek crossing was closed, the Jefferis Road crossing and the gully were both clear. In conversations with a Council officer he had ascertained that, because of dry weather over most of the past 5 years, access had not been cut except twice in recent wet months. I am satisfied that, although in extended dry periods, there are no significant access problems, there are difficulties in wet weather. Even if access is not cut, the need to take an alternative route is an added inconvenience which makes the property less attractive than it might otherwise be. Although Mr Drinkwater may have exaggerated the duration of the problems, I am satisfied that he has a better appreciation of the practical difficulties than Mr Coe. Mr Drinkwater spoke of the recent availability of some services to the land but said that connection of those services would have to be funded by the land owner. That would be more expensive than for blocks of land in closer proximity to existing services. In his opinion, the cost of connecting those services and the problems of access to the land have meant that the prices offered in the market for the subject land are well below the respondent's valuation of the land. As Mr Coe pointed out, however, those costs would be similar for other properties in the area. Sale 1 comprises Lot 1 on CTN1697 and Lot 6 on RP 610126 with a combined area of 8.215 hectares of gum and nlib forest flat and low ridges. Apparently the two titles were linked at the time of purchase and the purchaser was unaware of the subdivided use to -- 3 of 5 -- 4 which the land could be put. Although the land was later subdivided, it was purchased and valued as a single block. The land is zoned Rural and has bitumen access from the Dawson Highway. There is noise and some danger from traffic using the highway. It was sold in February 1994 for $95,000, and the applied unimproved value was $70,000. Mr Coe described it as superior to the subject land due to its larger size and its topography. Mr Drinkwater observed that, unlike the subject, the land is not flood prone and has easy access to the highway. Sale 2 is Lot 2 on RP 612886. The land has an area of 18.41 hectares. It is easy to moderately sloping nlib and spotted gum forest with an elevated knoll which provides a good site. Access is by a gravel road over a railway line. Because the land is about 5 kilometres west of the subject and is more remote from Gladstone, it has a lower value than a comparable property closer to Gladstone. It was sold in February 1994 for $85,000 and was later subdivided under the family subdivision rule. The sale was analysed to $80,000 but the sum of $68,000 was applied to it. Mr Coe described the land as overall superior to the subject due to its greater size (nearly four times that of the subject). Mr Drinkwater pointed out that, unlike the subject, the land is not affected by flooding and has easy access to the highway. According to Mr Coe, the Beecher area west of Gladstone is highly sought after by people who want acreage sites proximate to Gladstone. Mr Drinkwater argued, however, that, although the area may be considered desirable for that purpose, the more salubrious homes are built away from the subject land in the higher area on Jefferis Road. Mr Drinkwater has not proved most of his grounds of appeal. The fact that access to the land has not improved is not of itself a basis to succeed if other properties are similarly disadvantaged. According to Mr Coe, all the rural residential properties increased in valuation by 50% as at the relevant date. The only way in which he can succeed is if the valuation is too high having regard to the lack of services and the deficiencies of the access road. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 Mr Coe acknowledged the disadvantages of the subject land and said that he had made allowance for them in valuing the property relative to the sale blocks. I am satisfied, however, that a relatively modest reduction of $5,000 is warranted to take account of the ongoing access problems. The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at fifty one thousand dollars ($51,000). GJNEATE MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 5 of 5 --