Culley v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1995] QLC 175

[1995] QLC 175 Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Shire of Livingstone. (V94-595 and V94-596). John C Culley v. Chief Executive, De partment of Lands (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 22 September 1995 Mr Culley is the owner of land described as Lot 52 on RP 620371, Parish of Hewittville, in the Shire of Livingstone, containing an area of 789 square metres. Mr Culley purchased this land from the original developer on 13 September 1993, for $80,000. At that time the valuation of all lands in the Shire of Livingstone made by the Chief Executive under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as at 31 March 1992, was in force and effect. Therefore, as the subject land was required to be valued as a separate parcel, the Chief Executive applied an unimproved value as at that date of $95,200 (the 1992 valuation). However, the Chief Executive ·had also made a further annual valuation as at 30 June 1993, which would not take effect until 30 June 1994, and accordingly the subject land was valued as at that date at $76,000 (the 1993 valuation) . Mr Culley duly objected to both the 1992 and the 1993 valuations and by notices which were issued on 4 and 5 October 1994, he was advised that his objections had been disallowed and that the valuations remained unaltered. Mr Culley then appealed to the Land Court against these decisions upon his objections, advising in each case that in his opinion the valuation of the land should be $70,000. In his grounds of appeal against the 1992 valuation, Mr Culley referred to the fact that the value applied was $95,200, while he purchased the land in September -- 1 of 9 -- 2 1993 for $80,000. He rejected any comparison with Lot 55 in the same subdivision which sold for $130,000. He stated that Lot 55 is on a rocky point, with ocean and creek views, is almost twice the area of the subject land and has absolute beach frontage, whereas the subject allotment has a 30 metre wide reserve covered with ' scrub between it and the beach, with no direct access to the beach. In his grounds of appeal against the 1993 valuation, Mr Culley again referred to his purchase in September 1993 for $80,000 and stated that the $4,000 difference between the sale price and the applied value is not sufficient to account for the improvements that were on the land at the time of purchase. He stated that the allotment was totally cleared, had a wide bitumen road with kerbing and channelling and had all amenities, with underground power. At the hearing at Rockhampton, Mr Culley appeared and gave evidence while Mr OW Drew, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Chief Executive. There is no dispute as to the description of the land. It is situated in Coral Close, approximately 3.5 kms south of Emu Park Post Office. Coral Close is a full width bitumen sealed dual carriageway, with concrete kerbing and channelling, which provides easy access to the subject land. Underground power, town water, telephone and sewerage are available to the property. The land has been described as a regular-shaped block, relatively level to gently sloping to the east, with sandy soil and ocean views. However, the extent of those views is in dispute. While the land at the date of hearing was vacant, it was agreed that its highest and best use is for residential purposes. Although Mr Culley agreed it was a level allotment at the front, he said that it drops away so that about 12 or 15 feet would be lost unless a retaining wall was built. He felt that such a retaining wall would be required in order to build a house of the " type that was necessary on Sl!~h a block. Mr Culley explained that there was a Beach Protection Reserve between the subject land and the beach which had trees growing upon it. While he agreed that there was a view of the sea from the subject land and that there would be an unrestricted view from the second level of a two-level building, he was concerned that -- 2 of 9 -- 3 the trees would grow to a height which would obstruct the view. He made the point that it was not possible to remove any trees on the Beach Protection Reserve. The Reserve also prevents direct access to the beach and while physical access was presently available, he was concerned that because of erosion the Beach , Protection Authority might fence the Reserve, thereby preventing direct access from the subject land to the beach. The nearest pathways were some allotments away. Mr Culley was at a loss to understand the Departmental valuations. He questioned how the Department could apply a valuation of $95,200 to the subject land when he paid $80,000 for it in September 1993. He also mentioned the sale of the adjoining property, Lot 51, which sold in November 1992 for $76,500 and which was also valued by the Department at $90,000 in the 1992 valuation and at $74,500 in the 1993 valuation. Mr Culley also referred to the sale of Lot 54, one removed from the subject land, which also sold in November 1992 for $90,000 and to which similar valuations had been applied. Mr Culley said that he could not understand how there was a difference of $20,000 between the 1992 valuation and the 1993 valuation. He said that after 1993, the market for land in the area rose and there was no drop between the two dates of valuation. He said it was only from about the middle of 1994 that the market dropped and had been getting worse. In relation to the improvements on the subject land at time of sale, Mr Culley said that it was cleared and had beer:i partially levelled. However, he conceded that the other "improvements", the road, kerbing and channelling and underground power, were not improvements which were actually situated on the land. Mr Drew explained that he was not the valuer responsible for the 1992 valuation of Livingstone Shire. However, he was called upon to make the valuations of the subject land after it sold for both the .1992 level and the 1993 level. ' . In arriving at the valuatiq_n as at 1992, Mr Drew said that he looked at the sales that were avaiiable as at that date. He referred particularly to the sales of Lot 8 and Lot 12 on RP 619559, two 930 square metre allotments situated in Reef Street in close proximity to, but somewhat to the north of, the subject land. They sold in July and October 1991, for $82,000 and $81,000 respectively. He described both sale -- 3 of 9 -- • Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Shire of Livingstone. (V94-595 and V94-596). John C Culley v. Chief Executive, De partment of Lands (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 22 September 1995 Mr Culley is the owner of land described as Lot 52 on RP 620371, Parish of Hewittville, in the Shire of Livingstone, containing an area of 789 square metres. Mr Culley purchased this land from the original developer on 13 September 1993, for $80,000. At that time the valuation of all lands in the Shire of Livingstone made by the Chief Executive under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as at 31 March 1992, was in force and effect. Therefore, as the subject land was required to be valued as a separate parcel, the Chief Executive applied an unimproved value as at that date of $95,200 (the 1992 valuation). However, the Chief Executive-had also made a further annual valuation as at 30 June 1993, which would not take effect until 30 June 1994, and accordingly the subject land was valued as at that date at $76,000 (the 1993 valuation). Mr Culley duly objected to both the 1992 and the 1993 valuations and by notices which .were issued on 4 and 5 October 1994, he was advised that his objections had been disallowed and that the valuations remained unaltered. Mr Culley then appealed to the Land Court against these decisions upon his objections, advising in each case that in his opinion the valuation of the land should be $70,000. In his grounds of appeal against the 1992 valuation, Mr Culley referred to the fact that the value applied was $95,200, while he purchased the land in September -- 4 of 9 -- 2 1993 for $80,000. He rejected any comparison with Lot 55 in the same subdivision which sold for $130,000. He stated that Lot 55 is on a rocky point, with ocean and creek views, is almost twice the area of the subject land and has absolute beach frontage, whereas the subject allotment has a 30 metre wide reserve covered with ' scrub between it and the beach, with no direct access to the beach. In his grounds of appeal against the 1993 valuation, Mr Culley again referred to his purchase in September 1993 for $80,000 and stated that the $4,000 difference between the sale price and the applied value is not sufficient to account for the improvements that were on the land at the time of purchase. He stated that the allotment was totally cleared, had a wide bitumen road with kerbing and channelling and had all amenities, with underground power. At the hearing at Rockhampton, Mr Culley appeared and gave evidence while Mr OW Drew, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Chief Executive. There is no dispute as to the description of the land. It is situated in Coral Close, approximately 3.5 kms south of Emu Park Post Office. Coral Close is a full width bitumen sealed dual carriageway, with concrete kerbing and channelling, which provides easy access to the subject land. Underground power, town water, telephone and sewerage are available to the property. The land has been described as a regular-shaped block, relatively level to gently sloping to the east, with sandy soil and ocean views. However, the extent of those views is in dispute. While the land at the date of hearing was vacant, it was agreed that its highest and best use is for residential purposes. Although Mr Culley agreed it was a level allotment at the front, he said that it drops away so that about 12 or 15 feet would be lost unless a retaining wall was built. He felt that such a retaining wall would be required in order to build a house of the ' type that was necessary on su-ch a block. Mr Culley explained that there was a Beach Protection Reserve between the subject land and the beach which had trees growing upon it. While he agreed that there was a view of the sea from the subject land and that there would be an unrestricted view from the second level of a two-level building, he was concerned that -- 5 of 9 -- 3 the trees would grow to a height which would obstruct the view. He made the point that it was not possible to remove any trees on the Beach Protection Reserve. The Reserve also prevents direct access to the beach and while physical access was presently available, he was concerned that because of erosion the Beach I Protection Authority might fence the Reserve, thereby preventing direct access from the subject land to the beach. The nearest pathways were some allotments away. Mr Culley was at a loss to understand the Departmental valuations. He questioned how the Department could apply a valuation of $95,200 to the subject land when he paid $80,000 for it in September 1993. He also mentioned the sale of the adjoining property, Lot 51, which sold in November 1992 for $76 ,500 and which was also valued by the Department at $90,000 in the 1992 valuation and at $74,500 in the 1993 valuation . Mr Culley also referred to the sale of Lot 54 , one removed from the subject land, which also sold in November 1992 for $90,000 and to which similar valuations had been applied. Mr Culley said that he could not understand how there was a difference of $20,000 between the 1992 valuation and the 1993 valuation. He said that after 1993, the market for land in the area rose and there was no drop between the two dates of valuation. He said it was only from about the middle of 1994 that the market dropped and had been getting worse. In relation to the improvements on the subject land at time of sale, Mr Culley said that it was cleared and had beef! partially levelled. However, he conceded that the other "improvements", the road, kerbing and channelling and underground power, were not improvements which were actually situated on the land. Mr Drew explained that he was not the valuer responsible for the 1992 valuation of Livingstone Shire. However, he was called upon to make the valuations of the subject land after it sold for both the .1992 level and the 1993 level. ~ In arriving at the valuatiq_n as at 1992, Mr Drew said that he looked at the sales that were avaiiable as at that date. He referred particularly to the sales of Lot 8 and Lot 12 on RP 619559, two 930 square metre allotments situated in Reef Street in close proximity to, but somewhat to the north of, the subject land. They sold in July and October 1991, for $82,000 and $81 ,000 respectively. He described both sale -- 6 of 9 -- 4 allotments as regular inside residential allotments, with bitumen street frontage and concrete kerbing and channelling, both relatively level and falling to the east, with only limited views to the ocean. In comparing these two sales with the subject land, he said they are similar in all aspects except that the subject land has a more open view. He therefore considered it to be superior to either of the sales. Mr Culley knew the area where these two sales are situated and thought that they were more valuable than the subject land because they were in an older and more developed subdivision. He also thought that the views from those allotments were better than from the subject land because he considered that the scrub on the Beach Protection Reserve in front of these allotments was thinner than in the vicinity of his property. Mr Drew also referred to the sale of Lot 55, in the same subdivision as the subject land and situated two properties removed from it. Lot 55 sold in January 1992 for $135,000. A valuation of $102,000 was applied as at 1992. Mr Drew described this land as being slightly irregular in shape with similar amenities to the subject land but, being elevated, offered excellent views of Keppel Bay and the ocean. Because it was larger in area at 1437 square metres and because of the superior views, he considered that it was superior to the subject land. Mr Culley knew Lot 55 and said that it was an excellent elevated lot, with unrestricted views to the ocean, because there were no trees on the Beach Protection Reserve in front of it, as the allotment ran onto a rocky foreshore. He said that it was a much superior allotment to the subject land and that a "mansion" had been constructed upon it since the sale. Mr Drew also gave evidence that the two allotments referred to by Mr Culley, Lot 51 and Lot 54, were valued by the Department in the 1992 valuation, at $93,000 and $100,000 respectively. ' Mr Drew explained thatJrom his investigations he was of the opinion that as at 31 March 1992, the date of valuation, the market was considerably higher than when the sales in the subject subdivision had taken place in November 1992 and later in 1993. He came to the conclusion that the market fell from March 1992 until June 1993, the date of the second valuation. The sales of the subject land and Lots -- 7 of 9 -- 5 51 and 54 indicated the progressive fall in the market. Mr Drew backed up this evidence with the sale of Lot 50 in September 1993 for $77,000, to which an unimproved value of $72,000 was applied in the 1993 valuation. As with Lot 51, this allotment is similar to the subject land. I In addition to these sales, Mr Drew mentioned that there were other sales on the beachfront side of the subject subdivision. Lot 47 sold in May 1993 for $77,000. This allotment is larger at 1049 square metres and has an irregular shape. Lot 48 sold in November 1993 for $80,000, has an area of 821 square metres and is slightly irregular in shape. Lot 49 sbld in October 1993 for $80,000 and is very similar to Lot 50. Mr Drew did not think that the subject land required the construction of a 7-foot retaining wall before a house could be built. While he agreed with Mr Culley that the last 4 metres of the land is sloping, he did not consider it to be in danger of erosion as the land continued to slope down into the Beach Protection Reserve and then rise up to the frontal dune. He felt that there was plenty of room in the 36 metres of depth upon which to site a house. In this case, Mr Drew reasoned that the market in the area rose from the level of values indicated by sales of Lot 8 and Lot 12 in late 1991 to early 1992, as illustrated by the sale of Lot 55. The market continued to rise to the date of valuation in March 1992 and then fell sometime in the period before late 1992, as illustrated by the sales of Lot 51 and Lot 54. The market continued to fall until June 1993 when the level of values was applied and then maintained this approximate level, as shown by the later sales in 1993. I accept from Mr Drew's evidence that the subject land has better views than the sale properties, Lot 8 and Lot 12. Both Mr Drew and Mr Culley agree that Lot 55 is a much superior block with excellent views and a prominent position. While I can accept that this sale showed an increase in value, I am somewhat concerned about ' the valuation of $102,000 applled to this property, as it does not seem to reflect the difference between the subject land and this much superior lot. I can also accept the reasoning of Mr Drew based on the later sales. They seem to well support the level of values applied as at June 1993. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act, the onus of proving his -- 8 of 9 -- 6 grounds of appeal is upon the appellant. While I can understand Mr Culley's concern about the relative valuations applied in 1992 and 1993, he has failed to discharge the burden of proving that Mr Drew's reasoning is incorrect. Therefore, while I have some concern about the relativity of values applied to the superior Lot 55, it has not ', been proven to my satisfaction that the values · applied to the subject land are incorrect. Therefore, the appeal against the 1993 valuation is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive at $76,000 is affirmed. Mr Drew has conceded that the 1992 valuation should have been $95,000 rather than $95,200 and has led evidence to this effect. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed to that extent, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value as at 31 March 1992, is determined at $95,000. (JJ Trickett) Member of the Land Court -- 9 of 9 --