Barwick v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1994] QLC 267

[1994] QLC 267 Re: Appeal against a valuation City of Warwick LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 24TH JUNE, 1994 Valuation of Land Act 1944 (AV93-597) Phyllis M Barwick v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands DECISION This appeal is against the application of an unimproved value of $11,500 applied by the Chief Executive, Department of Lands to the land of the appellant, described as Lot 5 on RP36178, Parish of Warwick containing an area of 4047m 2 • The valuation is required to be made as at 31 March, 1992. The appellant considers that the land should be valued at $8,000. The principal grounds of the appeal are - 1) that the lot suffers from flooding, and 2) that the increase in value from $5,800 to $11,500 is not a reflection of the increase in the market. The lot is situated in Sakon Street about 2.3 kilometres from the Warwick Post Office. Sakon Street is a bitumen sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling. The lot is zoned Residential under the town plan, has town water available but no sewerage. The land slopes from the road to the Condamine River at the rear. The appellant purchased the land (improved with the dwelling and other structures) in December, 1989. In 1990, the river was in flood. Flooding waters came up to the rear of a string of bird cages which are about midway between the frontage and the rear boundary. Mrs Barwick obtained -- 1 of 3 -- 2 information from the local authority which said that in 1976 flood waters reached the road surface of Sakon Street and thus would have covered the whole of the lot. Mrs Barwick is of the opinion that with the potential in the land to flood, purchasers would be deterred from purchasing the land at prices estimated by the Department of Lands. She could produce no market evidence to support her opinion of value nor of the market applying when the land was last revalued. Mr DP Coe, registered valuer in the employ of the Department spoke to the valuation applied by the Chief Executive. He said that the valuation was based on sales. He also obtained from the local authority details of every flood recorded since 1887 ending in 1988. These records were taken from a gauge board at the McCahon Bridge which is just to the south east of the subject land. The 1976 flood to which Mrs Barwick referred is the highest recorded flood. Since 1887 floods have exceeded 5 metres on the gauge board at the bridge on 48 occasions to 1988. Between 1968 and 1988 floods in excess of 5 metres occurred about 10 times. According to Mr Coe the flood in 1976 recorded 9.1 on the gauge board and was equivalent to a one in one hundred year flood. He accepts that the land is flooded and in his opinion general flooding of the type to which Mrs Barwick refers (one coming up to the rear of the bird cages) is a matter for consideration but points to the fact that the frontage (homesite) on the lot is free of flood (except for a 1 .. 100 year event). Whilst Mrs Barwick says that flooding of the rear requires the removal of any livestock from the area, the area provides the homesite with open space and recreation and is part of a view to and across the river. The value applied to the lot may be tested against the market evidence he produced. Sale 2 in Grafton Street is just across the river from the subject lot. It is free of flood, it is a regular shaped lot but has an area -- 2 of 3 -- 3 of 1013m 2 . Mr Coe said that were the lots compared on homesite to homesite basis (each of say 1013m 2) the sale lot would be superior. However a comparison of that type he says, and I agree, ignores the added value coming from the additional 3000m 2 of land available for enjoyment by the homesite on the subject land. The sale land sold for $12,000 and after allowing for clearing and fencing reflected an unimproved value of $11,000. Sale 3 in Rosehill Road and about a similar distance from the city centre as is the subject land sold for $11,500. This sale demonstrated an unimproved value of $10,550. The lot has an area of 2013m 2 but is situated close to an abattoir. The market evidence suggests to me that the applied value is correct. Under the Act the Court is only concerned with the evidence of value as at 31 March, 1992. Any excursion into the history of value is of no assistance and can be misleading. In this case there appears to me to exist sound evidence of the market upon which to base values. I am unable in the circumstances to find that the applied value is incorrect. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Chief Executive is affirmed. DM WHITE President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --