Ditton v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 157

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Shire of Laidley (A V93-141) Ethel May Brown Ditton v. LAND COURT BRISBANE 10TH DECEMBER 1993 Chief Executive , De partment of Lands (Hearing at Gatton) DECISION Mrs Ditton is the owner of land described at Lots 8 to 10 on Registered Plan 3374, Parish of Laidley, containing an area of 1,518 sq. metres. In accordance with the provisions of Section 168 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of this land as at 31st March, 1992 at $18,000. Mrs Ditton objected to this valuation and by letter dated 27th April, 1993 she was advised that her objection had been disallowed and that the valuation remained unaltered at $18,000. Mrs Ditton then appealed to the Land Court against this decision upon her objection, advising that her estimate of the unimproved value is $12,000. Her grounds of appeal are that the property has been subject to periodic flooding in 1958, 1974 and 1988; the rear portion of the land is affected by stones cleared from the neighbouring butter factory site; and the relativity of her valuation compared with those of other lands. Between the date of valuation and the date of hearing of this matter, the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 had the effect of substituting the Chief [1993] QLC 157 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Executive, Department of Lands, for the former statutory position of Valuer-General. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Chief Executive be the respondent in this matter in place of the former Valuer-General. The subject land is situated in William Street, Laidley, which is bitumen sealed. It is level with the road and has easy access from William Street. All town services such as electricity, telephone, water and sewerage are available. The Departmental report tendered on behalf of the Chief Executive describes the land as a level inside lot now fully cleared, having bitumen street frontage with concrete kerbing and channelling. The property is situated in the part of Laidley that is recognised as an area subject to flooding in high floods. The land is zoned "Residential High Density" under the town planning scheme for the Shire of Laidley and is used for residential purposes. The land comprises three allotments, each with an area of 505.9 sq. metres, but as it is developed with a single dwelling-house, it is valued as a single 1,518 sq., metre allotment under the provisions of Section 11 (9) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, as land used exclusively for purposes of a single dwelling-house. Mrs Ditton appeared and gave evidence. She tendered a written statement in elaboration of her grounds of appeal. She said that in 1958 and 1974 water from the Laidley Gully at the rear of her property flowed through the building on the land to a depth of approximately 5 feet and into the then low-level home, causing damage to outbuildings and the destruction of the garden. In 1988, a flood of lesser proportions flowed through the ground level buildings after the house had been elevated. Mrs Ditton is concerned about the potential for deeper flooding of longer -- 2 of 6 -- 3 duration by the construction of an embankment as part of the extensions to the old people's home to the north of her property and because of the high rear wall of the Commonwealth Bank and the walls of the new supermarket in the vicinity of her house. Mrs Ditton said that the Council had spent something like $115,000 on flood mitigation and while this had made the situation somewhat better, in 1988 the flood had still flowed across her property. Mrs Ditton tendered two photographs showing the extent of the 1974 flood. Mrs Ditton's second ground of appeal concerns the area at the rear of her property which is affected by stones up to 6 inches in diameter which she feels were placed there as a result of the clearing of adjacent land for the butter factory many years ago. She said that the rear couple of feet of the property were affected by these stones to a considerable depth. They cause problems in endeavouring to plant trees on that rear part of the property. Mrs Ditton's third ground of appeal concerned the relativity of the valuation of her property compared with those of others in the area. However, she was not able to assist me with the values applied to any other properties and it emerged that she was concerned that her valuation had increased by 200 per cent, whereas others in the Town of Laidley had not increased by the same percentage. She felt that there was a number of things that the valuer had not taken into account. For example, the former butter factory land which adjoined her property to the east and south, had been traded by a developer with the Laidley Shire Council for use as a car park for customers of a proposed supermarket complex to be built in Patrick Street. She said that while this car park was not a certainty, it -- 3 of 6 -- 4 had been talked about for approximately a year and she was concerned that with the construction of such a car park, her property would lose privacy and suffer from noise and disturbance that is associated with such car parks. She also felt that with such area bitumened over, the area would lose its aesthetic appeal. At present the former butter factory land had been looked after by its former owner and had an almost park-like appearance. Mrs Ditton felt that the proposed car park had not been taken into account by the valuer when arriving at his valuation. Mrs Ditton did not know of any sales in the area at about the date of valuation. Of the sales used by the Department, she did not know the parties to the transactions and thought they must be all outsiders and not locals and that they had paid too much. She also thought that the sales were situated too far away in areas that were not as badly flooded as her property and therefore did not relate to the valuation of her land. Mr J D J Millar, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Chief Executive. Mr Millar said that he was not the valuer originally responsible for the valuations in Laidley and as that valuer was not available, he had investigated the valuation of the subject land and agreed with the assessment of $18,000. Mr Millar relied on three sales to support the valuation. Sale No. 1 is of an allotment containing 1,136 sq. metres, zoned "Residential Low Density", which sold in November 1991 for $18,000. Th_is sale was analysed to show an unimproved value of $17,300 and a valuation of $16,600 was applied in the 1992 valuation. Mr Millar describes this land as a level inside allotment which has been fully cleared and with all town services available. The sale has good access from Schroder -- 4 of 6 -- 5 Street which is bitumen sealed, with concrete kerbing and channelling. Mr Millar considers that the sale is similar to the subject land with regard to access, topography and services, and would be subject to local flooding. The subject land is larger than the sale and he therefore considers it superior. Sale No. 2 is situated in Patrick Street on the northern outskirts of the town, some distance from the subject land. It has an area of 1,056 sq. metres, zoned "Rural A", and sold in December 1991 for $22,500. This sale analysed to show an unimproved value of $21,400 and a valuation of $19,000 was applied in the 1992 valuation. Mr Millar describes this land as a level inside lot, fully cleared with all town services available and with sound access from Patrick Street which is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. He considers that the sale is superior to the subject land as it is not subject to flooding, but this is offset to some extent because the subject land is larger. Both properties have similar access, services and topography. Sale No. 3 is situated in Thomas Street, contains an area of 803 sq. metres, zoned "Residential Low Density" and sold in March 1992 for $22,000. This sale was analysed to show an unimproved value of $21,500 and a valuation of $21,000 was applied in the 1992 valuation. Mr Millar describes this allotment as a level inside lot, fully cleared with access from Thomas Street which is bitumen sealed and with part of the frontage having concrete kerbing and channelling. All town services are available to this property. Mr Millar considers that the sale has similar access and topography to the subject land, but is not subject to flooding and therefore considered superior. However, while the sale is smaller than the subject property, he considers it to be superior. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 Mr Millar said that he was aware that the subject land is situated in a recognised flood area in Laidley which suffers severely from flooding in times of high floods. These floods affect a number of properties in Laidley and he thought that the corner of Wilson and Patrick Streets would be worst affected. Mr Millar did not have any sales in this area of Laidley, but he thought that Sale No. 1 would be more affected by local flooding than high floods. Mr Millar was not able to assist with the relativity of values in other areas of the town as he was not the original valuer. However, he did say that the whole of the town had generally increased by two to three times. With regard to the stone at the rear of the property, he felt it affected only about 120 sq. metres and this would not affect the unimproved value of the land. With regard to the proposed car park, he said that if it came to fruition it would be considered in a future valuation. Mr Millar pointed out that the subject land is an allotment in excess of 1,500 sq. metres situated in close proximity to the main street of Laidley. If it was not for the allowance made because of the periodic flooding, he would have had the unimproved value at something like $25,000 to $30,000. While Mrs Ditton said that she is not convinced of the correctness of the unimproved value and feels that her property has been harshly treated, she was not able to assist the Court with evidence of sales or comparisons with the values of other properties in the area. In this she has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the valuation applied by the Chief Executive is excessive. Therefore, her appeal must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed at $18,000. J J TRICKETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 6 of 6 --