Augur Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Executive. Department of Lands [1993] QLC 128

Re: Appeal against valuation of land - Valuation of Land Act 1944 AV93-531 Au gur Holdings Pt y Ltd V. Chief Executive. Department of Lands DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 8th October, 1993. Augur Holdings Pty Ltd is the owner in fee simple of land described as Lot 1 on RP 180685, parish of Enoggera containing 13 hectares. This parcel is situated at 542 Payne Road, The Gap about 10 kms west of the Brisbane GPO . The lot is of irregular shape consisting of a large inside area with two strips of land linking this area with Payne Road on the north and Dillon Road on the east. The topography of the lot may be described as consisting of moderate to steep fore$t ridges broken by sharp gullies. The land rises from about 75 metres AHO on the Dillon Road frontage to about 185 metres AHO in the south western section. That part of the lot fronting Dillon Road is zoned "Future Urban" whilst the balance is zoned "Non Urban". Electricity and town water is available to the Dillon Road frontage. However water is only available up to the 80 metre contour level before pumping is required. Access is available to both road frontages which roads are of bitumen strip formation. The land is vacant. For the purpose of the annual valuation of the area of the City of Brisbane as [1993] QLC 128 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 at 31st March, 1992 the lot was valued at $220,000. An objection against the valuation was disallowed. The owner has appealed against the valuation contending that the valuation should be $180,000. The appeal is brought on two grounds:- 1) That the site cannot avail itself of reticulated town water due to its height above pressure level; and 2) that Brisbane City Council has imposed a Vegetation Protection Order (VPO) on the site. Mr Frank William Melit who is shareholder and secretary of the Company gave evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. Mr A T Albiston registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands wrote the valuation on behalf of the Chief Executive and defended the valuation in Court. At the outset it should be stated that the valuation has been made on the basis that the highest and best use of the land is for single unit residential site purposes and hence no regard has been had to any potential in the land for subdivision. On this basis it is agreed between Mr Melit and Mr Albiston that of about 4 potential homesites on the lot (all of which are in the elevated area in the south western section of the lot) the most desirable site is near the south western corner. This site would afford development with lesser costs (ground works) and maximises views. They also agree that to build in that location (or any of the other suitable locations) reticulated water would have to be pumped to the site and that the taking of services and the construction of access to the site would be expensive. Mr Melit was of the opinion that the cost of providing services to a site were so formidable as to narrow the market for the site. He says that a VPO has been placed on the majority of the site and that though the order would have no -- 2 of 4 -- 3 effect on him were he a purchaser of the site for residential purposes it could have an effect on the mind of a purchaser who wished to use the land for purposes requiring the destruction of timber eg . banana growing. Mr Albiston said that the cost of providing reticulated water to a site (including tanks) would be of a minimum of $15,000 and up to $50,000 if a supply was required which was equivalent to that supplied to lots serviced with normal reticulated water. He did not disagree with the suggestion that the provision of services would be expensive but says that these sort of outlays have been made with elevated lands in these parts of the City. Enquiries he made with the Local Authority about the effects of a VPO led him to believe that destruction of timber would be permitted for homesite purposes and that this has been allowed in a number of 4 hectare subdivisions in the locality. He said further that the valuation although based on sales is the same as that which applied for the purposes of the annual valuation in 1990. Under the Valuation of Land Act (s.21) the onus is placed on an appellant to satisfy the Court that the value applied to the land is incorrect. This appeal has been brought on narrow grounds. Sales have not been referred to and Mr Melit said that the owner had never put the land on the market, nor had it obtained an opinion of market value from a valuer. I am satisfied that Mr Albiston was fully aware of the cost of servicing a homesite on the lot and has balanced these considerations with market evidence when deciding to apply the value applied. He could not see a VPO affecting the value of the land for the highest and best use for which it has been valued and nor do I. It would appear to me on hearing Mr Albiston and Mr Melit that prudent marking of the site were it to be marketed would -- 3 of 4 -- .. 4 be directed towards those in the community who desire the seclusion and natural surrounds the site has to offer. In consideration of all the circumstances I ·have come to the conclusion that the valuation has not been proved to be incorrect. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed. (D M White) President of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --