Childs v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 297

Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane (Division of Yeerongpilly) AV91-792 M. M. K. Childs v. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th June, 1992. This appeal is against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $70,000 for Lot 1 on RP 72775 Parish of Yeerongpilly containing an area of 1.012 hectares. The land is zoned "Future Urban" and is situated at 29 Penarth Street, Runcorn. It is improved with a single unit residence. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 31st March, 1990. The appellant contends for an unimproved value of $52,000. The appeal was conducted on account of the appellant by Mrs Gina McMonagle, who is the appellant's daughter. Mrs McMonagle called in evidence her mother who outlined the flooding problems suffered by her land, which has a narrow frontage (19.2m) to Penarth Street and a long frontage to Gowan Road (176.3m) at the rear. The land is traversed by the upper reaches of Bulimba Creek [1992] QLC 297 -- 1 of 5 -- - Page 2 - near the Gowan Road frontage. Ms Childs says that Since 1975, with the up- grading of Gow_an Road and increased residential density in the area, the water run off has markedly increased causing a large area of the subject land to be sterilised. Ms Childs placed in evidence a series of photographs taken on 16th March, 1992 showing the flooding of her land. Other photographs taken on 11th July, 1991 show the land under dry land conditions with the flood debris visible. Flooding occurs at times to a depth of 1 metre. Stormwater discharge into the creek from the Runcorn Tavern, which almost adjoins the subject land, also exacerbates the flooding problem. Ms Childs told us that the increasing seriousness of the flooding in Bulimba Creek has resulted in the Brisbane City Council commissioning a flood study by the engineering firm Connell Wagner. There are no proposals for remedial work and therefore there will be no improvement in the flooding situation on the subject land. A copy of the engineering report is in evidence. In addition Ms Childs says that her land is situated in the lowest point of Penarth Street and is subject to surface water run off from neighbouring sites. This problem has also been exacerbated by the re-routing of the stormwater drainage in 1989. A newly formed drain is infrequently maintained and becomes overgrown with weeds. Ms Childs says the construction of the Runcorn Tavern on Gowan Road has adversely affected the amenity and privacy of the subject land. There has been trespass by patrons of the Tavern and she has been subjected at times to abusive and threatening language when trespasses have been challenged. Ms Childs has made a comparison of the valuations placed on her property and on nearby lands. In so doing she points out that the area which falls within the flood regulation line on the subject property is 8820 m 2 with a small area -- 2 of 5 -- - Page 3 - of 615 m 2 on Gowan Road being outside the flood regulation line. She says the land facing Gowan Road is not suitable for development. The balance area where her house is erected fronting Penarth Street has an area of 941 m 2 and is considered by Ms Childs as being the only useable part of the land. She says the unreasonableness of the valuation can be demonstrated by comparison with the valuation of nearby lots all with an area of 1012 m 2 • Lot 52 is valued at $48,000, Lot 50 at $45,500 and Lot 49 at $45,500. These lots are situated opposite the subject land in Penarth Street and are higher in elevation. In addition Lot 53 (which is the closest lot to the subject land) is valued at $46,000 and Lot 55 is valued at $44,500. Having regard to the limited useable area of subject land, Ms Childs feels that in comparison with the valuation of the nearby sites then the value of her land should not exceed $52,000. The valuation under appeal was made by registered departmental valuer Ross Brian Cranstoun who describes the subject land as being slightly below street level, of medium elevation and with about 85% of the area affected by the Brisbane City Council flood regulation lines. This area I calculate to about 8600 m 2 which area is very close to that estimated by Ms Childs. Mr Cranstoun provided the Court with a relativity value map for the blocks in the area. He confirms that Lot 53 in Penarth Street is valued at $46,000. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, in Penarth Street near the subject land with areas ranging from 607 m2 to 610 m2 are valued in the range of $35,000 to $37,500. Lot 2 on RP 72775 with an area of 1.012 hectares is valued at $72,000 (this parcel is also under appeal) and Lot 1 on RP 106305 with an area of 1.1339 hectares (next door to the -- 3 of 5 -- - Page 4 - subject land but for Lot 2) is valued at $79,000. Mr Cranstoun informed the Court that the subject land has been valued as a single unit residential site and there has been no allowance made for potential subdivision. He says he has had regard to the flood regulation lines and to the flooding problems. While the land under the regulation line is not of much use, Mr Cranstoun sees it as being an advantage to the subject site and of some value. He says that the large sites in Penarth Street all suffer from surface water run off problems. Lot 1 on RP 106305 is also valued as a single unit residential site and is affected by the flood regulation line but to a lesser extent. Mr Cranstoun says that an allowance has been made for flooding in the valuation of the subject land. There is no doubt that the subject land suffers from the disabilities outlined in evidence by Ms Childs but what has to be determined is the unimproved value of the land taking into account those disabilities. Really it is very difficult for the appellant to succeed in the appeal when Mr Cranstoun says the he was well aware of the problems with the block and that he has taken them into account when setting the unimproved value relativity in the area. After all he is a professionally qualified person and is able to make a value judgment. I do not denigrate the appellant's evidence but it is Mr Cranstoun who offered expert opinion on value. The comparisons made by Ms Childs are not in a sense comparisons of like with like notwithstanding her contention that only 941 m 2 of the subject land is useable. I adopt the suggestion by Mr Cranstoun that the extra area of the subject land must have some value. In these circumstances I cannot find that the -- 4 of 5 -- I I - Page 5 - onus resting upon the appellant under the provisions of Section 16 (J) (3) of the Valuation of Land Act has been discharged. The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 72775, Parish of Yeerongpilly as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $70,000 is affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 5 of 5 --