Andrews v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 318

{ Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane Division of Stephens AV91-839 GA and DG Andrews V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th June, 1992. This appeal lies against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $127,000 for Lot 108 on RP 86941, Parish of Yeerongpilly containing an area of 607 m 2 • This is a "Residential A" zoned site situated at 33 Esplanade, Yeronga. The · relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 31st March, 1990. The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $95,000. Graham Anthony Andrews furnished evidence in support of the appeal. At the outset of the case, Mr Andrews asked that the evidence and submissions made by him in this case flow to two cases listed to follow this hearing - viz appeals by RL and PM Goeldner (AV91-840) and by DI and IR Sparke (AV91-837). Mr Andrews also requested that all the evidence in proceedings cases be included as part of the record in this case. These requests were granted. Mr Andrews commenced his evidence by making the somewhat discerning [1992] QLC 318 -- 1 of 6 -- - Page 2 - statement that it is the appellants intention to point out the unfair practices, errors and inconsistencies in the valuations in the Esplanade, Yeronga area, which took effect in June, 1990, through the lack of knowledge by the Valuer-Generals Department in failing to preserve the uniformity in values of other comparable parcels of land in the area. That the land the subject of the appeal, and indeed other lots in the Esplanade, Yeronga were severely and adversely affected by the notorious flood in 1974 is not in dispute as between the parties . Mr Andrews tendered a copy of a letter from the Brisbane City Council to himself dated 18th April, 1979 which indicated that the levels of his land varied from RL 18.53 feet (5 .6 metres) to RL 22.9 feet (6.9 metres) and that the 1974 flood reached a level of RL 11.24 metres. The letter further indicated that after the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam it is anticipated that the flood level will be reduced to RL 28 feet (8.5 metres). All levels are related to the BCC Datum. A building application for the subject land was approved with a recommendation that the floor level of any habitable rooms be not less than RL 28 feet (8.5 metres) BCC Datum. Mr Andrews also placed in evidence photographs indicating the nature of the Esplanade with its river views and he points out the blocks in the Esplanade do not have river frontage. Mr Andrews says that notwithstanding that the properties have been flooded to a height of 5 metres, the zoning code received as a result of searches made at the Valuer-General's Department indicated that its records show that the sites in the Esplanade are coded as being flood free (01) instead of 05. Nothing turns on this since the respondent Valuer-General well recognises the flooding problems in the -- 2 of 6 -- - Page 3 - Esplanade. Obviously the coding is in error. Mr Andrews tendered a copy of the press photograph showing the flood devastation suffered by his neighbours property (Lot 109) and on the adjoining property (Lot 110) - appellant owners DI and IR Sparke. Mr Andrews submits that the increases in the valuation of his property have been more than excessive and well above inflation since the 1985 valuation. He produced figures indicating that the valuation of his land increased as between the 1989 relevant date valuation and the 1990 relevant date valuation by a factor of 60. 7%. I calculate that the increase after a reduction was made in the valuation following objection was 51%. Mr Andrews is at a loss to understand why the valuation of Lots 110 and 111 in the Esplanade were reduced on objection from $135,000 to $120,000 in veiw of the reduction in his valuation from the same figure ($135,000 to $127,000). Further he says that the valuation of Lot 112 has been reduced from $136,000 to $120,000 and in that case Mr Andrews suggests that the owners did not even object. Mr Andrews believes that the Valuer-General's valuations of parcels in the Esplanade were based on a comparison with land values in some areas of Fig Tree Pocket. Subsequent evidence shows that this is not the case, and no useful purpose is served in further commenting upon this aspect of the appellants' case. As a result of Mr Andrews' searches, no sale of vacant land was located in the Esplanade or in the Yeronga area. He has carried out searches of land values applied by the Valuer-General as at 31st March, 1990 for riverside properties in Nadine Street, Graceville, which properties he suggests are comparable with those in the Esplanade being in an identical position in regard to the river separated by -- 3 of 6 -- - Page 4 - parkland and road way and being a similar distance from the GPO. Mr Andrews believes a comparison with property values in Nadine Street is more realistic and fairer with than a comparison with properties in Fig Tree Pocket. Nadine Street properties were flooded in 1974 to a depth of 4 metres and in that respect they are similar to properties in the Esplanade. Property searches of values in Nadine Street indicate an average value of $95,000. No mention was made by Mr Andrews in his submission about the relative traffic problems and resultant noise and inconvenience as between the Esplanade and Nadine Street. Mr Andrews referred to what he calls anomalies and unfair relativities in valuations in Mandalay Street, Fig Tree Pocket but this is not of relevance as I am only concerned at these sittings with the unimproved values of the various parcels under appeal. Mr Andrews summarised his submission to be that due to the potential threat of future flooding, together with a comparison of land values in Nadine Street, that all properties in the Esplanade at Yeronga should immediately be revalued to $95,000. Notwithstanding this submission, Mr Andrews who is in general agreement with a contention made on behalf of the Valuer-General that properties towards the western end of the Esplanade (say Lots 104 - 110) are more susceptible to flooding than those towards the eastern end of the Esplanade. The valuation under appeal was made by registered Departmental valuer Ian Geoffrey Savage who describes the nature of the subject land as being a river esplanade frontage, falling with a gentle slope from the north east (RL 7 metres AHO) to the south west (RL 4.8 metres AHO). Mr Savage says that the land was flooded to RL 9.8 metres AHO in 1974. He says that since construction of the Wivenhoe Dam, Brisbane City Council have adopted a 100 year flood level of RL -- 4 of 6 -- .. - Page 5 - 7.1 metres AHO for this area. To avoid any confusion about these levels I should immediately say here that Mr Savage is using a different datum to that referred to in evidence by Mr Andrews. Mr Savage says that the esplanade opposite the subject land is developed as open parkland with scattered native and exotic trees to the riverbank. Mr Savage values the land having regard to the sale of Lot 99 on RP 86941, Parish of Yeerongpilly containing an area 607 m 2 from Dlugolecki to Smith and Another on 20th September, 1989 for $150,000. He has analysed this sale to show an unimproved value of $138,350 and applied an unimproved value of $135,000 to this site as at a relevant date of 31st March, 1990. This site is situated at 15 Esplanade, Yeronga. Mr Savage describes it as being a river esplanade site with good river views across the roadway and parkland. It was flooded in 1974 to RL 9.7 metres AHD and there is a post Wivenhoe prediction in a 1 in 100 year flood of RL 7 .1 metres. Mr Savage says that the sale site has a gentle tall to the front from RL 9 metres to RL 7 metres. This is the property upon which a dwelling has been sold for removal for $10,000 by a subsequent purchaser (Mr J Shuttlewood). I have already dealt with this matter in my general comments and observations which are to be read as one with this decision. I cannot come to a conclusion that the Valuer-General, in valuing the sites in the Esplanade including the subject land has used any unfair practices, has made demonstrable errors or inconsistencies or had any lack of knowledge. It is for appellants making these suggestions to prove them in evidence, and I simply have no evidence upon which I could make such a finding. -- 5 of 6 -- - Page 6 - As I have said this decision should be read with my general comments and observations a copy of which is attached. Since I have already indicated a preference for the use of analysed sales evidence as a basis of valuation, then the evidence of Mr Savage must prevail. I have indicated in my general comments and observations that I prefer to rely for this determination upon Mr Savage's analysis of the sale of the 15 Esplanade, Yeronga property than on the values applied in Nadine Street, Graceville. The reasons for this decision are also incorporated within my general comments and observations but I should add here that the evidence is clear that the properties in Nadine Street, Graceville suffer more from traffic problems than do the Esplanade properties. On my appreciation of the evidence I cannot come to a conclusion that a bona fide seller of the subject property, if vacant and unimproved, would be prepared to sell it for less than $127,000 as at 31st March, 1990, notwithstanding the flooding problems. It follows then that the appeal is dismissed, and that the unimproved value of Lot 108 on RP 86941, Parish of Yeerongpilly as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $127,000 be affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 6 of 6 --