Da Grava & Anor v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 290

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General City of Brisbane AV91-230 Oscar and Maria Da Grava V The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 15 May 1992 The appellants, 0 and M Da Grava, are the owners of Lots 55 and 56 on RP 33748 in the Parish of Toombul, County of Stanley. The block has an area of 814 square metres and is located at 114 Woodville Street, Hendra. In the annual valuation of all lands in the Area as at 31 March 1989, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of the subject land at $41,500. The appellants estimate that the unimproved value of the land at that date was $29,000. They have appealed to the Land Court against the Valuer-General's decision. In their notice of appeal to this Court, the appellants list various grounds of appeal, all of which refer to the flooding to which the subject land is prone. The grounds of appeal also contain statements of fact which were supported by oral and written evidence in the hearing. The subject land is situated on the western side of Woodville Street, a "dead end" street which terminates at the northern alignment of the land. It is the lowest block in the street, adjoins Hendra State High School and is proximate to Schulz Canal. The land is below road level and has an easy fall to the rear. The front of the house is approximately 0.3 metres above the land and the rear of the house is approximately 1 metre above the land. In periods of heavy rain the subject land is [1992] QLC 290 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 inundated with water flowing from neighbouring properties (primarily the two adjacent blocks to the south which have frontages to Brook Street and properties facing Zillman Road to the west). On occasions when the Brisbane River rises, Schulz Canal is blocked and water backs up across the school land to the subject land. The appellants have lived on the subject land for nearly 1O years and have been affected by rising flood waters on 4 or 5 occasions. When their property is flooded, most of the surface water dissipates within approximately one day, although it may stay on that part of the land immediately adjacent to the school for 4-5 days. The soil becomes waterlogged. The practical consequences for the appellants are inconvenient and unpleasant. As a result of flooding, the appellants have had to relocate a hot water system, refrigerator and washing machine from under the house. The sewerage system has been inundated, so that sewage has risen to the surface of the property. The drainage system has become blocked and drains have taken longer than usual to clear. In summary, following heavy rain there is no or very poor drainage when using toilet, bath and kitchen facilities. As a result of waterlogging, a number of fruit trees have died. According to the appellants, the Brisbane City Council has recognised the problems on the land. Council records show that the land is affected by flooding. Some 5 or so years ago Council officers came and lifted traps under the house in 3 places and placed extra pipes to accommodate the water. Despite that work, the property is still affected by flooding when heavy rains fall. The Valuer-General does not dispute the appellants' assertions about the flood prone location of the land. Evidence was given by Mr JT Houghton, a -- 2 of 6 -- 3 , registered valuer with the Department of Lands. His written valuer's report (Exhibit 3) states that the subject land is "of very low elevation and suffers from considerable stormwater run off from higher properties in Woodville Street and also Zillman Road to the west. Subject was flooded in 1974 and is also subject to sporadic local flooding from the overflow of Schulz Canal". In his oral evidence, Mr Houghton had no hesitation in describing the water and associated problems as "severe" and "major". The issue in this case is whether the appellants have demonstrated that, the valuation of the land is too high and, in particular, whether, in determining the unimproved value of the subject land at the relevant valuation date, the Valuer- General gave sufficient regard to the problems suffered on the land. Mr Houghton gave evidence about the subject land and the process by which it was valued. In his valuer's report he refers to various positive features in and around the subject land. Woodville Street is fully made with bitumen surface, formed footpaths and kerbing and channelling past the subject land. All weather vehicular access is available to the land, as are town water, electricity, sewerage, telephone and gas services. The land enjoys a "good open outlook" to the north across the playing fields of the school. The valuation of the land was made having regard to four sales of other land in the district also zoned Residential "A". The main features of the sale blocks are summarised as follows: (a) 40 Gorman Street, Wooloowin. The block has an area of 685 square metres and was sold in December 1988 for $39,900. Having regard to improvements by way of clearing and fencing, the Valuer-General determined the applicable value to be $34,500. The block has disabilities similar to those on the subject land. It is below road level in an average quality residential -- 3 of 6 -- 4 street. It is of low elevation with poor drainage and is subject to flooding. Brisbane City Council requires any proposed building on the land to have habitable floors 1.5 metres above ground level. The block adjoins the playing fields of Kedron High School. Mr Houghton considered that the land ' is inferior to the subject land due to size, frontage and location. (b) 30 Lodge Road, Kalinga. The block comprises 2 lots, each with an area of 405 square metres. It was sold as two lots in February 1989 for $116,000. Having regard to improvements by way of clearing and fencing (but attributing no value to a derelict dwelling) the Valuer-General determined the applicable value to be $105,000 (being $51,000 for the inside lot and $54,000 for the corner lot). The land is at road level with good drainage. It is located in an old established residential area handy to all facilities. Each of the lots is smaller in area and has a smaller frontage than the subject land. They do not have the pleasant outlook of the subject land. In Mr Houghton's view, however, they are superior to the subject land because of their elevation and because they do not have the water detriment suffered by the subject land. (c) 43 Clarke Street, Hendra. The block has an area of 809 square metres and was sold in October 1988 for $75,000. Having regard to improvements by way of removal of an old dwelling (since removed), clearing and fencing, the Valuer-General determined the applicable value to be $59,000. The land is a level allotment at road level. It is situated in a stable development zone and horse stables abound in the locality. The land is considered superior to the subject property due to elevation and being without the water detriment suffered by the subject land. (d) 87 Woodville Street, Hendra. The block has an area of 685 square metres. It was sold in July 1987 for $64,000. Although the sale predated the relevant valuation date by some 22 months, Mr Houghton included it in his list of -- 4 of 6 -- 5 properties because of its proximity to the subject land. He stated that the market rose after the sale, so that the applicable value of $59,000 (made after allowance had been made for improvements by way of clearing, fencing and the removal of an old dwelling) should be seen as conservative for present purposes. The land is at road level in a good residential area handy to all facilities. Although smaller than the subject land, Mr Houghton considered it superior to the subject due to locality, elevation and being without the water detriment suffered by the subject land. The appellants are concerned because, in each successive valuation, the valuation of the land seems to be rising at a substantial rate, while the disabilities from which the land suffers continue. They argue that the unimproved value should, in effect, be held at the 1986 valuation of $29,000. They have not provided any sales evidence which would support their contention. It is clear from Mr Houghton's oral evidence, the valuer's report (Exhibit 3), and, by inference at least, a plan showing the subject land and neighbouring properties with their valuations (Exhibit 4), that the Valuer-General has taken the proper approach in determining the unimproved value of the land by reference to: (a) relatively recent sales of comparable blocks of unimproved or lightly improved land; and (b) the disabilities on the subject land. Sales evidence shows that the values of other properties in the area have risen in the relevant period and it is reasonable to infer that the value of the subject land has also risen, even though it continues to be flood prone. What the Valuer- General must determine is the value of the land in its unimproved state. Considering the land in that state, Mr Houghton suggested that a new dwelling -- 5 of 6 -- 6 could be constructed on it which would be affected by flooding much less than the existing dwelling. The building restrictions imposed on the land at 40 Gorman Street, Wooloowin illustrate how some of the problems on the subject land could be overcome. The appellants have not challenged, and hence not rebutted, the valuation prepared having regard to other lightly improved lands. The appellants have not established that their valuation (or one close to it) is to be preferred to the value determined by the Valuer-General. The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. GJ Neate Member of the Land Court -- 6 of 6 --