Braley v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 217

t L---- ~·· LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 16th April, 1992. Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, City of Townsville. {AV91-1050) R.D. Brale y v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Townsville) DECISION Dr R.D. Braley owns a large "Residential A" zoned site of 3274 square metres at 6 Elena Street, Nelly Bay, Magnetic Island. The real property description is Lot 1 on R.P. 747103, Parish of Magnetic, County of Elphinstone. As at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of the land in the sum of $67,000, then disallowed an objection against that valuation. Dr Braley estimates a value of $58,000. His grounds of appeal are that part of the property forms a creek bed and is unavailable for building, the banks of the creek are susceptible to erosion, a sewerage substation is accommodated on a small site excised from the northern road frontage of the site and a sewerage pipeline accommodated within a registered easement traverses the site. Apart from a further reduction in available building area caused by the easement, both the substation and pipeline have been prone to leakage. He is concerned with the escalation in the valuation of the land. Dr Braley attended the hearing and gave evidence, supported by written material. He has measured the area forming the creek bed and its adjacent steep banks, calculated to be 775.4 square metres or 23. 7% of the total area. It is his [1992] QLC 217 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 opinion that this area should be assessed at a much lower value than the high, level land capable of building development. He has carried out calculations based on a 50% and 75% reduction in value for this area on a pro rata calculation, to show the reduction in general rates which would result. He tendered correspondence with the Townsville City Council and photographs relative to the loss of section of the creek bank after heavy rains in March 1990. Although Dr Braley is of the opinion that much of the loss was caused by a damaged storm- water drain, the Council disagreed and was not prepared .to assist with the reinstatement of the eroded bank on his private land. He agrees that it is reasonable to expect some erosion from flood waters when a creek bisects the property, but is concerned that his rate burden increases even when damage occurs from what he sees as faulty Council works. Further reference was made during the hearing to the problems which have been experienced from the leaking of raw sewerage from the pumping station and pipeline. Evidence in support of the Valuer-General's valuation was given by Mr P.G. Simmonds. He was not the valuer originally responsible for the valuation but in the absence of that officer had inspected the land and the sales evidence used as a basis and agrees with the valuation of $67,000. In his report the land is described as being of irregular shape divided by Gustav Creek. The north•eastern section (adjoining the sewerage pump station) is sloping land with an area of about 700 square metres planted to trees. The main area on the southern side of the creek is higher land "mildly" sloping, with good access and ample area (even after the encumbrance by the sewerage pipeline easement) for a large house site. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 The site is situated in a "newer subdivision at the back of the existing Nelly Bay Township and has no sea views. Elena Street is a bitumen kerb to kerb carriageway and provides good access to both parts of the land ... Elena Street traverses the creek via a concrete bridge structure approximately 15 metres long." Electricity, telephone, water and sewerage services are available and street lighting is provided. The valuation was made having regard to three vacant land sales. Two are of smaller sites of 616 square metres and 607 square metres in Yates Street and Compass Crescent. The first sold in December 1989 for $47,000 and was valued at that amount at the date relevant to this matter. The second sold for $55,500 in January 1990 for $55,500 with an applied valuation of $52,000. It is Mr Simmonds evidence that these sales have some relevance in identifying a minimum value for the subject had its useable land been of comparable size. The third sale seems to me to be the best evidence provided. It is of a 2901 square metre site at the western extremity of Lilac Street (an older area with older houses) which sold in March 1990 for $72,500 with an applied valuation of $67,000. This site is also divided by a creek, with steep banks. The sloping western section to which no vehicular access is available, is broken by rock outcrops. There is a good house site of about 750 square metres available with bitumen strip access. Sewerage is not available. Mr Simmonds sees this third sale as being most comparable to the subject site on an overall basis. Dr Braley paid $57,500 for the subject land some years ago and acknowledges that the market has since risen. He is concerned that continually escalating values will however impact on the rating burden. It is, of course, the -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Valuer-General's task to assess the unimproved value of the land at a given date - in this case 31st March 1990 - and it is well held that sales of vacant or lightly improved land of comparable nature afford the best basis for such assessment. I am satisfied that the obvious disabilities of the land have been taken into consideration by the Valuer-General otherwise a higher valuation would have resulted. Mr Simmonds gave evidence that he had enquired as to the past leakage from the sewerage works and had been informed that it ·is the opinion of the Townsville City Council that past problems have now been corrected. The owner has been unable to prove the valuation to be wrong and it follows that the appeal is unsuccessful. It is therefore dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --