Clarry v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 159

) ";0;:ri; ,·... Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Ipswich City Council. AV91-159. John J. Clar ry V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Ipswich) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 1st November, 1991 This appeal is in respect of the value applied by the Valuer-General to an area of 8.101 hectares described as Lot 2 on RP 23742, parish of Ipswich, for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990. Lot 2 is situated at 36 Oxford Street, North Booval, and about 5. 7 kilometres from the Ipswich Post Office. The land is zoned "Non-Urban" and is used for the storage of building equipment and residential purposes. Oxford Street is a dead-end street of gravel surface and serves a number of larger type parcels situated in a pocket of land between Bundamba Creek and the Bremer River to the west. The whole of the subject parcel was flooded in the 1974 flood. About half of the area is above the 1:20 flood frequency line where a home may be sited. Access to the property, however, which is via North Station Road then Oxford Street, is below the 1:20 flood frequency line near the junction and this has caused delays in the owner obtaining a permit to build. The land has electricity and town water connected. According to Mr E.C. Denman, registered valuer, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, and not disputed by Mr J.R. Lochel, registered valuer who wrote the [1991] QLC 159 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 valuation on behalf of the Valuer-General, the area is generally used for dump-type storage purposes. Arroh Industries which manufactures furniture is also in the area. The usage made of the land by the appellant is one which fits this description - storage of building equipment and building materials. Mr Denman values the land at $35,000. He based the value on sales. Details of these sales were tendered but I find that one only is of any effective use in ascertaining value in the circumstances of the subject case. This is the sale of a parcel (Lot 2 on RP 224 73, parish Goodna) of 3.87 hectares situated at 99 Graham Street, Blackstone. The other two sales have been discarded for reasons - 1. The sale from Rollem Pty Ltd to M.V. and D.A. Investments Pty Ltd and Solart Pty Ltd, was purchased by subdividers. An application has been made to subdivide the property into residential sized allotments. The sale can have no useful relevance in valuing a large rural residential site. 2. The sale from Ebbw Vale Drainpipes Ltd to Mark McClelland of 4.686 hectares made in April, 1989, for $15,000 is of a property with numerous disabilities but containing a home site. The extent of its inferiority to the subject site (evident in the applied values) is so severe that no comparison could be made between them with any confidence. The sale at 99 Graham Street was purchased for the purpose of using the land for residential purposes. There is a fertiliser plant opposite the property. In the evidence of Mr Denman, the property is less floodable than the subject property and is one which could be used for residential or industrial purposes. In the latter respect there is an affinity between that use and the use made of the subject lot and the area generally of Oxford Street. The sale occurred in June, 1989 (almost 9 months before the relevant date) and on a rising market. Mr Loche! said that for the purposes of this Annual Valuation, the sale land is valued at $40,000 or $41,000. Mr Loche! led evidence of two sales. The first is of an area of 9. 712 hectares in the parish of Brassall, which sold in September, 1989, for $50,000. The -- 2 of 4 -- 3 analysis of the sale reflects an unimproved land value of $49,000. The sale land is valued for the purposes of this Annual Valuation for $45,500. The land is situated about 11 kilometres from Ipswich with access by gravel road. Electricity is available. Town water and cleaning services are not available. At the time of sale the locality was sparsely developed. It is agreed, however, that the area is one which is developing for rural residential purposes. That sale reflected an increase on the Valuer-General's valuation figures of about 40%. The second sale is of a 1.012 hectare parcel situated in Andrew Street, Bundamba, to the east of the subject lot and east of Bundamba Creek. This land sold in December, 1989, for $38,500. The sale reflected an unimproved land value of $36,000. The value applied to the lot is $32,500. About half of this lot is below the 1974 flood line. The sale land has access by bitumen roads; has town water and electricity services and is about 7.8 kilometres from the Ipswich Post Office. On comparison of the Valuer- General's applied figures before and after the sale, the increase in value is of the order of 54 percent. Mr Denman would seek to distinguish this sale on grounds that it is more of a town residential lot than a rural residential lot. That criticism alone, in my opinion, is not sufficient to put it out of consideration, subject to the qualification that the element of size be kept in mind. It is agreed between the valuers that in the relevant period there was no better sales evidence than the sales put before the Court. The two sales used by Mr Lochel would indicate that a vendor and purchaser would agree on a substantial rise in value for rural residential lots between the former and the current date for valuation purposes. The most relevant sale used by Mr Denman has almost half the area of the subject property but is better off in terms of flooding. The amenity of the respective areas appears -- 3 of 4 -- 4 on the evidence to be comparable. The sale was made on a rising market. The sale of Mr Lechel at Brassall, whilst having little by way of services complementing it at sale, is within an area where it is agreed that rural residential usage will develop. In that respect the amenity of the area could be expected to be different from that of the subject area and the area of Graham Street. The sale in Andrew Street is of a small lot and within a rural residential area. On the evidence it is apparent that for comparison purposes the land at 99 Graham Street must be compared on the basis that at the relevant date it would have fetched a higher sum than the sum for which it sold in June 1989. Otherwise there are a number of elements of comparability between that sale land and the subject land, with the subject land in my opinion being superior to the sale land. In balancing this evidence of comparison with the evidence of Mr Loche!, I have concluded that a reasonable relationship between the subject land and the sales would be struck if the subject lot were valued for the purposes of this Annual Valuation at $46,000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer- General is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined in the sum of Forty-six thousand dollars ($46,000). D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --