Farrington & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 97

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th September,· 1991 Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Shire of Caboolture. AV91-270. Lawrence A. Farrington and Glen ys Dawn Farrington V. The Valuer-General DECISION This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 33 on RP 107615, parish of Canning, in the sum of $63,500 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990. The subject lot is situated at 20 Bellview Street, Caboolture, and about 2.1 kilometres from the Post Office and Central Business District. The lot has an area of 2544 square metres and is one of about six comparable sized lots on the southern side of Bellview Street. All services are available to these lots and they are zoned "Residential A". Generally speaking, the lots fall from Bellview Street towards Wararba Creek which is separated from the rear boundaries by a strip of park land. In the report and valuation of Mr C.J.E. Eaton, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, Division of Valuations, the subject lot is described as a property which is below road level - "the site has an easy to moderate slope from frontage down towards the middle and then falls steeply to the rear boundary which abuts the banks of Wararba Creek. Good views down the creek and broken views to the ranges in the south-west are available from the property." With this description Mr L.A. Farrington, who appeared 017 behalf of himself and Mrs Farrington, agrees. On the contour line he depicted in evidence [1991] QLC 97 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 the first part of the description is accurate and easily comprehended. He emphasizes the steepness of the latter part. The home on the lot has been - constructed back from the road and reasonably central to the land of moderate slope. That slope continues for a distance before falling steeply - and "approximately 30m to 35m is steep and cannot be mown and very difficult to maintain. Two retaining walls are in place, however, there is still evidence of soil movement. The slope on the eastern side if 23 degrees for 30m and on the western side 33 degrees for 35m. The steepest section is 39 degrees for 3m. For maintenance of this area spiked shoes need to be worn and the care of plants and shrubs planted in an attempt to arrest the soil erosion is difficult." (Mr Farrington - Exhibit 3). The subject lot is adjoined on the east by Lots 34 and 35. These lots have areas of 2514 square metres and 2567 square metres. The contour of these lots is similar to that of the subject lot - save that elevation at the frontage is higher. (Bellview Street falls from east to west). Lots 34 and 35 are valued by the Valuer- General at $65,000 and $70,000 respectively. On the western side the subject lot is adjoined by Lots 32 and 31. Lot 32 has an area of 2658 square metres and Lot 31 has an area of 2762 square metres. These lots are valued by the Valuer-General at $62,500 each. They are lower in elevation at the frontage but their contours differ from that of the subject lot and Lots 34 and 35 in that the fall in the rear sections is, on my interpretation of the evidence, something more than moderate in part before levelling out at the rear but certainly not steep in the sense in which that word is used in the description of the subject lot. The appellants bought the subject property about 12 months ago for $136,500 improved with a split level home built on three levels with a total floor area -- 2 of 5 -- 3 of 157 square metres. Other improvements included a double garage, garden shed, aviary, swimming pool (in ground, cement), side fencing and retaining walls. - Mr Farrington estimated that the structures were about 1O years old and that a total replacement value would be in the order of $120,000 - the home being between $80,000 to $85,000 to replace. With that in mind it appears reasonable he should ask himself the question whether the land would have a value unimproved of $63,500. He looked at the value applied to Lots 32 and 31 and, in considering the size and easier contour of those lots, concluded that the subject lot was inferior. He readily agrees that any attempt to deduce a land value from the sale of land improved is fraught with some danger but, were a depreciation factor of 331/3% allowed (which he considers is reasonable), a land value of $56,000 would be obtained. This sum did not appear to him to be out of place in comparison with the values applied to Lots 32 and 31 and hence it became his estimate of value. His comparison between the subject lot and Lots 32 and 31 briefly is that these lots are larger, more attractive, easier to maintain and do not require the erection and maintenance of retaining walls. Mr Eaton compared the subject land directly with sales of three lots which are unimproved except for clearing and fencing where applicable. The first is a sale of an 816 square metre lot at 48 Fortune Esplanade for $56,500 in July, 1989. This lot has the Caboolture River on the rear boundary and possesses views over the river to the rear of the C.B.D. and a broken view of Centenary Park. The lot is about 1.4 kilometres from the C.B.D. In the opinion of Mr Eaton, the lot has superiority over the subject lot in views, location and topography but is smaller in size. In the opinion of Mr Farrington, the sale lot is better situated, has a more desirable location, is within a newer estate and a more popular area, is handy to -- 3 of 5 -- 4 the C.B.D. and sporting grounds. He agrees that the river bank is steep in this location and that the area has had erosion problems. In August, 1989, a lot at 9 ~ Jennifer Court containing an area of 800 square metres sold for $55;000 with clearing and fencing valued by Mr Eaton at $1700. This lot backs on to the Caboolture Golf Course. It is below road level, falls gently to the rear, and possesses views across the course to the mountains. Here Mr Eaton said that the sale lot was superior in location and topography to the subject lot, had comparable access and views but was inferior in size. The remaining sale is of an area of 1007 square metres, being a lot situated in the suburb of Bellmere which sold for $45,000 on 14th July, 1989, improved with clearing and fencing. There is no argument that the subject lot is superior to this lot - at least $10,000 to $15,000 better in the opinion of Mr Farrington. It would appear on these comparisons that the element of size is the principal factor distinguishing the subject land from sales 1 and 2. For example, sale 1 is of an area of 816 square metres. If that site is compared with the area of the subject lot possessing the moderate slope and housing the improvements (assuming that part was a lot in itself) the sale lot would come up on the evidence as a lot superior in location and views, comparable in access and in topography and superior overall. A comparison made in the same form with sale 2 would yield, it would appear, a comparable value to the sale lot. The thrust of the evidence of Mr Farrington is that the rear part of his lot is unusable or at least a costly exercise if some appreciation is to be made of it. He sees the rear of Lots 34 and 35 as being equally as difficult if not worse whereas with Lots 32 and 31 such areas can be cleared, grassed, easily mown and maintained. Mr Eaton counters this reasoning in terms of elevation of the frontages - the reasoning, as I appreciate it, -- 4 of 5 -- 5 is that the views differ in that the views from the high lots are more dominant (perhaps down and out as one would expect from higher land sitting on a ridge = face as it were) than those lots down the slope {where views are out and across as opposed to down and out). One in his opinion would offset the benefit the lower lots have in the enjoyment of the rear lands. I can see merit in this reasoning but I am left with some doubts as to whether with the row of lots discussed in evidence, the variations applied by the Valuer-General are deserving of the distinctions given to them. On the other hand, if the exercise is pursued in the manner which I have taken with sales 1 and 2, the homesite on the subject lot as a separate lot would be at least equal to the value applied to sale 2 ($52,500). Would then a hypothetical prudent owner of the lot be prepared to pay $10,000 to acquire the additional area for the purpose of having control over it (rather than park land) and obtaining some recreational enjoyment out of it even if that were confined to the maintenance of greenery. When all this is put together and considered, keeping in mind that under s. 16J of the Act I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applied value is incorrect, I have concluded that the value applied by the Valuer-General should be affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White _. _, .-•· Member of the Land Court -- 5 of 5 --