Abraham v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 242

Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane. AV90-538 and 539; AV91-9 and 10. Stanley Abraham V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 5th June, 1991 Mr Abraham is the owner of two residential allotments, each having an area of 405 square metres and situated at 27 and 29 Northey Street, Windsor. In the Annual Valuation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1988, the Valuer-General has valued each of these allotments at $14,000. In the Annual Valuation of the lands in the City as at 31st March, 1989, he has valued each of these allotments at $21,000. Mr Abraham has appealed to the Land Court against the determinations of the Valuer-General and contends to a ·value of $5,000 as the appropriate valuation in each casR Evidence was given by Mr Abraham in support of the grounds of appeal. He says that he has resided in the home at 29 Northey Street since 1986. The adjoining 27 Northey Street was a vacant parcel of land which the owner allowed to become overgrown and unkempt. He eventually bought this allotment in August 1988 for $25,000 and has since constructed a dwelling house upon the land. He believes that following the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam, Northey Street which was notorious for flooding would be flood free. However, on the evening of 25th April, 1989, flooding occurred and resulted in costly damage being caused to his vehicles and other valuables parked under his home. The adjoining allotment was also flooded but he was then in the position that he had commenced to build a home on that land but had he known that the lands would again be [1991] QLC 242 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 subject to flooding he would not have purchased the land. Mr Abraham says that there are two vacant allotments at 309 and 312 which are owned by the Local Authority but he does not know if they are for sale. He is apprehensive that king tides and tidal waves will increase and will result in more devastation in this area. He cites an occasion when on a king tide, water backed up the drainage system in Northey Street spilling out into the kerbing on the street. He does not know the sales which have been used by the Valuer-General as a basis of valuation nor has he any sales evidence to support his value of $5,000 but he is firmly of opinion that no person would buy either of the subject lands when they became aware of the risk of flooding. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr G.W. Lindberg, who has relied on sales to support the varues for which he contends. He has selected sales of parcels with some disabilities including in the valuation as at 31st March, 1989, an allotment of 685 square metres at 40 Gorman Street, Wooloowin. This sold in December, 1988, for $39,000. It is an allotment below road level in an average quality residential street, it is of low elevation and subject to flooding. The Brisbane City Council required any proposed building on the sale property to have habitable floors 1.5 metres above ground level. He has applied a value of $34,500 to that parcel in the revaluation as at 31st March, 1989. He says that the subject lands are smaller in area with similar drainage and elevation disabilities. Overall he considers the subject lands inferior. Mr Lindberg says that flooding has been well known as a problem in Northey Street for many years. The Brisbane City Council has resumed some of the lands for Park purposes. The allotments referred to by Mr Abraham which are owned by the Council are not for sale. He believes that they will in due course form part of the parkland. From his enquiries he believes that the area has had less flooding since the Wivenhoe Dam came into operation. He acknowledges that water comes up the kerbing in king -- 2 of 3 -- 3 tides as described by Mr Abraham. In cross-examination Mr Abraham asked him about two sales of homes in Northey Street which occurred after the relevant date of valuation. Mr Lindberg of course was unaware of such sales when undertaking the valuation but in any event he says that it is sound valuation practice to make a comparison with sales of unimproved or lightly improved allotments against endeavouring to analyse the sale of a highly improved allotment where there is more margin for error in valuing the added value of the improvements. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act, a valuer is required to ascertain what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land at a given date if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions and assuming the improvements did not exist. Mr Abraham is unable to point to any sales reflecting the land value for which he contends of $5,000. I am satisfied that a prudent man being made aware of the sales relied upon by Mr Lindberg would not be prepared to sell these allotments for the figure contend~d for by the appellant. The sales support the conclusion reached by Mr Lindberg. He was aware of and has made allowance for the problems attaching to these lands and I find that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuations and the appeals must fail. . Accordingly, Appeals AV90-538, AV9O-539, AV91-9 and AV91-10 are disallowed and the valuation of the Valuer-General in each case is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --