Bowley & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 267

L~-~i~·--------..-.!.,J Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Pine Rivers Shire Council. •-~ AV90-517. Lynette A. Bowley and Graham A. Bowl ey V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT,> BRISBANE 3rd May, 1991 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 5 on RP 79062, parish of Warner, in the sum of $81,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1989. The appellants are contending to an unimproved value of $70,000 on grounds as follows: 1. The valuation is not supported by sales evidence. 2. No valuation of the property has been carried out. 3. Property valuation is out of relation to values of other properties. 4. Gener~I amenity of the locality and surrounding land use, including industry, etc., in the area and lack of public utilities/facilities and services in the area have not (apparently) been considered. 5. Special characteristics of the allotment in question have not been considered including water inundation/ flooding/swamp/access problems, lack of level building site, soil type and problems of soil type for farming use, lack of visual appeal, lack of future development potential, Council and Main Roads Department resumption plans, etc., have not been considered. The subject lot is of rectangular shape containing an area of 4.077 hectares. It is one of about 13 lots of similar shape and dimensions situated on the southern [1991] QLC 267 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 frontage of Warner Road, Warner. Warner road is essentially a gravelled surfaced road running directly west of South Pine Road where it turns southerly past Eatons Hill and towards the Albany Creek shopping centre. In the other direction (via South Pine Road) the South Pine shopping centre is about 6 kilometres away. To the west of the location where South Pine Road turns southerly is a triangular area of land bordered by Coorparoo Road on the west which provides entry to Warner Road from the south. Opposite the junction of Coorparoo Road with Warner Road is Old North Road. The subject lot is to the west of this junction. Electricity and telephone services are available to the area. Town water is not. The subject lot is used for residential purposes. Mr Bowley appeared on behalf of himself and Mrs Bowley. The Valuer-General was represented by Mr D.R. Lucas, Valuation Manager in the employ of the Department of Lands, Division of Valuations. Mr Lucas describes the land as follows: The property is of gently sloping cleared forest country below and above road level. A watercourse runs across the front of the property and the rear land is also low lying. A sloping building site of good elevation and having an easterly outlook is located towards the western boundary of the property. Levelling or site excavation would be required for building purposes. 11 It is appropriate to summarise his evidence briefly before dealing with that of Mr Bowley. His valuation has been derived from a consideration of sales. Details of three sales are appended to his valuation. There are no sales of land in Warner Road. He therefore had to go further afield. The three sales put in evidence were not the only sales which crossed his mind in interpreting the market. In this Court alone, he has given evidence of the market and of the value of lots at Camp Mountain, Wights Mountain and the Samford Valley. All were in respect of rural -- 2 of 6 -- 3 residential lots. The three sales in evidence spread from Boundary Road, Dakabin, in the north (a lot of 5.651 hectares which sold for $90,000 in May 1989) to Buranda Road, Clear Mountain, in the west where in January, 1989, a lot of 1.656 hectares sold for $70,000 to a lot in Paddy Road nearer the subject land from Clear Mountain where an area of .687 hectares sold for $54,000 in March, 1989. The value applied to the subject land is $81,000. The relationship between this lot and other lots listed previously and running from west to east is as follows: Lot 1 = $89,000 Lot 2 = 85,000 Lot 3 = 88,000 Lot 4 = 87,000 Lot 5 = 81,000 (subject) Lot 6 = 88,000 Lot 7 = 88,000 Lot 8 = 85,000 Lot 9 = 80,000 Lot 10 = 79,000 Lot 11 = 78,000 Lot 12 = 85,000 The home on the subject lot is situated towards the centre of the lot and is positioned near the western boundary. The site is described by Mr Lucas as a site of good elevation with an easterly aspect. The site is on the lower slopes of a knoll which rises up to Lot 1. Aided by an inspection which I was invited to do, the home on Lot 4 would look over the home on the subject lot - such is the contour. On the frontage area of the lot, a watercourse enters the lot from Lot 4 and another from across Warner Road which join within the subject lot before proceeding through to Lot 6. To the rear of the lot is another watercourse. Much evidence was given on the nature of these waterways and of the flooding which occurs. I would describe the frontage area as a shallow waterway. By that I mean that there are no such things as bed and banks. The gravelled driveway to the homesite on the subject lot falls gently from the roadway before crossing the waterway and -- 3 of 6 -- 4 rising up to the homesite. One feature commonly sought by purchasers of lots of this kind is size and rural atmosphere in that they can obtain the feeling of open space and isolation from neighbours and the public. The homesite on the subject land affords this sort of seclusion and in that respect is better situated where it is than being on the road frontage. Nevertheless the site as evidenced in the relationship applied by the Valuer-General is seen by him as being one of the most inferior in this area of Warner Road. The evidence of Mr Bowley comprises six pages of typed statement, plans and drawings and a total of 29 photographs. He spoke to the various issues at length and in fairness I could not criticise the detail which went into the preparation and presentation of his case. However, his evidence loses weight in the tendency to oversell the disabilities of the block and the amenity of the area and conclusions are drawn which, if accepted, are inconsistent with his own actions and his opinion of value. Page 4 of his typed statement reads as follows: General Amenity of area etc. Roads - Both Goorparoo and Warner Roads are only partly sealed and narrow, they could not be classed as full two lane roads. Both are only partly sealed with the subject block having an unsealed frontage. Dust - The block is opposite a model steam train amusement complex which generates a large number of visitors at weekends - all travelling along the unsealed frontage of Lot 5. In Easter 1990 cars were parked on our footpath as no further parking was available on that property. Normal vehicle traffic, including trail bikes, and 4W Drives using bush at the end of the street generate constant dust clouds. Flooding - Due to continuing catchment development the creek across Warner Road floods even on normal storm run off; restricting access and offering danger to users. Council has promised a $70,000 culvert extension to help aHeviate this problem. Noise - This is a factory (Kings) in Old North Road which emits metal banging noise which is clearly heard. There is a welding/metalwork (Part time) workshop that cuts, welds and spraypaints in the open, -- 4 of 6 -- 5 some 70 metres from our house. Visual - Apart from the two mentioned before, there are unofficial car wrecking yards at the entry of Warner Road also, there is a boat building business established on Lot 8 (Tenants of Moore). Sand blasting plant - open air 800 metres north-east. The eastern end of Warner Road is a general down grading area which will deter any buyer - This is the only entry. " Warner Road is parts gravelled and parts bitumen surfaced with the subject land fronting a gravelled section. It is narrow. It does not continue beyond Lot 1. A wreckers yard is situated on the corner of Warner Road and Old North Road. Town water is not available to the area. All these features are common to lots in Warner Road. Mr Bowley refers to lots of about 6000 square metres in Terben and Mayflower Streets which are fully serviced and are valued at sums around $65,000 by the Valuer-General. He extols the virtues of this area yet values the subject land at $70,000. He has lived in Warner Road since 1972 on Lot 7 before taking the opportunity to purchase and reside on the subject lot. He said that he knew the vendor and that he obtained the lot at a discounted price. I am unable to relate this action to his evidence notwithstanding that a discount may have been given. The subject lots and others were formerly part of a pineapple farm which use caused a loss of top soil and has had an effect on the ability of the land to grow trees and crops. This again is a common feature. He says that there is a proposal to convert Warner Road into a through road to Samford which will include the resumption of certain lands. The firmness of the proposal was not proven but whether ripe or remote whatever effect that may have on market value is again common to the area. I could go on but I see no point in writing an essay under every heading mentioned merely for the purpose of reiterating what has been said. The function of the Court is to ascertain a value of the lot in accordance with the test laid down -- 5 of 6 -- • I 6 by the statute; that is, to ascertain the sum which the subject lot if unimproved would be likely to fetch in the marketplace in 1989 if sold on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. Where there are no sales of comparable land in the immediate neighbourhood of the lot }O be valued, the only •L; sensible means of ascertaining value is by a consideration of sales elsewhere. A valuer is the person best equipped to make the assessment. Mr Lucas is a valuer; Mr Bowley is not. The task Mr Bowley had ahead of him was to prove on the balance of probabilities that the value applied to the subject land was incorrect. He did not produce any sales evidence. Rather he sought to cover this aspect by introducing values applied by the Valuer-General in Terben and Mayflower Streets on the assumption that such values were the equivalent of sales in that area. Lots in this area are fully serviced and they are of the order of 6000 square metres. Whilst they may possess a degree of rural atmosphere, there is a marked distinction between a lot of that size and lots of 40,000 square metres. The latter, whilst they may lack the provision of urban services, do not possess the ingredients of an urban lot. Comparability is therefore strained. The evidence of Mr Lucas is the only real evidence of value before the Court. It has not been proved that he has overlooked any matter which should not have been overlooked in terms either of the relativity between the subject land and other lots in Warner Road or of the area as a whole. I could not under any principle applicable to the case substitute the opinion of Mr Bowley for that of Mr Lucas. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 6 of 6 --