Dietze v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 301

., \ . LAND COURT, BRISBANE 20th February, 1991 Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Caloundra. AV90-735. Ingrid H. Dietze V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) Mrs I H Dietze is the owner of a home at 33 Coonang Crescent, Warana, which the Valuer-General in the annual revaluations of the lands in the City of Caloundra as at 31st March, 1989, has valued at $25,500. Mrs Dietze has exercised her right of appeal to the Land Court against this valuation and in her notice of appeal contends to a value of $18,000. Evidence was given by Mrs Dietze in support of her grounds of appeal which centre upon one issue and can best be covered as Mrs Dietze has in her notice of appeal to the Court - II The property at No 35 Coonang Crescent affects the value of mine adversely. On the last point alone one has to concede that the values of adjacent properties to No 35 must be less than others in this area. I have not found any other building of that kind in Warana. I enclose copies of articles of the 'Sunshine Coast Daily' which will illustrate my point. The building at No 35 is positively shabby with bits and pieces added on and decorated with shade cloth and complete with corrugated iron shed at the back. i would appreciate it if someone in authority from the Land Court's office would visit this area and have a look and ask himself the question 'Would I pay the normal market price for the property at No 33 Coonang Crescent to have the thing at No 35 sitting next to me?' I suppose if our Mayor says that inferior houses affect the value of adjacent properties, it must be true. 11 [1991] QLC 301 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Mrs Dietze refers to newspaper cuttings of comments made by the Mayor of Caloundra regarding the building of duplex homes by the Queensland Housing Commission in a residential area of a standard which he considered depreciated the value of the area. She says that the value of her home is affected because of the poorly constructed building next door and also because the homes on the other side of her residence are rental homes and are not maintained in the way that an owner would maintain his property particularly in relation to the care of footpaths and general appearance with mowing of grass. She says that Coonang Crescent is mainly an area of rental homes which detract from its value. She is of the opinion that a purchaser viewing her parcel of land would pay less for it than would be paid in other areas with better homes surrounding it. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr AD. Grams who is the officer who undertook the valuation of the subject land and all of the residential lands in the general area. He has relied on sales to arrive at the value of the subject land. He says that these sales are in close proximity to it. They are all filled allotments as is the subject and in each case he has made an allowance for the quantity of fill which has been placed upon the land. One of the sales sold for $34,000, another for $32,000 and the most inferior for $27,500. Having regard to the sales, he has valued the subject land at $28,500 and deducted the sum of $3,000 for fill, giving a final figure of $25,500. As to the matters raised by Mrs Dietze in her notice of appeal he says that the dwelling adjoining the subject land at No 35 Coonang Crescent is of hardiplank construction on a raised wooden floor. This is not an uncommon type of construction in that area. He has inspected the subject land and expresses the view that the house at No 35 is not unique in the area and its condition when he -- 2 of 3 -- 3 saw it appeared reasonable. The rental home on the opposite side is of concrete construction and would benefit from painting with the grounds being generally tidied but he expresses the opinion as a valuer that in the market place the subject land, if offered for sale on reasonable terms and conditions assuming it to be in its unimproved state, would sell for the figure which he has applied in the valuation. At the request of Mrs Dietze and with the concurrence of Mr Grams, I have inspected the general area of Warana, the homes in Coonang Crescent and the sale properties. Whi!e there may be some unattractive features of the properties referred to by Mrs Dietze, similar homes are to be found in the area and would be matters for consideration by a prudent purchaser in acquiring land in Warana. Having regard to the sales and their location I have reached the conclusion that no prudent vendor would be prepared to accept the sum of $18,000 which is the figure suggested by Mrs Dietze if offering the land for sale as unimproved land and I find that the sales fully support the value contended for by the Valuer-General. It follows that the appeal must fail. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --