Bowdler & Ors v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 203

, I ;·.,., o, ~>•l\"11.• ,, t,•,• ~ S"": '°'' ~Y..Jl.~N,4 •:.o, -.;;, ~ ,.._ ---~• ,,..-,.._. """" ~~ l ., . z· •. , " f '"· t. ,..,, 1 r:J '.JL .: <. Jj ~~r,~t -,-·~J ... .. ,.. .. - ... Re: Appeals against determinations of Valuer-General Gty of Toowoomba. (V89-480, V89-481, V89-482, V89-483) F.G. & M.C. Bowdler & Others - V - The Valuer-General - DECISION - (Hearing at Toowoomba) IAND COURT, BRISBANE. 23rd March, 1990. Four (4) appeals against the Valuer-General's determinations of value are as follows:- V89-480 - Lots 1, 3 and 4 on Registered Plan 124246 containing 1.401 hectares - Alderley Street and Anzac Avenue - unimproved value $180,000 - Appellants F.G. and M.C. Bowdler estimate $100,000. V89-481 - Lot 1 on Registered Plan 156493 containing 3,883 sq. metres - Anzac Avenue - unimproved value $58,000 - Appellant Con Bowdler Produce Pty. Ltd. as Trustee estimates $31,000. V89-482 - Lot 3 on Registered Plan 137202 containing 1.619 hectares - Anzac Avenue - unimproved value $194,000 - Appellants Toowoomba Seed Graders Pty. Ltd. and Con Bowdler Produce Pty. Ltd. estimate $100,000. V89-483 - Lot 2 on Registered Plan 156493 containing 1.214 hectares - Alderley Street - unimproved value $100,000 - Appellant M.C. Bowdler estimates $67,000. Each property is within the Parish of Drayton, County of Aubigny, City of Toowoomba and each is zoned "Noxious Industry". The date of valuation is 31st March, 1988. [1990] QLC 203 -- 1 of 5 -- - Page 2 - Mr. F.G. Bowdler gave evidence on behalf of all four (4) appellants. His evidence is that there is no other land comparable with regard to location, irregular shape and magnitude of fall from the Southern Railway to the corner of Alderley Street and Anzac Avenue. Part of the land suffers from severe drainage and flooding disabilities and part is traversed by a natural watercourse. This is fed from a large army establishment on the opposite (eastern) side of the railway with run-off water draining into an outlet under the railway into the watercourse then to Anzac Avenue. Noise from the railway he says is a real problem, smell from the nearby abattoir at times almost unbearable, and the cemetery opposite is an aesthetic disadvantage. He sees the noxious industry zone as being restrictive with a consequent market resistance to property within that zone. Mr. Bowdler provided a copy of a facsimile advice from Buckleys Earthmoving Pty. Ltd. which indicated the present day estimates of cost of earthworks on each parcel. Mr. Bowdler dealt generally with his knowledge of local values and sales over a long period of time, applied what he believed to be the market value of each lot on the basis of the earthworks being effected then deducted the present cost of earthworks reduced by half to the date of valuation. This resulted in the contended values being greater than the estimates contained within the formal appeals. Each lot is dealt with as follows:- V89-480 - Mr. Bowdler says this land at the actual corner of Anzac Avenue and Alderley Street required extensive earthworks, levelling, drainage and concreting, but stormwater still washes through sheds.on the · site. He sees a realistic land value improved with siteworks as $192,500 less cost of improvement $56,715 leaving a rounded $136,000. V89-481 - As it turns out this is one of the basic sales used by the Valuer-General in his assessments for this and all of the appeal blocks. It is contiguous to both appeal blocks V89-480 and V89-483. Mr. Bowdler gave his version of the history of the sale transactions. He said -- 2 of 5 -- - Page 3 - that when the land was sold at auction in 1986 he had been absent from Toowoomba but had seen the auction advertised and was not particularly interested even though he had made a previous offer to buy the lot for $45,000. Subsequent to its sale at auction the purchaser decided not to proceed with plans to develop the site, and in Mr. Bowdler's words "very soon realised he had paid a ridiculous price". He offered it to Mr. Bowdler on "very good interest free tenns to get out of it" and eventually it was purchased by Mr. Bowdler's company. The Valuer-General's records indicate the date of sale as 15th April, 1986 and the price $82,500, some three (3) months after the auction sale price of $70,200. Mr. Bowdler told the Court the terms of sale were half deposit, the balance in one (1) year interest free. Mr. Bowdler believes the true value of the land to be $50,000 less clearing and drainage works of $8,000 and now contends for an unimproved value of $42,000. V89-482 - This land is one property removed to the south of the main aggregation. Mr. Bowdler says that development of the site for industrial use has involved "large amounts of levelling, concreting, drainage, and building retaining walls and ramps," and there are "underground pipes everywhere to try to control water problems". Expenditure has been required to correct drainage problems from the railway. He says that a private valuer had recently been engaged to provide a valuation for transfer purposes, of part of this property. It was on the basis of this valuation that Mr. Bowdler assesses the improved site value as $200,000 and the unimproved value contended for is $130,000 after allowing the estimated development costs involved. V89-483 - This is a hatchet shaped lot with frontage to Alderley Street and a long eastern boundary adjacent to the railway. The watercourse area flows from an outlet under the railway through to the northern part -- 3 of 5 -- - Page 4 - of the wider rear section. Mr. Bowdler says the street frontage is narrow reduced even further by a steep bank along the eastern side. The major problem is water necessitating construction of large internal concrete waterways. Continual erosion occurs from the pipe outlet under the railway and the adjacent shed has a flood disability. He sees the improved site value as $105,000 and after allowing for siteworks now contends for an unimproved value of $75,000. Peter John Klupfel, F.A.I.V., Registered Valuer carried out the valuations for the Valuer-General and gave supporting evidence. In his tendered reports he says that all of the appeal lots are used for industrial purposes. He says that sales of industrial land in the outer areas of Toowoomba do not show any particular detriment attaching to the "Noxious Industry" zone. In the industrial environment of the locality of the appeals he does not see the presence of the abattoir or cemetery nor the noise from the railway as being a disadvantage. He was well aware of the particular problems of the appeal lands, including the drainage disabilities, but is of the opinion that due allowance has been made in each particular case. Mr. Klupfel based his valuations on five (5) listed sales, two (2) of which are the sale and resale of the subject V89-482 the details of which reference has already been made. The other sales are as follows:- . Ref. 1 - A vacant cleared site of 7,082 sq. metres in Anzac Avenue, zoned "Light Industry", sold in July 1987 analysed to show $12.50 per square metre. Ref. 4 .;. A vacant cleared and fenced site of 8,094 sq. metres in Warwick Street zoned "Heavy Industry", sold in July 1986 analysed to show $15.40 per square metre. -- 4 of 5 -- - Page 5 - Ref. 5 - A vacant cleared site of one (1) hectare in Boundary Street, zoned "Reserved Industry", sold in July 1988, analysed to show $9.70 per square metre. Mr. Klupfel compared each sale to each of the subject lots and ascribed values accordingly. Putting to one side the purchase by the appellants as adjoining owners of V89-481 the auction sale analysed to show $17 per sq. metre and $15 per sq. metre was applied. Mr. Klupfel said that there had been a number of sales along Anzac Avenue in late 1985 and the auction sale may have reflected a peak level of value, which resulted in his application of a more conservative valuation. Mr. Klupfel has indicated a methodical and reasoned approach to his comparison of the evidence with each appeal property and has taken into account the physical disabilities which required consideration. Mr. Bowdler on the other hand has been unable to provide cogent sales evidence to show that Mr. Klupfel has erred. The estimates of costs of site works has been of no assistance as the work involved is not detailed or identified specifically. There is no dispute that the land suffers contour and drainage disabilities. The circumstances surrounding the auction sale of one of the appeal blocks do not appear to in any way support the degree of departure from fair market value suggested by Mr. Bowdler. On the evidence each appeal is dismissed and the determinations of the Valuer- General affirmed. (Signed: R.E. Wenck) Member of the T,and Court -- 5 of 5 --