Donohue v The Valuer-General [1993] QLC 59

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General - AV91-691 - Shire of Murweh. T.E. and K. Donohue v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Charleville) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 6th May, 1993. As at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General has assessed the unimproved value of land situated at Old Cunnamulla Road, Charleville, about 1.1 kilometres south-west of the Post Office, in the sum of $35,000. An objection against the valuation was disallowed and the owners have appealed to the Court against that decision. The land is described as Lot 1 on Plan PER2459 Permit to Occupy 10/2459; Lot 26 on Plan C1407, Lot 27 on Plan C1408 Lot 28 on Plan No C1409 and Lot 1 on Registered Plan 14314, Parish of Charleville, County of Orrery. It contains an area of 52.5 hectares, is zoned Rural B and backs on to the Warrego River. Being used as a residential homesite, the land qualifies to be valued under the provisions of s.11 (1 )(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as one site exclusively used for the purpose of a single dwelling-house. The enhancing effect, if any, of the land being [1993] QLC 59 -- 1 of 7 -- - Page 2 - surveyed into several parcels is to be ignored. The owners of the land had previously appealed against the Valuer-General's valuation as at 31 March, 1989, which also was in the sum of $35,000. That appeal had been heard and disallowed by my learned colleague Mr D M White. In that matter, the appellants had attempted (but were denied the opportunity) to introduce evidence which related to grounds additional to those contained in that notice of appeal. Before this Court, those additional grounds, relating primarily to matters of relativity between the subject and various other valuations, were included in the relevant notice. Mr T.E. Donohue presented the appellants' case. His statement of evidence confirmed that the land was exclusively used for a single dwelling with some hobby type grazing activities, complementary to a rural residential type site. He says that of the total area about 5 hectares is useable land. He estimates that about 95% of the property is subject to seasonal flooding (on the average with frequency of about once every three years). However, in the 1990 flood, described as the worst local flood since European settlement of Charleville, the entire property was flooded with 1.62 metres of water "in the downstairs section" of the dwelling. The land affected by average season flooding is considered by Mr Donohue to add no value to the useable area. The lower land comprises channels and inter-channel areas with heavy infestation of black wattle. It is said to be unsuitable for arable use and incapable of carrying other than a few head of stock with supplementary feeding. Mr Donohue referred to a sale in the nearby locality from Burns to Johnson for $17,000 on 15.11.88, the land having an area of 4.045 hectares. This land was on -- 2 of 7 -- - Page 3 - the same higher ridge as is the useable section of the subject land. He says that this sale land (which formed part of the Valuer-General's basis for the 1989 valuation, is not subject to seasonal inundation and has "100% land use." The Valuer-General's valuation of that land is $14,500. The argument of the appellants regarding incorrect relativity relates to the Valuer-General's valuations of four properties, all of which Mr Donohue claims to support his opinion that the subject valuation is excessive. He provided details to the Court of those valuations he wished to use as examples. In his verbal evidence Mr Donohue stressed the point that immediately subsequent to the date of valuation was the disastrous local flooding which had established that none of the subject land is flood free. He agrees that the frequency of such a flood may be seen to be rare, but argues that the extent of the flood is now an established fact which cannot be ignored. Evidence for the Valuer-General was led thorough Mr D.P. Devine, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. He describes the subject property as abutting the Warrego River and consisting "of levees and channels timbered predominantly with Coolibah, River Red Gum, Doolan and Black Wattle. The soils are sandy grey and brown alluvial clays. In periods of normal river flooding the entire property except for the housesite (a narrow low ridge in the southern corner) becomes inundated. The entire property was flooded in the April, 1990 flood which occurred after the date of valuation." The Valuer-General's valuation was made under the provisions of s.11 (1)(vii) of the Act and the amount of $35,000 was considered by Mr Devine to reflect the single dwelling use, ignoring any enhancement which may have resulted from the -- 3 of 7 -- - Page 4 - existence of the several surveys. Mr Devine says that in arriving at the valuation, consideration was given to all sales of rural residential homesites in the locality, but particularly to two sales of "Rural B" zoned sites in Frawley Street, both in December, 1989, and both for the sum of $23,000. These sites had areas of 12.18 hectares and 12.31 hectares. Valuations of $20,000 had been applied by the Valuer-General to each lot. Both the sale sites are unaffected by seasonal flooding, although, as I understand the evidence, were affected by the April, 1990 flood. The location of the sale properties is considered by Mr Devine to be inferior to that of the subject land and together with the smaller sizes of the sale lots, he sees both sales to be inferior to the subject land overall. Mr Donohue does not agree that the location of these sales is inferior to that of the 'subject land. Reference was also made by Mr Devine to two sales subsequent to the date of valuation offered as supporting evidence. One sale was of a Special Lease of 11.4 hectares which sold in July, 1990 for $20,000 and the other, also in July, 1990, of a 4.047 hectare site, for $10,500. Valuations of $15,000 and $9,000 respectively had been applied to those sites at the date relevant to this matter. Mr Devine held the opinion that this evidence showed that the prices paid for rural residential type homesites around Charleville had not diminished since the April, 1990 flood. Mr Devine had given consideration to the question of relativity between valuations of lands in proximity to the subject property. He was satisfied that reasonable relativity existed. A locality map showing the valuations applied to nearby lands was attached to his valuation report. Mr Devine gave specific evidence relative to the examples provided by Mr Donohue of alleged lack of -- 4 of 7 -- - Page 5 - relativity. Two of those examples had been valued on the basis of exclusive use for the purpose of primary production. One property comprised a special lease restricted to grazing use and valued accordingly, while the fourth was within the "Special Uses" zone. The lack of correct relativity complained of by Mr Donohue cannot be sustained on the evidence before the Court. The appellants' estimate of unimproved value is $6,500. Mr Donohue argues that once the effect of the legislation is considered the subject land should have no greater value than the $6,500 applied to a 2,023 square metre residential site across the road. It is not accepted that the legislation was intended to extend the benefit of single dwelling usage as far as Mr Donohue seeks. What has to be determined is the unimproved value of a site of 52.5 hectares, restricted, in terms of the legislation, to use of a single dwelling. There is conflicting opinion between Mr Donohue and Mr Devine as to the real effect on the rural residential vacant land market caused by the 1990 flood. It is suggested by Mr Devine that the improved residential market has noticeably decreased but not the rural residential vacant land market. I am not confident that the evidence before the Court confirms that opinion as to the latter market, as one of the subsequent sales was claimed by Mr Donohue not to have been flood affected. The question of the effect of the 1990 flood is one which does require consideration. The flood occurred in the period which has been held to be relevant in terms of the Court's jurisdiction in these matters - ie. in the period between the date of valuation and the date of issue or publication of the valuation - see R.G. -- 5 of 7 -- - Page 6 - McMurray v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 35 LAC. Some doubt must exist as to the veracity of the Valuer-General's contention that the 1990 flood did not have some depressing effect on the market value of flooded rural residential land which was previously believed to be flood free. This would be particularly so in comparison with any land which remained free or relatively free of inundation. There is, however no evidence before the Court to prove that the Valuer-General's contention is wrong, or if it is, the correct level of value. With regard to the sales evidence, Mr Devine says that he has given no consideration to the Burns/Johnson sale in November, 1988 because of its early date. The sale did form part of the basis for the valuation the previous year and the evidence suggests that there was no change in the level of market value in that period. That sale clearly supports the Valuer-General's valuation of the sale property. Mr Devine has valued the land on the basis of direct comparison with the available sales evidence. That evidence is admitted to be not directly comparable with regard to location, overall quality of land and particularly size. It is however, the best evidence before the Court and does not appear to me to be in conflict with the evidence provided by the earlier Burns/Johnson sale. What the overall evidence does show is that Mr Donahue's estimate of value for the subject site is grossly understated. His examples of lack of relativity are of no assistance to the Court for the reasons given by Mr Devine. There is no argument that a large area of the appellants' land suffers disabilities as to usage potential. am not convinced however, that the very existence of that extensive additional area of land, regardless of its physical nature, would not, in the circumstances of its location in Charleville, add value of some -- 6 of 7 -- - Page 7 - significance to the residential feature of the land. I therefore prefer the evidence of Mr Devine in that regard. In the end result I am not convinced that the appellants have carried the burden of proving that the Valuer-General's valuation is wrong. As a consequence the appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. (RE Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 7 of 7 --