Andersen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1999] QLC 37

[1999] QLC 37

 

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

30 APRIL 1999

Re:     AV98-460

An Appeal against a Determination of Unimproved Value –
Valuation of Land Act 1944 –
  Inglewood Shire

S.B, P and H.L. Andersen

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearing at Inglewood)

D E C I S I O N

This appeal is against the chief executive's unimproved valuation of land described as Lot 1 RL 4971:  RL 25/4971 and Lot 1 PER 201797: PO 25/201797 and Lot 192 CVE 152, Parish of Texas, County of Clive, containing a total area of 17.87 ha.  The land is situated in Smithfield – Mundoey Road near the Texas-Yelarbon Road, about 17 km west of Texas and to the south of the Wyalla Feedlot.

As at 1 October 1997, the chief executive had valued the land in the amount of $14,200.  The valuation was then reduced on objection to $12,500, the amount now appealed against.  In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants estimated the unimproved value to be $7,000.
           Mr W.G. Major acted as agent for the appellants and gave evidence in support of his contention that the unimproved value should be reduced to $5,000.  The basis of his opinion was that since the previous valuation, real estate values had fallen, rather than having risen as the Department's valuation suggested.  The appellants had purchased the improved property for $85,000 in 1994 and on Mr Major's analysis of that sale, the improvements (including electricity connection) were worth more than the sale price.  In Mr Major's opinion, the appellants would not have been able to recoup the purchase price at the date of valuation, because the proposed expansion of the feedlot complex had not eventuated.  Mr Major spoke of the disabilities of noise and dust from feedlot traffic passing nearby and the smell from the feedlot practice of spreading manure on a property within fairly close proximity.  The Texas-Yelarbon Road was of mainly narrow bitumen and the nature of traffic using it forced other vehicles to leave the bitumen surface with resultant broken windscreens, punctured tyres etc.
           Mr Andersen also gave evidence in this matter.  He confirmed that at the date of purchase he had felt the appellants had bought well and at a price less than an agency valuation.  He had moved to the area and purchased the property because he had been offered what he had believed to be a permanent position at the nearby feedlot.  However, as a result of a serious injury sustained at work, he had lost that position.  He had no doubt that with the current lack of employment opportunities and the experience of neighbours trying to sell their properties, the subject property was not now worth what he had paid for it.  He saw it as illogical then that the unimproved valuation should have been increased by the Department when the market had fallen.
           The valuation appealed against was made by Mr MW Malone, registered valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources.  He described the land as "level to easy sloping mixed scrub and forest.  It has fair to good rural views."  A domestic and stock water supply was obtained under licence, from the Dumaresq River (about 300 metres distant).  Mr Malone saw that licence as being a distinct advantage to the subject land in that the use of the land was not dependent on rainfall.
           His basis of valuation had been obtained from two sales, one of a 50.17 ha block on the Texas-Inglewood Road and the second much closer but of a 207.3 ha block in Sweedmans Road, to the east of the feedlot.  Those sales provided the primary basis for all rural residential site valuations in the Texas locality.  The sales have been discussed in other matters – in particular the appeal AV98-442 – DP and M. Rigney v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources – the decision in which is delivered today and in which Mr Major also acted for the appellants.  I will not repeat the discussion on the sales here, except to say that the second sale is in the general locality of the subject block, is of similar type country and suffers some disabilities from proximity to the feedlot complex.  It is significantly larger in size. The sale property does not fit the desirable evidential type of being vacant or lightly improved.  Sales evidence of land in the rural residential site category was however, clearly scarce.
           Mr Malone was requested whilst giving his verbal evidence to provide any sales evidence from within the Town of Texas which might have assisted the Court in its deliberations.  Details of two sales were provided by Mr Malone. I have gained no assistance from that evidence.
           In the appeal AV98-337 – EB and DM Knapton v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources the decision in which is also delivered today, comments were made under the heading "General Observations and Considerations relative to Inglewood Shire Appeals".  Those comments have been repeated in other appeals in which Mr Major has been involved and will not be repeated here in full.
           Suffice to say that Mr Major concentrated his efforts on attempting to show that the market for rural residential sites had fallen since the previous valuation and that it should follow that the unimproved valuations of those lands, as previously assessed by the chief executive, should also fall.  His estimates of value have no evidential support and where he attempted to analyse sales evidence, there was generally no support or cogent basis for his assessment of the added value of improvements.
           I have had the benefit of hearing the totality of evidence as to the unimproved value of rural residential sites in various localities within the Inglewood Shire.  There have been a number of cases where I was not convinced that the overall evidence has fully supported the chief executive's valuations, based on direct comparison with the sales evidence.  In those matters the previously existing relativity of values had  been disturbed by the chief executive's decision to reduce the relevant date valuations, after objection considerations.  Doubt was created as to whether those reductions had gone far enough.
           The subject valuation had also resulted from a reduction on objection, and a similar doubt exists as to the sufficiency of that reduction, due to the difficulty in drawing comparisons with the sales evidence.  The degree of that doubt has been lessened in this case, however, due to the existence of the positive feature provided to the land by the Dumaresq River, stock and domestic water licence.
           In the end result I will determine the unimproved value in the amount of $11,500.

Finding

The appeal is allowed, the determination of the chief executive is set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($11,500).

RE WENCK

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT