Burchell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1997] QLC 137

[1997] QLC 137

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

10 September 1997

Re:                 Determination of Unimproved Value -
  Local Government:  Burnett
  Ref. AV95-125.

David and Jean Burchell
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

This appeal lies against the determination by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $64,000 for a 2 hectare parcel of "Non-Urban Residential" zoned land situated in Lorikeet Street, Tantitha Lagoon Estate, about 6.5 kms north of the Bundaberg Post Office.  The land is more particularly described as Lot 68 on RP 200211, Parish of Gooburrum, and the relevant date for the determination of its unimproved value is 1 January 1995.  The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $62,000.  I should immediately indicate that such a small variation between the value under appeal and the appellants' value is normally not capable of demonstration in the valuation process which is so heavily dependent upon opinion evidence.  Nonetheless, Mr Burchell pursued with his case in which the appellants' grounds of appeal read:

"The depreciation in value of our land as compared to the other similar twelve 2ha blocks is greater in our opinion than what has been offered by the Lands Department because of the following reasons.

1.The newly and unexpected subdivision of a bushland outlook on our western boundary.

2.The unexpected establishment of a fast growing nursery business on our eastern boundary.

3.The subdivision and establishment of homes on our northern boundary.  "

Mr Burchell informed the Court that there are nine 2ha blocks in Lorikeet Street with an increased valuation of $73,000. There were ten blocks so valued, but I note from the Court file that the value of the subject land was reduced pursuant to the consideration of the Chief Executive of an objection against the valuation to $67,000. Pursuant to Section 68 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the valuation of the subject land was further reduced to $64,000 prior to the Court hearing.
           Mr Burchell told us that the subject land has now on its eastern boundary a very busy 7-day plant nursery with consequent lost amenity to it as could be expected with a business in a residential area.  This is caused he suggests, by noise caused by the use of the tractors and increased traffic past his land, especially at weekends.  Mr Burchell feels he will have to plant more trees to more effectively block out the nursery activity.  Survey plans in evidence would tend to suggest that the nursery is on the western side of the subject land but nothing turns on this.
           Mr Burchell also points out that on his western side (I think this should be the eastern side) a once 2 hectare lot which was once two-thirds bushland has now been subdivided into two 1 acre (4046 square metre) lots with a possibility of a third 4046 square metre lot being surveyed off.  A dwelling house has been erected on one of the lots, and Mr Burchell says that the once beautiful outlook of bushland will be replaced with householders backyards.  As a result, Mr Burchell suggests the subject land has lost amenity on its eastern side as well, as "people noise" can be expected to increase over the next period.
           Mr Burchell did not refer in evidence to any sales in support of his estimate of value of the subject land, but expressed some surprise that the sale of Lot 66 in Lorikeet Street was not included in the respondent Chief Executive's sale basis.  Lot 66 is a 2-hectare lot adjoining the nursery on its western side.  Mr Burchell does not know the sale price on Lot 66.
           Evidence was produced by Mr Burchell about a report of review of land valuation in Queensland by a former Departmental officer, Lenard Evans, but this is not relevant to this case.
           The valuation under appeal was made by George Matthew Olsen who is a registered valuer in the employ of the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources.  Mr Olsen describes the nature of the subject land as being at street level at its frontage and rising very slightly to the rear.  He says the site is selectively cleared, providing a tranquil country setting, and that it is one of few 2-hectare sites in what he describes as the premium rural residential subdivision in Bundaberg.
           Mr Olsen has valued the subject land having regard to sales of three rural residential sites in the Bundaberg area.  Details are set out in his tendered valuation document.  I do not feel the need to detail this evidence in this decision as it is in the hands of the appellants, and further, especially as no sales evidence was relied upon by Mr Burchell.
           Mr Olsen informed the Court that the reduction in the valuation of the subject land prior to this Court hearing was made bearing in mind that the valuation was for rating purposes and that a conservative approach should be adopted.
           Mr Olsen told us that in making his reduced valuation assessment, he took into consideration the matters raised by Mr Burchell viz-a-viz the nursery business and the surveyed allotments on the eastern boundary.  He has spoken to a Mr Allard who owns the nursery who indicated to him that at the relevant date for valuation viz. 1 January 1995, there would have been a maximum of 10 vehicles per day arriving at the nursery on weekdays with more vehicles at the weekend.  Mr Olsen considers the nursery operation is not an intolerable disability, and does not see the adjoining 4046 square metre sites as constituting a great diminution in the value of the subject land.
           Mr Olsen has researched the sale of Lot 66 in Lorikeet Street.  It took place in August 1994 at a price of $240,000 for house and land.  Being an improved sale, Mr Olsen offered the view that it was of no use as a basic sale since it was a highly improved property.  He prefers to rely on vacant or lightly-improved sales evidence.  With this contention I agree.
           It is well established that the best basis of valuation when unimproved value is to be determined is the use of vacant or lightly-improved sales evidence.  In this respect, the only evidence before the Court is that provided by Mr Olsen who, giving evidence as an expert, also feels comfortable that a valuation of $64,000 for the subject land makes adequate allowance for the disabilities raised by Mr Burchell.  In these circumstances, how can the appeal succeed?  My finding is that it cannot.  It is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 68 on RP 200211, Parish of Gooburrum, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $64,000 is affirmed.

(CH Carter)       
  Member of the Land Court