Capewell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1996] QLC 80

[1996] QLC 80

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

31 MAY 1996

Re:     Appeals AV94-699, AV95-513, AV94-698 and AV95-514
  Appeals against unimproved valuations under the
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Local Authorities:     Rosenthal and Warwick

John R and Beverley J Capewell
  v.

Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Warwick)

D E C I S I O N

These appeals relate to valuations as at 30 June 1993 and 1 January 1995 of two rural residential sites separated by Sorrento Road about 4 km to the west of Dalveen.  The land is described as Lot 21 and Lot 24 on Registered Plan 203092, Parish of Rosenthal, County of Merivale.  Lot 21 which is situated at the corner of Crighton Road contains an area of 8.823 ha, while Lot 24 contains an area of 10.64 ha. 
           The unimproved valuations appealed against and the appellants’ estimates of value are as follows:

Lot 21  -    as at 30 June 1993 and 1 January 1995
           Department of Lands’ valuation  $20,000
           Appellants’ estimate  $15,000

Lot 24  -    as at 30 June 1993
           Department of Lands’ valuation  $24,000
           Appellants’ estimate  $20,000
  -    as at 1 January 1995
           Department of Lands’ valuation  $22,000
           Appellants’ estimate  $20,000

Mr Capewell attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the grounds of appeals.  The primary ground is an alleged lack of relativity between the subject valuations and the valuations applied to other lots in the immediate locality. 
           With regard to Lot 21 (8.823 ha) its valuation is in the same amount ($20,000) as a number of nearby 10 ha lots.  Lot 24 (10.64 ha) is then valued higher than the 10 ha lots.  Electricity is not available to either lot and in the appellants’ opinion the cost of extension would be prohibitive.  The appellants have no intention of living on either lot.  Lot 24 was used for a small-scale grazing operation and Lot 21 was acquired at a later date to assist that grazing use, as a result of the drought conditions then being experienced.  In the appellants’ opinion the highest and best use of the land is for small-scale grazing purposes.  The nature of lots in the locality is of generally similar type of country.
           The Department’s valuations were carried out by Mr D.P. Coe, Senior Valuer, stationed at Warwick.  In his tendered reports, Lot 21 was described as a gently sloping forest ridge with northerly aspect and good rural views.  Lot 24 was described as an elevated undulating to easy sloping forest ridge with a generally easterly aspect and good rural views to the north and east.
           In Mr Coe’s opinion, the market for lots such as those in the immediate area was related to a highest and best use as rural homesites in conjunction with hobby type grazing or rural type activities. 
           He was confident that the available aspect from the predominant slopes of individual lots was a factor which influenced the market demand and value for rural homesites in this area with its recognised colder climate.  In his opinion the predominantly northern aspect of Lot 21 and the predominantly eastern aspect of Lot 24 had greater market influence than did the actual site areas.  He was comfortable with the relativity of valuations applied to the surrounding lots, based mainly on slope and aspect, in comparison with Lot 21, which was a corner lot with only two immediate neighbours and a wide bitumen road frontage on the northern boundary.  Lot 24 had superior elevation to Lot 21 and in his opinion superior aspect to its immediate neighbours, Lots 23 and 25.  The 1995 valuation of Lot24 had been reduced, on objection, from $24,000 to $22,000 on the relativity argument.  Mr Coe’s 1993 valuation for Lot 24 as produced to the Court, was also in the amount of $22,000 rather than the original $24,000 appealed against. 
           Mr Coe was well aware of the lack of electricity to the lots but his basis of valuation had been obtained from sales in the same estate also without the supply of electricity.  These sales included one of Lot 21 (one of the subject lots) prior to its purchase by the appellants. 
           Although Mr and Mrs Capewell had subsequently paid an even higher price, when they purchased Lot 21, Mr Coe had not found any general evidence of increases in value for these types of rural homesites in the period from 30 June 1993 to 1 January 1995.  Mr Capewell’s evidence was that the price which they had paid for Lot 21 had been inflated because of its near adjacency (immediately across the road from Lot 24) and also the availability of much needed grass for their cattle during a particularly severe drought. 
           Lot 21 had been previously sold in February 1993 for $26,000 with clearing and fencing.  Then Lot 4 on Registered Plan RP 203094 of 10 ha, fronting the “dirt” Crighton Road, opposite and a short distance southerly of Lot 21, had sold in August 1992 for $24,000 also with some fencing and clearing.  With Lot 4 having inferior access and aspect in comparison with both subject lots, that land had been valued by Mr Coe at $19,200. 
           The main conflict in these matters is the question of highest and best use of the land and then whether Mr Coe’s opinion as to aspect and size were realistic.  Mr Capewell submitted that while the favoured aspect for a house would be to the north, on undulating rural homesites of this nature that could be readily achieved by design and all lots in his opinion were of identical type of country.  He did not accept that the predominantly easterly slope of Lot 24 was of any particular advantage.  The appellants’ argument was directed mainly towards the land not having highest and best use as rural homesites. 
           It does not follow, however, that because the owners have no intention of using the land for other than the grazing of a relatively small number of cattle, that the land would not be seen in the marketplace as other than predominantly for rural residential type use.
           I am satisfied on the evidence provided by Mr Coe, including the previous sale of Lot 21, that an unimproved valuation of $20,000 for that site is fair and reasonable.  (I am also satisfied, after perusal of a copy of Registered Plan 203092, as tendered by Mr Capewell, that the final surveyed area of Lot 21 is in fact 8.823 ha, after provision in the survey was made for “new road areas” involving a total 5160 m², but not exclusively from Lot 21 - being from all lots on that particular plan.)
           It also seems to me that Lot 24, being more elevated and with somewhat superior views in comparison with Lot 21, would carry a higher market value even if the increased area was disregarded.  Mr Coe has considered the question of overall local relativity, not on a grazing basis, but on the worth of the individual lots as rural residential sites.  The question of effect of area on the value of sites has often been raised in this Court and the Land Appeal Court. 
           It is accepted that the size of individual lots is but one of the several factors which require consideration in interpretation of the market.  I prefer the overall evidence of Mr Coe as to the valuation principles which are relevant to these matters.
           As a result of his evidence and his amended valuation, the appeal against the valuation of Lot 24 as at 30 June 1993 is allowed, the chief executive’s valuation being set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of Twenty-two Thousand Dollars ($22,000).
           The remaining appeals, against the unimproved valuations of Lot 21 as at 30 June 1993 and 1 January 1995 and of Lot 24 as at 1 January 1995 are disallowed and the valuations of the chief executive affirmed.

RE WENCK
  MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT