Chapman v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 116

[1998] QLC 116

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

6 OCTOBER 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value -
  City of Brisbane - Division of Moggill.
  (Ref. AV97-427).

KL and JR Chapman
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $175,000 for a 4.292 hectare parcel of land situated at 46 Lather Road, Bellbowrie, and which is more particularly described as Lot 2 on RP 218548, Parish of Moggill.  The land is zoned “Non Urban” under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme for the City of Brisbane.  The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996.  The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $105,000.
           Joseph Ronald Chapman conducted the case for the appellants and furnished evidence in the matter.  Mr Chapman informed the Court that one of the reasons for his appeal is that the subject land along with Lot 3 on RP 218548 was valued in 1992 at $180,000 when both lots were developed as a turf farm. In 1993 both lots were valued at $250,000.  The appellants sold Lot 3 in 1994, and the next valuation notice received in 1995 was for Lot 2 alone in the sum of $200,000, and this represented a big increase in unimproved values.
           Mr Chapman told us that there was a powerline easement was resumed across the subject land and Lot 3 back in 1965 and that an easement was resumed for a water pipeline in 1992.  The original powerline has been upgraded and the water pipeline is underground but Mr Chapman submitted that the resumption of the easements and the construction of the powerline and the water pipe wrecked his turf farm.  As a result of this, Lot 3 was sold.  Mr Chapman says that the high voltage transmission lines create visual pollution and he believes that none of the effects of the easements has been taken into account by the Chief Executive.  Mr Chapman says the easements cover at least approximately one half of the each of the subject lot but during the course of the presentation of his evidence, Mr Chapman reduced this estimate of the encumbered area to about one third of the lot.
           Mr Chapman stressed that approximately 95% of the subject Lot 2 was under water in the 1974 flood to a depth of about 3 metres and that Lot 2 is the lowest block in the area but has the highest unimproved value.
           Mr Chapman referred the Court to a sale of Lot 8 on RP 87678 at 84 Lather Road, Bellbowrie, containing an area of 3.04 hectares on 30 April 1997 from Catalyst Marketing Pty Ltd to the Cameron Property Trust for $90,000 with a then current unimproved capital value of $167,500.  This land is also encumbered by easements.  Mr Chapman told us that this was an open market sale of land which was really owned by Powerlink.   But it transpired later in evidence that Mr Chapman’s information about this sale, which he obtained from a valuer’s computer printout, is incorrect in so far as it is valued by the Department not at $167,500 but at $85,000.
           The valuation under appeal was made by Departmental Registered Valuer Uday Singh who describes the nature of the land as being at road level at the frontage at a height of about 13 metres AHD falling gently towards the north to approximately 1 metre AHD at Pullen Pullen Creek which is the northern boundary.  Mr Singh says that a shallow depression commences at the south-west corner of the land running in the north-easterly direction for a distance of about 200 metres thence the depression follows a northerly direction through the middle of the subject land finishing in Pullen Pullen Creek.  Mr Singh told us that a post-Wivenhoe Dam mitigation flood free homesite with a pleasant northern rural outlook exists in the south-east corner of the subject land.
           Mr Singh confirms that there is a powerline and a water main easement about 100 metres wide traversing the land in an east/west direction adjacent to Pullen Pullen Creek.  He also confirms that the easements contain overhead high-tension electricity transmission lines on steel pylons and underground water supply trunk pipelines.  But I must say that if Mr Singh is anywhere near correct with his estimate of the width of the easements, then it cannot be said that they encumber one-third of the subject land.
           Mr Singh has made the valuation under appeal upon the basis of three analysed sales, brief details of which are:
           Sale No 1 - Lot 2 on RP894033 - 4.045 hectares - Hancock to Rowland and Whittaker on 26 July 1996 for $195,000 - analysed unimproved value $193,000 - applied unimproved value $190,000 - situation 230 O’Brien Road, Pullenvale - zoning “Non Urban”. 
           Mr Singh describes this sale land to be of medium elevation with moderate to steep slopes.  The house site provides good landscape views to the west and south.  Mr Singh regards this sale site to be superior to the subject land.
           Sale No 2 - Lot 15 on RP817250 - 4.34 hectares - Pacific Marketing to Peters on 20 August 1996 for $160,000 - analysed unimproved value $157,000 - applied unimproved value $155,000 - situation Gold Creek Road, Brookfield - zoning “Non Urban”.
           Mr Singh describes this sale land as being of medium elevation with the house site having a view to the east and located centrally where the land falls steeply to the east and west.  Overall Mr Singh regards this sale land to be inferior to the subject land.
           Sale No 3 - Lot 10 on GTP102555 - 4.34 hectares - Lovejoy and Ors to Gott on 18 December 1994 for $250,000 - analysed unimproved value $240,000 - situation 463 Gold Creek Road, Brookfield - zoning “Non Urban”.
           Mr Singh says this sale property is of medium to high elevation and is accessed by a long, steep and winding common access strip.  Mr Singh regards this sale property overall to be superior to the subject land and remarks that the purpose of  him introducing this sale is to demonstrate a purchase price paid for land affected by electricity high-tension lines.
           Mr Singh told us that the sale at 84 Lather Road for $90,000 had hardly any land which could be built on as it is severely affected by easements.  He provided the Court with details of other valuations made in Lather Road but I do not feel the need to cover this evidence here as I am satisfied that the valuation of the subject land is not out of relativity with other valuations in the area.
           Now Mr Singh clearly recognises the existence of the easements on the subject land and at least one of his sales is also affected by a powerline easement.  He also recognises that most of the land was flooded in 1974 but points out as before mentioned that there is a flood-free homesite on the land post the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam.
           Now it has often been said in this Court that the best basis for the assessment of unimproved value is the analysis of sales of unimproved or lightly improved property.  In this respect, the only comparable sales evidence is that provided by Mr Singh and it, prima facie, supports the valuation under appeal.  I might add further that references to increases in valuations over a period of time do not constitute a worthwhile ground of appeal.  What has to be determined is the unimproved value of a given parcel of land as at a specific relevant date and this is best tested in relation to sales evidence at or about that date.
           In these circumstances I cannot uphold the appeal.  It is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 218548, Parish of Moggill, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $175,000 is affirmed.

CH CARTER
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT