Collingwood v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 140

[1998] QLC 140

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

12 November 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value -
  City of Townsville -
  (Ref. AV97-110).

Kenneth and Sandra Jane Collingwood
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

The respondent Chief Executive has determined an unimproved value of $35,000 for a 506 square metre parcel of land situated at 20 Margaret Street (corner Francis Street), West End.  The land is described as Lot 1 on RP 701567, Parish of Coonambelah.  It is zoned “Residential 3” under the Town Planning Scheme for the City of Townsville.  The appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $24,000. 
           Sandra Jane Collingwood furnished evidence in support of the grounds of appeal.  Mrs Collingwood informed the Court that there is no completed road kerbing to the subject block and this causes on-going drainage problems which the appellants have been unable to rectify.  Further, she submits that the Council’s attempt to fix a severe on-going drainage problem on the Francis Street side, has resulted in an unsightly mess.  A photograph has been tendered by way of illustration of this problem.  After substantial rain, rubbish fill washes down and deposits on the appellants’ footpath and road area in Margaret Street.  The appellants have dug a seepage trench right around their house to a depth of 1.5 metres and filled it with crushed rock in an endeavour to alleviate flooding to which the land is subject.  They have also put an extensive underground pipe work to channel water out of the land, and put in drains across the driveway to catch the water from Francis Street as it backs up, but Mrs Collingwood said all this has been of only limited success.
           It was also submitted by Mrs Collingwood that no beautification has ever been carried on either the Margaret Street or the Francis Street frontages, despite other bordering streets having gardens and trees planted and maintained by Council.  Any plants and gardens have been planted and maintained by the appellants and due to on-going flooding problems there has to be constant replanting.
           Mrs Collingwood told us that the access road beside the subject property in Francis Street is only partly useable as it is only partly surfaced, it erodes and looks very unsightly as is the footpath to Margaret Street where there is a large watercourse.
           The appellants are at a loss to understand why the value of the larger (607 square metre) neighbouring lot at 18 Margaret Street has been reduced from $25,500 to $25,000, whereas the value of the subject land has been increased from $29,000 to $35,000.  She claims that the corner blocks are less valuable than inside lots, particularly the subject land which is flooded from both the side and the front.  Mrs Collingwood says that 18 Margaret Street is only flooded from the front.  She believes it is only fair that the value of the subject land should be reduced below $29,000 since the value of No 18 Margaret Street was reduced.
           The valuation under appeal was made by Registered Departmental Valuer, Robert Arthur Noakes, who describes the nature of the subject land as being of regular shape, at street level and falling to the rear from Francis Street.  There is a north-easterly aspect with a restricted outlook across vacant land opposite. In making his valuation, Mr Noakes has had regard to the analyses of eight sales, details of which are in evidence and are in the hands of the parties for reference.  Some of the sales were placed in evidence by Mr Noakes since they are also of small parcels.  I do not refer in this decision to the sales evidence as the grounds of appeal do not refer to the use of sales as a valuation basis.  The appellants rely on the disabilities suffered by the subject land and a comparison with the neighbouring block (Ground 5 in the notice of appeal).
           Mr Noakes also does not see that the corner position of the subject land represents an advantage to it as Margaret Street is really a gully.  He tendered in evidence a photograph of the gully in Margaret Street (Exhibit 4) which he says shows Council works in a stabilisation program.  But Mr Noakes regards the access to the property from Francis Street to be satisfactory.
           Mr Noakes does not believe that the value of the subject land is anomalous with that of 18 Margaret Street for the reason that access to 18 Margaret Street had to be by way of a small concrete bridge built by Council across the gully in the street and that 18 Margaret Street land has no street appeal.
           As aforementioned, the outcome of this appeal depends upon evidence about disabilities and the unimproved value relativity with 18 Margaret Street.  Based on the evidence of Mrs Collingwood,  I am satisfied that the subject land is rather severely affected from water inundation after times of heavy rainfall, but the access problem from Margaret Street is largely offset by the access availability from Francis Street, notwithstanding the lack of attention by Council to the problems in Francis Street.  I am satisfied that the valuation of the subject land should be higher than that of 18 Margaret Street for the reasons outlined by Mr Noakes.  But I feel that a valuation of $35,000 for the subject land does not fully reflect the access and flooding problems raised by Mrs Collingwood.  I find that a value of $30,000 for the subject land is more appropriate.
           It follows then that the appeal be allowed, that the determination of the Chief Executive be set aside, and that the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 701567, Parish of Coonambelah, be determined in the sum of Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).

(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court