Farlow v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 107

[1995] QLC 107

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

14 September 1995

Re:     Appeal against a valuation -
  Brisbane City Council - Windsor.
  AV93-698.

Charles and Irene Farlow
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, of the unimproved value of Lot 55 on RP 43343, parish of Enoggera, in the sum of $72,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31 March 1992.
           In the hearing of the matter Mr Charles Farlow, who appeared on his and Mrs Farlow's behalf, expressed the opinion that he thought the appeal was against a later valuation.  However, on perusal of the notice of objection and the notice of appeal against the decision made on the objection, there is no doubt that the proceedings relate to the valuation which issued in respect of the valuation of the Area as at 31 March 1992 and not to a later valuation.  I proceed accordingly.
           The subject lot is a rectangular shaped lot of 607m² situated at 22 Willmington Street, Wooloowin.  The lot has a gentle fall from the rear (east) to the street frontage (west) of approximately 70 centimetres over 40 metres.  The lot is used for single unit residential purposes and is valued for this purpose.  The appellants are of the opinion that the lot should be valued at $65,000.  The grounds of appeal are as follows:

"The erection of 2 storey town houses at No 26 has blocked our view and has detracted from the value and occupies the majority of the land.  Our property faces the backyards of houses which are built facing McLennan Street, so we look into back yards both front and back.  The property has poor drainage and is subject to water run off from the property at the back.   "

Mr IG Savage, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, spoke to the valuation applied by the Chief Executive.  He was not the valuer responsible for the valuation which issued but having inspected the site and considered the material upon which the valuation was based, he agrees that the lot should be valued at $72,000.  Included in his evidence is a relativity map which I annexe as Annexure A.
           Mr Savage accepts that the subject lot takes run off water from Lot 6 (Morris Street) at the rear.  He also accepts that homes on lots opposite the frontage of the subject lot are constructed to the McLennan Street frontage but points out that the aspect in this direction from the subject lot is common to other lots in Willmington Street. 
           The substance of the complaint made against the valuation is the existence of group title development adjoining the subject lot on the south.  Mr Farlow said that prior to this construction the subject site possessed views to the City in this direction.  This aspect he says has been blocked.  Such is accepted by Mr Savage.  It appears that when this construction occurred a previous valuation was reduced on objection by $5,000.  Mr Farlow has doubts whether the adjacency factor to these units has again been reflected in the valuation.  On the evidence of Mr Savage, it is.  He reasons this way.  He accepts the existence of the units; he accepts that the construction has blocked the view from the subject lot to the south but as against Lot 57 (also valued at $72,000) the view from which to the south is blocked by the residence on the subject land, he says, and it is not in dispute, that the subject land has some views to the south-west which are not available to Lot 57.  But for the existence of the units, he said that he would value the subject lot higher than Lot 57 -not by any great extent but sufficient to be reflected in market terms.  After hearing him on this point in some depth I am satisfied that the influence of the units has been given due consideration.  It follows that I find no reasons to disturb the applied value.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

(DM White)            
  President of the Land Court