Govan v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 10
•14 February 1997
|
BRISBANE
14 FEBRUARY 1997
Re: AV96-34 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Wambo Shire
K.A. and B.E. Govan
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Dalby)
D E C I S I O N
Mr and Mrs Govan own two adjoining lots in Tolmie Street, Mt. Mowbullan (on the Bunya Mountains). The land is described as Lots 93 and 94 on Registered Plan 25963, Parish of Maida Hill, containing a total area of 5,795 m². The land is zoned “Rural Residential” and accommodates a dwelling. Electricity and telephone services are available and Tolmie Street has a bitumen strip surface.
As at 1 January 1995 the Department of Natural Resources, as it now is, assessed the unimproved value of the land in the amount of $38,500 which represented the chief executive’s decision after objection by the owners.
In the Notice of Appeal to this Court, the owners estimated the unimproved value to be $21,500. The grounds of appeal include as follows:
“To the best of my knowledge, the supposed township of Mowbullan was surveyed in 1914 with approximately 160 allotments. Only 15 houses and one camping area with amenities have been built on these allotments up to the current year (1996) with only three of these houses having permanent residents.
Land sales are few and persons trying to sell houses have so far been unsuccessful. To look at the township it would be better described as a rural area. There is no council services such as town water, rubbish collection, footpath construction or storm water drainage and there is only a mail service on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
...”
The Notice included a valuation history of the land with values rising from $21,500 in 1991 eventually to the valuation now appealed against.
Mr Govan attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the appeal. It is his contention that Mt Mowbullan is a town in name only having limited residential development and lacking in market demand with no sales evidence to support the increasing valuations. In his opinion the subject land being in Wambo Shire, cannot realistically be compared with land on the Bunya Mountains within Nanango Shire which has been developed as new residential estates with modern design and amenities. In any event, Mr Govan believes that land values “on the other side of the road” (in Nanango Shire) are artificially high although there is demonstrated demand for that land in comparison. Mr Govan had been informed that it was the Department’s contention that the valuation appealed against bore reasonable relativity with subsisting valuations of other lands in the locality. Apparently he had been given details of the valuation of an 800 m² site in Bunya Avenue. Mr Govan saw it as wrong to compare small residential lots with the subject land when in his opinion better comparisons were possible with larger lots also on Bunya Avenue, to show what he saw as lack of proper relativity. Details of 1 January 1996 valuations of three lots in Bunya Avenue were tendered as support for that opinion. One corner lot of 6,656 m², square in shape with bitumen roads on both frontages and gentle slopes, was valued at $67,000 as a large homesite. Another lot of 5,764 m² with mixed commercial (restaurant/kiosk) and residential (dwelling and six units) was valued at $73,000. Then a 9.117 ha site with “enormous potential” had been valued as a large homesite in the amount of $112,000. Mr Govan described the specific disabilities associated with the subject land as including its elongated shape, intersected by a gully, steep slopes and difficult access to the actual homesite at the rear, except as permitted through adjoining land.
Mr S.L. Hoadley took responsibility for the valuation appealed against. He had not been the valuer involved in making the valuation but has been responsible for annual valuations in the rural part of Wambo Shire since 1992. He had been responsible for a subsequent annual valuation of the subject land and had personally inspected it. Again, while he had not been responsible for valuations in Nanango Shire he knew the properties to which reference had been made by Mr Govan in his relativity examples. Mr Hoadley was aware that the first and third properties mentioned had enjoyed the benefit of being valued as single large homesites, in accordance with s.17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 which provides as follows:
“In making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house ....... any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other purposes shall be disregarded irrespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made.”
On that basis, with potentialities capable of enhancing the market value of those lands, he was comfortable with the relativity which was demonstrated by the valuation of the subject land. The subject land also had been valued in terms of s.17(1) of the Act as a single homesite, due to its exclusive use for the purposes of a single dwelling. Had the land been vacant then it was his evidence that a valuation of $43,000 would have been applied.
Mr Hoadley agreed that there was a problem with the second relativity example provided by Mr Govan. Mr Hoadley had not been in a position to correct that valuation which was, in his opinion, wrong and significantly too low. He had raised the matter with the valuer responsible.
Mr Hoadley was well aware of the physical constraints on access to the actual homesite area from the street frontage, but held the opinion that if the subject land was unimproved, as he was required to value it, then a suitable homesite area was available on the frontage side of the central gully area. As it happened, access was not denied to the homesite - being available through a reserve at the rear.
No sales evidence was provided by Mr Hoadley in support of the level of value which had been applied. However he was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that all matters relevant to the valuation had been taken into consideration. It was his opinion that although much higher levels of value existed within the Bunya Mountains developments in Nanango Shire, available views had a dominant effect on value in that location, whereas in the Mt Mowbullan area, where views were inferior, the actual size of available sites had a dominating influence on value. This, in his opinion, was reflected in the somewhat significant difference between values applied to single sites in the range of 2,000-3,000 m², as opposed to the valuation of the subject land as one site of 5,795 m². While that is seen as one aspect of the subject valuation which will be deserving of future close consideration, the thrust of the appellants’ case was that there was no evidence to support the valuation or the rising trend reflected in the valuation history of the land.
More relevant to the legislature under which the valuation was made is that no substantive evidence was provided by the owners to prove that the valuation was wrong or unreasonable even with Mt Mowbullan being the poor relation of the modern Bunya Mountains developments. Mr Hoadley’s evidence, as a registered valuer, must be preferred to the opinions on relativity expressed by Mr Govan. Section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act provides that the Notice of Appeal “shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner.”
The increase in valuations over the years is clearly of concern to the owners but the task they face is not to concentrate on any increase above a previous valuation but to prove that the relevant valuation itself is wrong. In this matter, the owners have not carried that burden of proof.
The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0