Haines v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2001] QLC 43

[2001] QLC 43

 

LAND COURT

TOOWOOMBA

29 May 2001

Re:     Appeal against annual valuation

Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Valuation Roll No:     4079
  Local Government:    Toowoomba
  (AV99-700)

Victor G & Janet P Haines

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

D E C I S I O N

The heading
           This appeal was conducted in the absence of the appellants.  Mr Haines, on behalf of the appellants, advised the Court that he was unable to attend, for family reasons, the hearing and did not seek an adjournment of the hearing.
           Mr Haines provided a submission which was admitted and is exhibit 4 in the appeal.  I admitted the document as evidence of the facts and opinions stated therein.  I indicated, however, that the unavailability of Mr Haines for cross-examination had the potential to affect the weight to be given to the contents of exhibit 4.
The land[1]
           The subject lots are Lots 15 and 16 on registered plan 11414, Parish of Drayton, County of Aubigny.  The area of the land is 1465 m². 
           The property is located at 62-64 Panorama Crescent, Prince Henry Heights, located north-easterly from the Toowoomba Central Business District.
           The subject land slopes moderately to steeply from the western corner to the eastern boundary.  The property offers range views to the south-east.  The views are slightly restricted by trees.
           The property was used, at the relevant time, for residential purposes and was improved with a single dwelling house.
The Valuation
The valuation, the subject of the appeal, is $67,000. The valuation was carried out pursuant to Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (“the Act”) on the basis that it was used for the purposes of a single dwelling house.  It was valued as if it were a single block of land.  No issue arose as to the correctness of this approach.
The date of the valuation was as at 1 October 1998. This was the date set by the Chief Executive pursuant to s.20 of the Act. The facts and law have been applied as at this date.
The Issues
           Exhibit 4, the submission of Mr Haines on behalf of the appellants, raised a number of issues.
           Exhibit 4 contained a detailed analysis of the three comparable sales used by Mr Janke, the valuer called on behalf of the respondent, and added comparisons to existing valuations of two further properties described as ID (identification) numbers 4 and 5.  Mr Haines attempted to deduce a precise allowance for different views and differing areas by references to differing applied values between certain of the 5 properties.  I found this approach of little assistance.  It is unlikely that the desirability or otherwise of views between properties goes up in precise quanta.  A difference in value for views between two lots does not transpose to a comparison of other properties higher or lower on the continuum of view desirability.
           In the same way, differences in value based on area are unlikely to be accurately expressed per square metres.  In some situations, an additional 20 square metres may make a huge difference in usability of a block while, in another situation, an extra 100 square metres may only make a marginal difference.
           Exhibit 4 also sought to argue that the nature of the subject land having a large street frontage, a consequent lack of depth and a need for maintenance of the nature strip detracted from its value.  On these points, I preferred the evidence of Mr Janke that, because the block was large, its large street frontage would not cause significant lack of usability either because of the local government requirements for a 6 metre setback or otherwise.  In the light of a depth varying from 26.5 to 34 metres for the major part of the street frontage, I would be very surprised if the setback requirements had any impact on the subject property’s value.
           I am also satisfied that larger lots, particularly in areas like Prince Henry Heights, are sought after because of their relative scarcity in Toowoomba as a whole.  I am satisfied that, taking into account the need to mow more footpath, the extensive street frontage of the subject property is, at worst, a neutral factor.
           I accept Mr Janke’s evidence that the presence of a sewerage main running parallel to the boundary with Lot 17 is a negative factor because of its impact upon the property rights of the owner of the subject land but that that is a factor adequately reflected in the valuation which is the subject of appeal.
The Evidence of the Respondent
           Mr Janke, who gave evidence for the respondent, gave a significant amount of oral evidence in addition to the material contained in Exhibit 2.  I found him to be an impressive witness with significant experience in the Toowoomba residential market.
           Mr Janke, in my opinion, dealt with the issues raised by the appellants in a detailed, reasonable and convincing manner.  Much of his evidence on these points has been set out earlier in these reasons.  I am also of the opinion that the applied values of Sales 2 and 3, in particular, show a conservative approach on the part of Mr Janke.
Conclusion
           While Mr Haines has, in Exhibit 3, raised a number of points observing serious consideration, I have concluded that these have been satisfactorily dealt with by the evidence of Mr Janke.
           I am of the opinion that the valuation, the subject of the appeal, was arrived either by taking into account the matters raised by Mr Haines or is unaffected by those issues.
           I accept the evidence of Mr Janke that the appropriate valuation of the subject property is $67,000.
           I dismiss the appeal and concur in the value struck by the respondent at the said figure of $67,000.

[1]The description of the land is taken from Exhibit 2, the report of Mr Janke, the valuer who gave evidence for the respondent.

SJ KEIM

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT