Hunter v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1998] QLC 9
•6 February 1998
|
BRISBANE
6 February 1998
Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Shire of Flinders.
(AV96-663, AV96-664, AV96-665 and AV96-667).
Stuart A Hunter and Beryl R Hunter
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Hughenden)
D E C I S I O N
These are four appeals against the unimproved values applied by the respondent Chief Executive to lands situated in the town of Hughenden.
Mr and Mrs Hunter are the owners of four parcels of land situated in Little Avenue, Hughenden, on the north side of the Flinders River. Two are used for residential purposes and the other two are vacant but could be used for residential purposes. Those lands are described as Lot 4 on Registered Plan 728377, containing an area of 840 square metres (AV96-663), Lot 137 on Plan DG 229, containing an area of 859 square metres (AV96-664), Lot 1 on Registered Plan 739316, containing an area of 1520 square metres (AV96-665) and Lot 1 on Registered Plan 728377, containing an area of 830 square metres (AV96-667).
As at 1 January 1996, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the respondent Chief Executive determined the unimproved value of those lands at $4,500, $3,800, $5,600 and $4,500 respectively. The owners objected against each of those valuations and following advice that their objections had been disallowed, they appealed to the Land Court against the respondent's decisions upon their objections, advising that their estimates of unimproved values were $2,750, $2,000, $3,000 and $2,750 respectively.
At the hearing of these appeals, Mrs BR Hunter appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants, while the respondent was represented by Mr R Vize, of counsel. Valuation evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by Mr LR Croton, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources.
The appellants' grounds of appeal are the same in each case; that the unimproved valuations are not consistent with the downward trends in the market, as the Council sells unimproved sewered blocks above the flood line for around $500 per lot; and that the subject lands are not sewered and are in a flood area.
Mrs Hunter explained that the appellants considered that the value of real estate in the town of Hughenden was not increasing, but was declining due to several factors. The Shire of Flinders has been in drought and declared to be in exceptional circumstances since 1992. This has created an economic downturn for both rural and urban real estate. Property values were not rising. Railway retrenchment has seen a departure of people from Hughenden resulting in loss of money, loss of jobs, a population decline and depressed real estate values. The exodus of sheep from the region has resulted in a slump in the shearing industry, with shearers moving to other areas. This has further reduced the population and depressed real estate values. Vacant land has been surrendered to the Council, which sells sewered blocks of land above flood levels for around $500 per lot. The unimproved values applied by the respondent exceed those sale prices. In recent times, the town has suffered the closure of two banks, a nursery and a cafe.
Lot 4 on RP 728377 is situated about 1.1 kilometres north-east of the Hughenden Post Office, with access by means of Little Avenue, which at that point is a dual lane bitumen sealed road. It is an 840 square metre, level, regular shaped allotment, with town water, electricity and telephone services. However, like all the allotments on the north side of the Flinders River, it is not sewered. It is used for residential purposes and has been valued at $4,500.
Lot 137 on Plan DG 229 is Special Lease No 23/43994, situated on the north-western corner of Little Avenue and the Hann Highway, immediately to the north of the Flinders River Bridge. It is about 400 metres north of the Hughenden Post Office. Access is by means of the bitumen sealed Hann Highway, while Little Avenue at that point is formed earth and gravel along the southern frontage of the property.
It is a regular shaped allotment with town water, electricity and telephone services. It is vacant land and has been valued at $3,800.
Lot 1 on RP 739316 is situated about 1.25 kilometres north-east of the Hughenden Post Office, with access by means of Little Avenue which is bitumen sealed for about 1.15 kilometres, the last 100 metres being earth and gravel formed road, with no kerbing or guttering.
It is a vacant regular shaped allotment with town water, electricity and telephone services. It has been valued at $5,600.
Lot 1 on RP 728377 is situated about 1 kilometre north-east of the Hughenden Post Office, with access by means of Little Avenue which at that point is a dual lane bitumen sealed road, with no kerbing or guttering.
It is an 830 square metre rectangular allotment with town water, electricity and telephone services. It is used for residential purposes and has been valued at $4,500.
In support of those valuations, Mr Croton relied upon two sales, one situated on the north side of the Flinders River and one on the south side. His Sale No 1 is situated in Dalrymple Road, approximately 700 metres north of the Hughenden Post Office, with access by means of formed earth and gravel roads. It is a 4,047 square metre allotment which sold in November 1995 for $3,000.
Mr Croton's Sale No 2 is a property situated at 52 Winton Road, Hughenden, approximately 1.9 kilometres south of the Hughenden Post Office, with access by means of the bitumen sealed Winton Road. This allotment has an area of 1,012 square metres and sold in February 1995 for $1,000. It has similar services to the properties on the north side of the river, but like all allotments on the south side it is also sewered.
Mr Croton admitted that those two sales are by no means representative of the average town allotments in Hughenden. They are on the northern and southern edges of town and, he said, there was no further supporting evidence available to determine whether there was any increase or decrease in the previous unimproved values. He had therefore not altered the previously applied values or the relativity in the town of Hughenden. It emerged in evidence that the sale property on the north side of the river has a previous unimproved value of $4,200, while the property on the south side of the river has a previous unimproved value of $1,600.
Mrs Hunter also made reference to those two sales and in addition referred to four other sales.
She also referred to the property situated at 1 McLaren Street, Hughenden, of 2,326 square metres, sold in November 1995, for $1,316. Mr Croton said that he did not have regard to that sale as he considered it to be for special purposes for a fire station and, in addition, it comprised multiple lots. He said this made it hard to ascertain how much would be paid for each individual allotment.
Mrs Hunter also referred to the sale of the property situated at 40 Alyss Street, of 2,427 square metres, in November 1995, for $1,800. Mr Croton said that he had not relied upon that sale as it was a transaction between the Flinders Shire Council and Queensland Rail. It also comprised a number of allotments. He thought that a transaction between the local government and the State authority was not a reliable sale.
The next sale referred to by Mrs Hunter was situated at 21 Stansfield Street, Hughenden, had an area of 463 square metres and sold in November 1995, for $750. Mr Croton did not rely upon that sale as it was to an adjoining owner and only a small parcel of land. It emerged in evidence that the purchaser of that property owned a house adjoining and required the land for an additional area.
The other sale referred to by Mrs Hunter is situated in Churchill Street, has an area of 9,708 square metres and sold in September 1995, for $6,000. Mr Croton did not have regard to that sale because it comprised numerous allotments. Again, he said that this made it hard to ascertain the price that would be paid for one individual allotment.
It would seem that those six sales are the totality of the evidence in the Town of Hughenden as at the relevant date. Mr Croton considered none of the sales to be a reliable indication of whether the market value for residential allotments in the town was increasing or decreasing. On the basis of that unreliable evidence, he chose to leave the previously applied values unaltered. On the other hand, Mrs Hunter is firmly of the opinion that the market for residential allotments has declined substantially.
While it is understandable that Mr Croton did not feel that he had sufficiently reliable sales to alter the whole of the town of Hughenden, the fact remains that there have been several sales and the two which he referred to sold for less than the previously applied values. While I was not given the applied values to the four other sales relied upon by Mrs Hunter, those sale prices for sewered allotments would certainly indicate that there was not a booming market for residential land in Hughenden at the relevant date. Indeed, this was confirmed by Mr Croton as he said that sales after the date of valuation indicated that there was a downward trend in the market for land in the town of Hughenden.
On the basis of the evidence submitted, I have come to the conclusion that the downward trend appears to have taken place prior to the date of valuation, 1 January 1996. In these cases I feel that the appellants have discharged the onus of proving their grounds of appeal. While the sales cannot confidently be relied upon to indicate the extent of fall in the market they do, in my opinion, indicate that there has been some downturn since the date of the previous valuation.
Therefore, I propose to reduce the applied values to the subject lands by 20%. There is no firm basis in the sales for this reduction. Indeed, what sales there are would indicate that some further reduction could be warranted. However, I take into account the fact that they are far from an ideal basis. I can do no more than conclude that they indicate that there should be some reduction.
It may well be that sales in the intervening period will indicate the extent of the fall in the market for residential allotments in the town of Hughenden for the next revaluation of the area.
The subject properties are situated on the north side of the Flinders River, in an area which is periodically subject to flooding and which is cut off from the balance of the town of Hughenden in flood times. I also have regard to the fact that none of the allotments is sewered. On the weight of evidence presented in these cases I cannot allow the existing valuations to remain unaltered. Therefore, all appeals will be allowed in part.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, the valuations of the respondent are set aside, and the unimproved values of the subject lands are determined as follows:AV96-663 $ 3,600
AV96-664 $ 3,040
AV96-665 $ 4,480
AV96-667 $ 3,600
President of the Land Court
0
0
0