John & Gwen Ruckman v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 138

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

12 November 1998

Re:	Determination of Unimproved Values -
City of Townsville -
(Ref. AV97-108 and AV97-109).

John and Gwen Ruckman
v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

Falling for determination is the unimproved value of two adjoining “Residential 3” zoned parcels of land situated in Crauford Street in the suburb of West End. Details are:

AV97-108 - Lot 1 on RP 701759, Parish of Coonambelah - 1012m - Chief

The relevant date for the determination of the respective unimproved values is

Evidence in support of the grounds of appeal was provided by Mrs Gwen
Ruckman. With regard to 15 Crauford Street, the appellants rely on a relativity
comparison with a valuation of $60,000 for 12 Crauford Street (corner Henry Street)
containing an area of 1215 square metres. Mrs Ruckman explained that both Nos. 15
and 12 have rental houses erected on the land and the value of No. 15 was increased
on the 1 October 1996 revaluation from $53,000 to $60,000 ($7,000 increase) while
No 12 was increased from $58,000 to $60,000 (an increase of only $2,000). No 15
has what Mrs Ruckman describes as a large ugly garden bed in front of the land and
this means there is no street parking and the bed results in a very awkward egress and
ingress. Its existence also exacerbates a flooding problem in periods of excessive
rainfall when water draining down Crauford Street gets blocked by the garden bed,
crosses the footpath, and floods under the house on the land. By way of comparison,
Mrs Ruckman says No 12 has unrestricted and unlimited on-street parking and easy
access to the block. She stressed that No 15 has always been a low block and is very
boggy after rain, while No 12 is high and dry and a very well drained block which has
never required filling as has No 15. But perhaps the main disability raised by Mrs
Ruckman is that No 15 backs onto No 39, Ralston Street, where there is a
Government share-house where some of the residents do not respect the appellants’
ownership of Lot 15 with their anti-social behaviour and trespassing, so much so that
the appellants have had to install security lights to the front, side, and the back of the
block. By comparison, Mrs Ruckman says that No 12 has two adjoining home
occupied houses with privacy assured. While both No 15 and No 12 have an outlook
over Curtheringa Park on the northern side of Crauford Street, Mrs Ruckman points
out that No 12 has double the frontage to Crauford Street than has No 15 with a
consequent wider expanse of view.

1 October 1996. be developed with seven units, while No 15 could only produce six units. But this evidence is irrelevant as both No 15 and No 12 have been valued by the Chief Executive under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as land exclusively used for the purpose of a single dwelling house.

Mrs Ruckman placed in evidence a copy of a petition sent by residents in 1992 to the then Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr T Burns, expressing their concern about the problems with the residents of the share-house. Also in evidence is a copy of the share-house policy from the Youth Accommodation Program. Both of these documents have been perused.

With respect to No 16 Crauford Street, Mrs Ruckman also relied upon unimproved value relativity as a basis for the appeal, but this time she compares the subject land with No 22 Crauford Street with an area of 1012 square metres with a valuation of $50,000 (reduced from $52,000), whereas the valuation of No 16 has been increased from $49,500 to $55,000. Mrs Ruckman points out that while No 16 is six blocks removed from No 22, the appellants, who reside at No 16, also hear the noise of vehicular traffic using Percy Street (which is a busy street) but to a lesser degree than residents at No 22 which is close to Percy Street. Mrs Ruckman says No 16 is similarly affected by the garden beds in Crauford Street as is No 15, but No 22 has unrestricted on-street parking. Mrs Ruckman told us that No 16 is a low block with poor drainage, and has been filled with 60 cubic metres of sandy loam and smaller loads of cracker dust, but No 22 is an excellent level block with no drainage problems. Further, No 16 is situated adjacent to six stable-like flats which occasion problems from the residents from time to time, especially as there is only a wire fence between the properties. Further, the flats are built on a metre-high concrete slab so that in heavy rain with water draining from Nos 12, 14 and 15, it backs up against the wall and then causes flooding to both Nos 16 and 15. Flooding also occurs with No 16 from the garden beds, whereas with No 22, street water flows unrestricted past the block. By way of comparison, Mrs Ruckman says that No 22 is adjacent to a higher standard block of units constructed at ground level with a 2-metre high concrete block wall providing privacy from the neighbours.

Mrs Ruckman again referred to the same problems with the share-house which block abuts No 16 in the south-east corner. There is also a Townsville City Council sewerage inspection pit just behind the appellants’ home which can be accessed by Council staff at any time.

The valuations under appeal were made by Registered Departmental Valuer, Robert Arthur Noakes, who describes each appeal land as being of regular shape and occupying an inside position, situated at street level with a northerly aspect and with unrestricted views across park land (Curtheringa Park). This latter feature is regarded by Mr Noakes as being quite an advantage shared by the subject lands. He says No 15 land is generally level and No 16 land has a slight fall and crossfall to the rear.

Mr Noakes made each of the valuations under appeal with reference to the analyses of six sales of residential sites in the suburbs of West End, Hermit Park and Hyde Park. I do not feel the need to tabulate this sales evidence in this decision as it is in the hands of the parties for reference, and in any event the appeals are limited by Mrs Ruckman to the ground of relativity.

Mr Noakes told us that he made the valuations under appeal, and indeed the valuations of all lands in the area, starting afresh, and based them all on the sales evidence. As a result, there have been changes in the previously existing valuation relativity. In particular, Mr Noakes has taken into consideration the noise factor in busily trafficked streets such as Percy Street and Henry Streets. Mrs Ruckman does not describe Henry Street where No 12 is situated as being a heavily trafficked street but what matters when valuation relativity is examined is that the Mr Noakes has considered both Henry Street and Percy Street to be busy streets, and he has made allowances in his valuation of No 12 and No 22 accordingly. I note that No 22 is only one block removed from Percy Street.

Mr Noakes does not see the garden beds in front of both the subject lots as being a disadvantage. He says that if they cause flooding, then it is the Council’s responsibility to change the design of the beds but he acknowledges this may take time.

Mr Noakes agrees that many blocks in the area do suffer from varying degrees flooding after events of heavy rainfall and this is not limited to the subject lands. He does not feel that the existence of the share-house should affect the value of Nos 15 and 16 on the basis that there are a large number of units in the suburb of West End and Hermit Park which could provide similar problems, and for this reason he has placed lower unimproved values on single unit residential sites adjoining sites with unit development. Mr Noakes believes that in the circumstances of the subject lands where the share-house is at the rear, no allowance for this claimed disability should be made.

Now, I agree with Mr Noakes in that for the revaluation of an area starting afresh, changes to unimproved value relativity are inevitable and appropriate where necessary. I also agree that consideration of traffic noise in residential area in valuation terms is necessary. But I am concerned that the existence of the share- house with the many undesirable activities from residents as outlined by Mrs Ruckman during her evidence, is a factor that would have a negative influence with a properly informed hypothetical purchaser of the subject lands in the marketplace. It is for these reasons that I find that the valuations of the subject lands are marginally excessive. I make the following determinations:

Re: Appeal Ref. AV97-108 - The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 701759, Parish of Coonambelah, is determined in the sum of Fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000).

Re: Appeal Ref. AV97-109 - The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 717648, Parish of Coonambelah, is determined in the sum of Fifty-two thousand dollars ($52,000).

Executive’s valuation $60,000 - appellants’ value as contained within the notice of appeal $49,500 - situation 15 Crauford Street.

AV97-109 - Lot 2 on RP 717648, Parish of Coonambelah - 1012m - Chief
Executive’s valuation - $55,000 - appellants’ value as contained within the

Notice of Appeal $45,000 - situation 16 Crauford Street.

(CH Carter)

Member of the Land Court