Loy v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1999] QLC 35

[1999] QLC 35

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

30 APRIL 1999

Re:     AV98-463

An Appeal against a Determination of Unimproved Value –
Valuation of Land Act 1944 –
  Inglewood Shire

N.J. and S.A. Loy

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearing at Inglewood)

D E C I S I O N

This appeal relates to land described as a rural residential site, situated on the eastern outskirts of Texas fronting the bitumen sealed Dumaresq River Road about 3 km from the Post Office.
           The land is described as Lot 77 CVE 477, Parish of Texas, County of Clive, and contains an area of 15.586 ha.
           As at 1 October 1997, the chief executive had determined the unimproved value of the land in the amount of $27,000.  That valuation was reduced on objection to $24,000, being the amount now appealed against.  In the Notice of Appeal the appellants estimated the unimproved value to be $12,000.
           As he had in a number of appeals heard at the same sittings, Mr WG Major appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. 
           The points raised by Mr Major in this matter included the proximity of the block to unsightly industrial-type development across the road and to the south of the south-west corner of the subject land.  That development comprised an electricity substation, sawmill and a car wrecker's yard.  Town water was reticulated to the land from a water tower sited a short distance to the north, but it is not disputed that the pressure available from that supply is poor.
The primary basis for the valuation appealed against were the two sales discussed in Appeal AV98-442 – DP and M Rigney v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources.  The comments which relate to the sales evidence in the decision on that appeal, which is delivered today, will not be repeated here, except to say that Mr Major does not accept that the sale lands are comparable, being, in his opinion, far superior.  The basis for Mr Major's opinion that the appellants' estimate of an unimproved value of $12,000 was correct, was his contention that values had fallen since the previous valuation, not risen as the Department's valuation suggested.
           In Appeal AV98-337 – EB and DM Knapton v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources – the decision, again also delivered today, contained comments under the heading "General Observations and Considerations relative to Inglewood Shire Appeals".  Those comments have been repeated in other decisions on appeals in which Mr Major has been involved and also will not be repeated here.
           The valuation appealed against was made by Mr MW Malone, registered valuer.  He described the land as an elevated sloping forest block with southerly aspect and good rural and river views to the south.  The land was vacant and used for grazing horses and cattle.
           In Mr Malone's opinion, the subject land was superior as a rural residential site, to Lot 3 CVE 434, which had been the land in his first sale, and inferior to the land in the second sale.  He had been aware that, in 1995, Lot 248 containing 16.187 ha, situated a short distance to the south of the subject land and opposite the rubbish dump, had sold for $30,000.  Mr Malone thought Lot 248, as a large homesite, was inferior to the subject due to lower elevation and topography.   That opinion was not shared by Mr Major who believed that Lot 248 contained superior country.  In any event as it emerged, the sale had been to an adjoining owner and had not been analysed by Mr Malone.
           In the Rigney decision, the sale of Lot 3 was seen to have some relevance.  The subject land is smaller in size than the Rigney land but has the advantage of a town water supply, albeit a poor supply requiring the provision of a storage tank and pump if it was to be used for other than as a trickle supply to a stock-watering trough.  The subject block does have an accessible homesite enjoying the better views, removed from the direct influence of the industrial-type development, although it seems logical that the proximity of that development detracts to a degree from the advantage of very handy location to the town.
           While it is a difficult task to make a cogent comparison between this block and the primary sale used by Mr Malone, I have formed the opinion that the subject land would not be regarded in the local market as more desirable than that sale land and that the substantially larger area of the sale land would equalise if not outweigh the advantages of the subject site.  The relativity which existed between the valuations of the subject land and that sale land at the previous date of valuation has been altered by the Department once the reduction on objection was applied.  I have doubts whether that reduction went far enough, on the overall evidence.

Finding

Resolving doubts in favour of the appellants, I will determine the unimproved value in the amount of Twenty-one Thousand Dollars ($21,000).
           The appeal is allowed and the determination of the chief executive set aside accordingly.

RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT