Mitchell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1998] QLC 139

[1998] QLC 139

 

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

12 November 1998

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value -
  City of Townsville -
  (Ref. AV97-441).

Margaret Elizabeth Mitchell
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

The respondent Chief Executive has determined an unimproved value of $60,000 for a 1257 square metre parcel of land situated at 56 Hughes Street, Hermit Park, and which is more particularly described as Lot 1 on RP 713229, Parish of Coonambelah.  The land is zoned “Residential 3” under the Town Plan for the City of Townsville.  The appellant contends within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $50,000, and the relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996.
           The conduct of the appeal on behalf of the appellant was in the hands of her daughter, Gaye Elizabeth Costello, who furnished evidence in support of the grounds of appeal which read:

“1.  Costs of work required to prepare land for any development should be taken into account when estimating unimproved value of land - site would require fill/draining work, removal of house, trees, before it is in similar state as other comparable (and already without buildings) blocks.

2.  Large increase in the valuation is cause for concern, considering that property values overall in this area have not increased proportionally.

3.   Insufficient information has been provided throughout the process of valuation, objection and decision on objection, to allow the owner of the property proper assessment of the valuation.  ”

Mrs Costello has been advised by her mother that she feels that an unimproved value of $46,500 is more appropriate than $50,000, and that although a reduction in the valuation was made by the respondent Chief Executive as a result of her objection, she is still not satisfied.  But Mrs Costello explained to the Court that had the Department given reasons for the reduction on objection along the lines presented in this case, then perhaps Mrs Mitchell would have been satisfied.
           Mrs Costello knows one of the basic sale properties relied upon by the respondent (No 4 in a Departmental Valuation Report).  She says although it is smaller than is the subject land it is more elevated and not as subject to flooding. 
Mrs Costello is of the opinion that the real estate market at relevant date was at a low point due to the economy being stagnant, notwithstanding that improvements have been made to parks and road edges in the area. She also submits that for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of a residential house site, an allowance should be made for the cost of the removal of an existing house. But this is not so, as section 3(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 defines “unimproved value” in relation to improved land as being “the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist”.
           Registered Departmental Valuer, Robert Arthur Noakes, was called in evidence by the respondent Chief Executive.  Mr Noakes describes the nature of the subject land as being of regular shape and occupying an inside position.  He says it is situated at street level and is generally level although appearing to be slightly low-lying at the rear because the lands to the south-east are slightly higher.  Mr Noakes says that the land has a northerly aspect with no views.
           Mr Noakes has made the valuation of the subject land on the basis of the analysis of five sales of residential lots in the suburbs of Hermit Park and Hyde Park.  He says these analyses support the valuation under appeal.  The details of this sales evidence is in the hands of the parties for reference.
           With respect to Sale No 4, Mr Noakes agrees that it is a smaller block than is the subject land and states that it has no view.  He considers this sale land to be overall inferior to the subject land due to size.  He agrees that it is slightly more elevated than is the subject land.  I note that the sale price of Sale No. 4 was $64,000, and that Mr Noakes applied an unimproved value of $73,000 to that sale land as at 1 October 1996.
           Mr Noakes explained to the Court that the original Departmental valuation of the subject land was $65,000.  But as a result of the objection being considered, the valuation was reduced to $60,000 to make an allowance of $5,000 for filling the site.  Mr Noakes says that the suburb of Hermit Park is noted for its flooding and although an allowance was originally made for the flooding disability, a further allowance was made.
Section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act provides that the onus of proving any and every ground of appeal shall be upon the owner. The evidence in this case leaves me in no doubt that this onus has not been discharged. Prima facie, and on the evidence of Mr Noakes, a valuation of $60,000 for the subject land given its flooding disabilities, is well supported by the sales evidence introduced by Mr Noakes. It is the case that Mrs Costello disputes the Departmental description of the nature of the subject land in that she says that it is more undulating rather than generally level. But I am not satisfied that this is sufficient cause for me to allow the appeal. And in any event, and as aforementioned, Mrs Costello says that if the reason for the decision on objection had been properly explained to the appellant, well then it is probable that no appeal would have been filed.
           In these circumstances I cannot allow the appeal.  It is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 713229, Parish of Coonambelah, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive in the sum of $60,000 is affirmed.

(CH Carter)
Member of the Land Court