Mobbs v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1995] QLC 58
•21 July 1995
|
BRISBANE
21 July 1995
Re: Appeal against annual valuation.
Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Shire of Calliope
(AV94-0375)
Stanley J Mobbs and Gertrude M Mobbs
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Gladstone)
DECISION
Mr and Mrs Mobbs are the owners of land described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 617901, Parish of Boyne, County of Clinton, containing an area of 1.66 hectares. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 the respondent valued this land as at 30 June 1993 at $41,000. The owners objected to this valuation, the objection was disallowed and they subsequently appealed to the Land Court against the respondent's decision on their objection, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value is $34,000.
The subject land is situated at Benaraby, about 7.9 kilometres south-west of Boyne Island and approximately 20 kilometres south of Gladstone. Access is by means of a bitumen sealed road and the property has reticulated water, electricity, telephone and garbage collection services. It is used for residential purposes.
The land has a long frontage to O'Connor Street on its southern boundary, while the northern and western boundaries of the block front onto Machine Creek, which is a near permanent watercourse. Approximately 1 hectare of the land consists of cleared low-lying flats along the creek, rising to an area of more elevated land towards the south-eastern corner of the property. It is this area upon which the house and shed are constructed. The evidence indicates that the low-lying flats are subject to severe flooding.
Mrs GM Mobbs gave evidence that the owners purchased the land in 1985 with the intention of erecting a house on the more elevated part of the land. At that time they did not realise the extent of the flooding on the creek flats. A house was subsequently erected, but it was found that the severity of the flooding prevented any use being made of the lower-lying land. While the flats along the creek provide a pleasant rural outlook from the house, Mrs Mobbs said that the owners would prefer not to have the low-lying land.
Mrs Mobbs tendered some photographs indicating the extent of the flooding and the height to which debris has been deposited in trees. It is her opinion that no use can be made of the land either as a garden or orchard or for the running of any stock because of the severity and force of the flooding.
Mrs Mobbs also gave evidence of the valuations that had been applied to neighbouring properties, most of which are larger and/or have less flooded area. She said that Lot 1 on RP616484 was valued at over $30,000, but all the area of 9,070 square metres is land above flood level. She also referred to Lot 1 on RP603674 which is valued at $43,500 and which has an area of 2.428 hectares. Mrs Mobbs said this property has only a small area subject to flooding and this occurs after the subject land is well under water. She said that it is used as a hobby farm as it has some fruit trees growing on it and grazes young cattle. However, Mrs Mobbs did not think these activities were on such a scale as to constitute a business.
Mrs Mobbs was aware that the Department had used sales in the nearby Panorama Estate to value the subject land. She said that allotments in this estate range in area from approximately 4,000 square metres to over 5,000 square metres and sold in the range of $37,500 to $41,000. Mrs Mobbs considered that they were not comparable to the subject land, because none of them was subject to flooding being higher sloping land. She thought that they had more services available to them than the subject land.
However, apart from the problems with flooding, Mrs Mobbs agreed that the subject property was a good house site with a pleasant rural outlook across a creek which was running most of the time. The point that she emphasised was that when they bought the property they did not realise the extent of the flooding and that they were not able to make use of the lower-lying land.
Evidence for the respondent was given by Mr Brian Thomas Coe, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Coe described the land as having an elevated site in the south-east corner falling to low-lying flats along Machine Creek. He stated that about 60 per cent of the land was subject to flooding and that Machine Creek is only seasonable.
Mr Coe valued the land at $41,000 by direct comparison with the sales of four properties all of which are situated in Panorama Court. The sale properties varied in area from 4,020 square metres to 5,140 square metres and sold between August 1992 and February 1993 for prices of between $37,500 and $41,000. Mr Coe described these lands as having similar services to the subject land and not subject to flooding. However, they are smaller than the subject land and he considers that they are inferior to it.
Mr Coe said the subject land is a fairly attractive site with a frontage to the creek. It has a narrow flat adjacent to the house which broadens out to the west. While the flat is subject to fairly severe flash flooding, Mr Coe said that an area of approximately 6,600 square metres is an elevated site of quite sufficient area on which to build a house. He agreed that it would be difficult to establish fruit trees or a garden on the lower land. However, he thought it may be safe to use it for grazing a cow or a horse if it was fenced in such a way that the stock are able to move to the higher land in times of flood.
In any case, Mr Coe said, the additional land does provide a buffer between the subject land and its neighbours ensuring privacy and a pleasant outlook. The site is adjacent to a school which Mr Coe saw as an advantage, even though Mrs Mobbs said that dust from the parking area of the school blows across the subject land.
Mr Coe admitted that the sales in Panorama Estate are not strictly comparable to the subject land, but they were the only sales available in the vicinity. He thought that the services were similar to those provided to the subject land. Even though he thought the sales might be a little more attractive, they were smaller and did not provide the amount of buffer that the subject land had available. He did not think there was a lot of difference between the views from the sale lands and those from the subject.
Mr Coe also gave evidence about the relativity of the lands in the area. He said that Lot 1 on RP 616484 had been valued at $32,000 and even though the whole 9,000 square metre site was above flood level, it did not have the frontage to the creek of the subject land, which he felt was an attraction. As for Lot 1 on RP603674, he had spoken to the owner of that land who told him that about one-third of it was subject to flooding. He admitted that it would not be as dangerous as the flooded area on the subject land, but it was such that it restricted the area where a house could be built. He thought that the relativity of $43,500 to $41,000 was reasonable.
The provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 require that the subject land be valued at such price as 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 the improvements did not exist.
In this case I am satisfied that the evidence given by Mr Coe justified the valuation of $41,000 being applied to the subject land. Mrs Mobbs conceded that it is an attractive site with a good rural outlook. She said that she and her husband were content to live on that land and did not wish to sell it. Her main concern was that such a large proportion of the land is subject to severe flash flooding. She was not aware of this when they purchased the land.
However, in my view Mr Coe has made sufficient allowance for this. There are 6,600 square metres of the subject land which are above flood level and which, on the evidence, provide a very satisfactory rural homesite in a rural environment. Despite the fact that the lower area along the creek is subject to flooding which prevents use being made of this land for horticultural or grazing purposes, as Mr Coe pointed out, it does provide a buffer which affords privacy to the homesite.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that the valuation is well-supported by sales and that Mr Coe was well aware of the drawbacks associated with the subject land. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed at $41,000.
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0