Peckover v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 64
•17 May 1996
|
BRISBANE
17 MAY 1996
Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Shire of Beaudesert.
(AV95-08).
Ronald FC Peckover and Patricia M Peckover
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Beaudesert)
D E C I S I O N
Mr and Mrs Peckover are the owners of land described as Lot 35 on Registered Plan 198648, Parish of Witheren, County of Ward, containing an area of 22.68 ha. As at 30 June 1993, the respondent determined the unimproved value of that land at $124,000. An objection against that valuation was disallowed and the owners appealed to the Land Court against the respondent's decision upon their objection, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value is $108,000.
The subject land is situated in Limerick Drive, approximately 5 km south-east of the town of Canungra. Access to Limerick Drive is gained from Beechmont Road and Upper Coomera Road. Those roads are bitumen-sealed carriageways and provide all-weather access, although there are minor local flooding problems on causeways. Postal, electricity and telephone services are available to the property.
The land is an irregular hatchet shaped parcel with a narrow access “handle” to Limerick Drive. The whole of the land is moderately to steeply undulating country, with moderate slopes along the access handle, then rising quite steeply. A circuitous access track has been constructed to the homesite located near the geographic centre of the property, which is on higher land affording extensive rural and hinterland views. To the west and the south the land is more steeply sloping.
Mr RFC Peckover appeared and gave evidence. He stated that the owners purchased the property in 1984 for $65,000 in an unimproved state. The subject land was the largest block in an estate and, because it was the last remaining land, could not be subdivided further. At that time it was steep and scrubby, with lantana and rainforest regrowth and with a narrow road frontage of only 27.417 metres. For those reasons, the owners considered that they were able to buy the property at a reduced price. The only improvements at the time were boundary fencing and some clearing where grass had been sown.
Mr Peckover said that they purchased the property with the intention of running cattle and, in particular, raising foster calves. They moved to the property in 1988, living in a caravan for the first twelve months while they carried out improvements on the property, repaired and constructed new boundary fencing where necessary, built one kilometre of internal road, put in four paddocks, a dam, water tanks, troughing, a machinery shed, a feed shed and built a set of steel yards with a ramp and race.
At that time they ran a pilot scheme with dairy cows and poddy calves. They purchased ten cows with calves or in calf and 19 calves. They were happy with the overall results and the experience gained from the pilot scheme and felt that they would be able to enlarge and improve the operation.
At that point they temporarily abandoned the project while they built their house, which was completed in 1990. By that time they were into a full scale drought which lasted for the last five years, during which time they have had to sell off most of their stock and any progeny. By supplementary feeding every year they have maintained a small number of stock, mainly good foster cows.
Mr Peckover claimed that the land should be valued under the provisions of section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, as land used for the purposes of “farming”, as defined therein. However, that matter was not raised in his grounds of appeal. Under the provisions of the Act (s.45(4) the owner is limited to the grounds included in his appeal. Therefore, I could not entertain argument about whether the land was entitled to a concessional valuation as land which is used for purposes of “farming”.
Mr Peckover stated that the land was steep, scrubby, rough in places, and was country which was subject to land slips, although no slips had occurred on the subject land. However, a slip from a neighbouring property had affected part of the internal access road.
Mr Peckover explained that his estimate of unimproved value of $108,000 was the amount of the previous valuation. He contended that there had been no increase in the valuation in the interim period. To support this contention, he referred to three sales in the vicinity of Canungra, with areas of between 20.04 ha and 39.66 ha, which sold between July 1992 and February 1993, for prices of $170,000, $35,000 and $205,000, all with some improvements on them. The respondent had applied unimproved values to those lands of $217,500, $95,000 and $215,000 respectively. Although Mr Peckover had not inspected those properties, his point was that the unimproved values applied by the respondent exceeded the sale price in each case.
Evidence for the respondent was given by Mr DA Routh, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Routh explained that he had valued the subject land as a rural residential site and had disregarded any potential for subdivision. He had therefore used sales which also had no potential for subdivision. Mr Routh conceded the ruggedness of the country, but emphasised the extensive rural and hinterland views from what he agreed to be the best homesite on the property. Mr Routh also conceded that it was difficult and expensive to construct the access road to that homesite.
Mr Routh said that in the Canungra locality there were 21 sales in the valuation period, varying from small blocks of 1,200 m2 up to approximately 40 ha. He conceded that five of those sales showed a decrease from the previous values applied, while eight of them showed increases of 20% or more. He had adopted a uniform increase of 15% in that area. He felt that there was a “strong demand” for larger blocks above four ha even in the economic climate that prevailed at the relevant date.
He could not explain why the five sales were for prices less than the applied unimproved values, but mentioned that there were several properties held by mortgagees in possession, following failed development projects in the area.
To support his valuation Mr Routh made reference to two sales. The first was of an area of 36.05 ha, situated in Flying Fox Road, zoned "Rural", which sold in June 1993, for $117,000. Mr Routh analysed that sale to show an unimproved value of $109,800, and applied an unimproved value of $65,000 as at the relevant date.
His Sale No. 2 has an area of 1.202 ha, is situated in Coomera Road, is zoned "Rural", and sold in an unimproved state in May 1993, for $67,500, which value Mr Routh applied at the relevant date.
According to Mr Routh, both sale properties are inferior to the subject land. Sale No. 1 is made up of broken creek flats, rising steeply to the rear boundary. He considered that it had inferior access and location, was steeper to the rear of the property with no plateau such as the homesite on the subject land, and had limited views.
Sale No. 2 was described as undulating open forest with easy slopes. It has similar location to the subject land but is much smaller, in a hollow, with no views.
In his oral evidence, Mr Routh also referred to the relativity of values applied to other lands in the area. To the smaller properties of from 1 ha to 1.3 ha fronting Limerick Drive, he had applied unimproved values of between $60,000 and $70,000. To the 31.81 ha block to the south, he had applied $180,000, because it was not quite as steep and although more broken, would be a more useful block. He had valued a 20 ha block to the south-west of the subject land at $172,500 because it was higher in elevation and had even better views. Other adjoining land had been valued as land used for farming purposes and therefore not comparable.
In addition to his evidence, Mr Peckover tended a statement by Mr WG Zastrow, of Countryman Real Estate at Canungra. For what it was worth, Mr Zastrow's statement was to the effect that the real estate market in the Canungra had been very flat during the last two years and had actually decreased. However, as Mr Zastrow was not called to give evidence, to swear to the truth of the statement and to be cross-examined as to its validity, I can give little weight to his statement, particularly in the light of the evidence produced by Mr Routh.
Mr Peckover also referred to the sale of Lot 26, adjoining Mr Routh’s Sale No. 1, in May 1995 for $85,000 for 39.08 ha. However, Mr Routh said that it was part of the sale of an aggregation of land from the Moriarty family in circumstances where the land was leased back to the purchasers.
After considering the whole of the evidence, including the relativity of values applied to surrounding properties by Mr Routh, I have come to the conclusion that the subject land is unique in a number of ways. It appears to be the last property in an estate where the better land was subdivided along road frontages. It was therefore left with a long access handle with a narrow frontage to Limerick Drive, opening out to an irregular shaped parcel which included a homesite towards the middle of the property on a higher terrace. However, the terrain made construction of an access road difficult and expensive. The circuitous route along the access handle towards the northern boundary and then back to the house site, which is clearly shown on the aerial photograph exhibit, indicates this difficulty. Mr Peckover said that concrete tracks had to be constructed in places which would otherwise prove impassable. Despite Mr Peckover's intention to run cattle on the property, at this stage the land must be considered as having a highest and best use as a rural homesite. It is clear from the evidence that there are good views from the most appropriate homesite. However, considering the ruggedness of the terrain and the difficulty of gaining access to the homesite, it might well be an unattractive proposition to most purchasers. Mr Routh said that the homesite area is attractive because of its views and the fact that it is away from other people. Although it would be physically possible to build a home on the hatchet handle towards the Limerick Drive frontage, to do so would be to deny enjoyment of the land’s best features.
While I can understand Mr Routh's reasoning to apply 15% increase to the subject land based on the sales which he had available, I feel that in all the circumstances a further allowance should be made for the particular disabilities suffered by the land. Therefore, I propose to make a further allowance of $9,000 to recognise those disabilities.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($115,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0