Saunderson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 98

[1995] QLC 98

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

1 SEPTEMBER 1995

In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Valuation Roll No.: 16871
  Local Government:           Redland  (AV94-473)

Victor AJ and Kathleen MD Saunderson
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Brisbane)

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against the value placed on the subject land by the Chief Executive which was in the amount of $67,000 as at a relevant date of 30 June 1993.  The appellants contend for a value of $20,000. 
           Evidence on behalf of the appellants was given by Victor Albert Jack Saunderson.  His central concern was with the fact that the subject land was subject to inundation and ponding following heavy downfalls.  He said that blocks around the subject had been built up with fill which was, at the relevant date, a requirement of the local authority, whereas the subject land was not improved in this manner, as at the time that it was developed such a requirement did not exist.  Mr Saunderson explained that the local authority had made efforts to improve the drainage in the area by the construction of kerbing and channelling, however, this had not had the desired result on effectively reducing the impact of inundation on the subject land.  Photographic evidence showed brown discoloured water which lies on the land for up to 48 hours after heavy falls of rain.
           Evidence for the Chief Executive was given through John Reginald Dewar, a registered valuer, who provided his written valuation to the Court.  Mr Dewar described the subject land as comprising two lots totalling 1,664m² improved with a single-unit residence and therefore valued as one residential site.  The land has the usual services available to it and fronts Ruth Street which provides good access to the property and which is bitumen surfaced and has concrete kerbing and channelling.  Mr Dewar acknowledges the drainage problem which affects the subject land and did not dispute the evidence of Mr Saunderson in this regard.  He says, however, that this disability is sufficiently catered for in his valuation. 
           Mr Dewar referred to three sales, each with an appropriate relationship with the other, and only one of which needs to be referred to in this decision.  That sale comprised a residential block of 876m² which sold at an analysed value of $66,000 from which $64,000 was applied.  The block is located in Price Avenue and part of its rear boundary abuts one of the lots contained in the subject parcel.  The sale block was described by Mr Dewar as having better access than does the subject as frontage of the sale is at street level.  Importantly, drainage on the sale block is superior to that of the subject.  Given, however, that the sale is inferior in shape and only about half the area of the subject, Mr Dewar concluded that overall the sale was inferior to the subject, applying $67,000 to the Saunderson's block.  He had prior to objection placed $73,000 on the subject block, however, on learning that the Council roadworks had not been effective in managing water flow onto the subject land, had reduced the figure. 
           In his evidence Mr Saunderson referred to a 1989 decision of this Court with respect to a previous appeal relating to the subject land.  That decision reveals that the valuation of this land was before the Court in 1982, as well as 1989, and that on each occasion it was Mr Dewar who gave evidence in support of the then Valuer-General's valuation.  The decision of the Court in 1989 also notes that the relativity of the subject with another lot, Lot 104, was such that the subject was valued at about 15% above that which applied to Lot 104.  I note that the value which applies to Lot 104 as at 30 June 1993 is $68,000, that is $1,000 more than Mr Dewar says ought to apply to the subject - a reversal of the relativity which existed previously.  The comparison between the subject land and the sales, in particular Sale 1 referred to above, and the new relativity between the subject and Lot 104, indicates to me that Mr Dewar has fully considered the need for an allowance for the drainage problem which has worsened on the subject land since the matter was last considered by the Court.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

RP SCOTT
  MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT