Stevens v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2004] QLC 108
•6 December 2004
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Stevens v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0108 PARTIES: Mark Stevens
(applicant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO:
AV2003/0379
DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 6 December 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Caboolture MEMBER Dr NG Divett ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 3 on SP 152318 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000) is affirmed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation – Factors in valuation – Restrictions on use – Voluntary Conservation Agreement – Increased maintenance cost – Impact upon valuation. APPEARANCES: Mr M Stevens for the appellant
Mr P Rabaa, Counsel appeared for the respondent
Background:
This matter relates to land at 34 Esplanade South, Donnybrook and described as Lot 3 on SP 152318, Parish of Toorbul. The subject land has a total area of 1.943 hectares, comprising 0.311 hectares of unencumbered building site and 1.632 hectares of undeveloped land encumbered by a Voluntary Conservation Agreement. The subject land is located about 18.65 kilometres by road north-east of Caboolture town centre, and has access to the Esplanade, which is a bitumen strip dual carriageway. There is no kerbing or channelling and no roadside drainage line. All normal town utility services are available except sewerage. Power is overhead wires. The subject land is zoned Special Rural under the Town Plan of the Caboolture Shire of 12 March 1988, effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 2002. The key issues are the nature of the land, access to the land, and impact of a Voluntary Conservation Agreement and comparison of sales.
On 24 February 2003 the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $190,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive reduced that figure on 1 July 2003 to $180,000. The appellant has now appealed claiming the unimproved value should be $140,000, the same value adopted by the Chief Executive for the previous valuation.
Mr Mark Stevens appeared and gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr P Rabaa of Counsel appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Damien Jones, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation.
History of the land -
Mr Stevens is a very elderly gentleman who has been involved in projects of caring for the natural environment at Donnybrook since 1946. The current property includes natural vegetation which provides habitat areas for native birds and animals, and also operates in the form of a wildlife hospital for injured wildlife. Mr Stevens provides a video recording of his activities, which clearly demonstrate his personal commitment and experience to wildlife and vegetation protection. He advises that he is regularly visited by people with similar aspirations, who applaud his efforts and preservation. Mr Jones agrees with those understandings.
While Mr Stevens concedes that he has little understanding of valuation matters, he argues that the impact of the Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) should really be recognised by the Caboolture Shire Council (the Council), as a greater community contribution than is their current policy. Mr Stevens really believes that the land under such a covenant should become free of rating charges. However he accepts that this Court has no powers to direct the Council in that regard, so he seeks a reduction in the unimproved value, which would then reduce his current rating burden.
Mr Jones advises that the previous valuation at 1 October 2000 had been $185,000 as a single house site of 1.943 hectares. That figure was reduced to $140,000 following the VCA agreement. That reflected $105,000 for the 3,110 square metre area, and $35,000 for the balance of 1.632 hectares. The new valuation at 1 October 2002 was originally $190,000, but reduced after the objection to $180,000 (29%). The 3110 square metre area was then assessed at $148,000, and the balance rounded down to $32,000, to provide any benefit to Mr Stevens, in spite of all of the Donnybrook lands increasing by at least 20%. Mr Jones argues that had the land not been subject to the VCA, the land would have increased from $185,000 to $260,000. At $180,000 the total area of 1.943 hectares shows a rate of $92,640 per hectare.
The nature of the land –
The subject land is generally level with a slight cross-fall from north to south. The frontage to the Esplanade is about the highest along the Esplanade, falling gently towards the south, and falling steeper to the north. The subject land is generally one of the most elevated sites in Donnybrook, and is above tidal surge impacts and is generally flood-free. The land is generally uncleared with large open woodland eucalypt species, but has been partly cleared along the eastern frontage to the Esplanade, and also part of the north-western corner.
A concern for Mr Stevens is the current wet boggy nature of the eastern part of the subject land, where vehicle access from the bitumen carriageway can be difficult. The soil is sandy, but becomes boggy during periods of intense rainfall, as there is no roadside drainage line along the Esplanade carriageway. There are existing concrete car tracks from the existing dwelling to the front boundary, but no existing formed access from the bitumen carriageway to the front boundary. However Mr Stevens agrees that the bogging problems only occur during heavy rains, and do not occur every year. Mr Jones had not been aware of the bogging problems until his recent inspection of the site one week before the hearing. However he argues that similar problems also occur on his comparative sales evidence. Mr Jones also notes that Mr Stevens could overcome that problem by providing further concrete tracking to the carriageway, as exists in other parcels in that area. Mr Jones advises that only if the subject land had been unique in respect of those bogging problems, then he would have then reconsidered his valuation.
In respect of views of the water from the subject land, it is agreed that there is a bank of timber along the eastern side of the Esplanade area, which restricts water views. Mr Jones advises that apparently about 10 years ago there had been some clearing about 20 to 25 metres in width through those trees towards the south-east. There are now only distant water glimpses along that old clearing towards Bribie Island. It is also agreed that there is a fall from the top of a bank to the east of those trees, where the land falls from a high cliff face towards the water edge, where mangroves exist. However the limited distant water views tend to be over the tops of those mangroves. The trees in the Esplanade which restrict the water views are under the control of the Council.
In respect of the general quality of the subject land, Mr Stevens provides an opinion by a local real estate agent of the likely value of the land if it was not restricted by the current VCA. That opinion suggests that a value of about $500,000 would be appropriate. While there was no evidence given to that opinion, Mr Jones does not reject that level of value today, as an unregistered house site in that area, but feels that a value of about $260,000 would have been more likely at 1 October 2002.
In terms of other access to the subject land, Mr Jones notes that there is a bitumen access in Scott Street to the north of the subject land right up to the northern boundary of the land. However he agrees that because of the excavation on Scott Street, access to the subject land would require some construction for vehicle access to be possible. However he argues that pedestrian access is possible from Scott Street. He notes that there is also a possible vehicle access from the bitumen sealed Mary Street to the west of the subject land. While the surface soils are agreed to be sandy, the sub-surface materials are concluded to be old alluvial deposits from a former era.
Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) –
It is agreed that the subject land is mostly covered with a VCA (Covenant on SP 155459), except for about 3,110 square metres of the existing house site in the north-eastern corner of the land. Under the conditions of that VCA the appellant is responsible for a high level of maintenance costs in order to eradicate pests and weeds. Because of its proximity to neighbouring houses, Mr Stevens must also maintain a fire break as a safety precaution, and he also must continually remove litter and weeds deposited on the site. To that end he has purchased a tractor for maintenance purposes. Because of the close proximity to residential areas, he argues that he has additional maintenance burdens not evident on more remote VCA areas. However he argues that the Council does not recognise those extra burdens appropriately, as the rest of the VCA area must be weeded by hand, which is now beyond his health, and too expensive to hire labour.
Mr Stevens advises that the current indebtedness to the Council for rates is placing a heavy burden upon his War Pension, and for that reason he seeks relief by reducing the unimproved value of the land. He argues that while he approached the Council to create the VCA in order to preserve the natural habitat, the rate charges still required, in addition to the heavy maintenance cost, are proving an intolerable burden. Mr Stevens believes that he really is being penalised for his efforts to prevent any environmental degradation.
Mr Stevens provides a copy of the VCA (Exhibit 3) which was entered into by the owner and the Council in November 2002. Under that agreement Mr Stevens is provided with some support by the Council in respect of an annual inspection, a management plan, supply of plants, a property rate rebate of $300 per year, and a cash weed or material rebate at $500 for the first year. Under those conditions Mr Stevens agrees to manage the weed eradication, and to replant specified plant species as required by the Council. The current management plan continues until November 2007, and includes penalties against the owner for failing to maintain the VCA, including recovery of Council costs required to enter the land and perform the work itself. The VCA is binding upon both the existing owner, and any new owner who acquires the land. Disputes between the parties may be resolved, if necessary, by mediation, with final relief determined by a court.
Apart from his personal desire to protect the natural heritage, Mr Stevens sees his vegetated parcel as providing an alternative resting place for local bird life, thus protecting them from major migratory birds which annually come to feed at a National Park site (Ramsar) located about 400 metres from the subject land. Mr Stevens notes that those migrating birds tend to arrive from Siberia, and can be some threat to the local native birds.
Mr Stevens rejects the suggestion by Mr Rabaa that the VCA area can be used to fence in certain small wildlife, or for the construction of several ponds which contain fish. Mr Stevens notes that the fish ponds are used to eradicate mosquito larvae, which become a problem during wet periods. Mr Stevens also notes that it would be illegal to fence in wildlife, unless there were some special reason to do so. He rejects that the VCA area provides some other use other than habitat protection purposes.
Mr Jones notes that in his valuation he has allowed a discounted 30% for the impact of the VCA, in line with the directions of the President of this Court in a similar situation in IH and CC Herbert v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV98-288), 6 August 1999, unreported. Mr Jones advises that it is now the departmental policy when dealing with VCAs, or natural conservation arrangements, to allow a deduction of about 25% from the valuation if it had not been impacted by a VCA. Mr Stevens comments that he understands that Gympie Council provide a greater incentive for owners of VCA land, but he could not confirm those arrangements.
Comparison of sales –
Mr Stevens provides no sales evidence to support his estimate of the unimproved value, and he argues that his main concern is to prevent any further escalation of rating indebtedness. Mr Jones provides the following sales and comparable lands to the 3,110 square metre building site situated on the subject land.
· Sale 1 – (40 Esplanade, Donnybrook – Lot 3 on RP 234146). This is a 1,722 square metre vacant parcel located about 100 metres south of the subject land. The sale is less elevated than the subject land, and has no water views from ground level, because of Esplanade vegetation. The sale is smaller, has less outlook and is narrower frontage than the subject land, and is overall inferior. The sale sold in January 2002 for $118,000, was analysed at $115,500, and applied at $99,000 (86%). The sale shows a 50% increase from the previous valuation.
· Sale 2 – (Duke Street, Meldale – Lot 39 on RP 76575). This is a 1,275 square metre vacant parcel, located about 3.5 kilometres south of the subject land. This sale has been filled and has direct frontage to Elimbah Creek, but is a tidal surge zone from Pumicestone Passage. The sale is inferior in size, water outlook and services, and has a different type of direct water access. Overall the sale is inferior. The sale sold in November 2001 for $158,000, was analysed at $128,000 after allowing for a shed, and applied at $125,000 (98%). The sale shows a 25% increase.
· Sale 3 – (79 Esplanade, Toorbul – Lot 5 on RP 93705). This is a 607 square metre vacant parcel located about 4.6 kilometres south-east of the subject land. The sale is a level esplanade lot with good water views to Pumicestone Passage and Bribie Island. The sale is above tidal surge areas, and is inferior in size, elevation and frontage to the subject land, but with superior ground level water views. Overall the sale is slightly inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in June 2002 for $160,000, was analysed at $157,500, and applied at $145,000 (92%). The sale shows a 53% increase.
· Sale 4 – (15 Esplanade, Toorbul – Lot 18 on RP 108507). This is a 531 square metre vacant parcel located about 5.8 kilometres south-east of the subject land. The sale is similar to Sale 3, but smaller in size. Overall the sale is inferior to the subject land. The sale sold in February 2002 for $133,000, was analysed at $132,000, and applied at $120,000 (91%). The sale shows a 50% increase.
[22]
· Sale 5 – (1050 Pumicestone Road, Toorbul – Lot 4 on RP 112346). The sale is a 4.79 hectare rural parcel located about 4.2 kilometres south-west of the subject land. The sale generally is level and timbered, with an esplanade restricted access to Elimbah Creek which is unnavigable at that location. The Toorbul Refuse Transfer Station is close by, and the only services which are available are electricity and telephone. The sale is superior in size, but far inferior in water outlook and services, and is overall inferior. The sale sold in January 2002 for $130,000, was analysed at $125,000 and applied at $111,000 (89%). The sale shows a 25% increase. The sale compares at $23,200 per hectare to the encumbered 1.632 hectares of the subject land at $20,000 per hectare.
[23]
· Sale 6 – (104 Campbell Parade, Beachmere – Lot 39 on RP 140239). This is a 2.01 hectare vacant parcel located about 10.8 kilometres south of the subject land. The sale is an undulating lot with a wet depression in the centre, and mostly timbered. It is a regular parcel located back from the beach with an esplanade restricted frontage to Deception Bay, but good ground level views to the water through trees. The sale is similar in size, water views and location, but inferior in topography and elevation, and is superior overall. The sale provides a good comparison of $119,400 per hectare for the total 1.943 hectares subject land, which is rated at $96,240 per hectare. The sale sold in March 2001 for $270,000, was analysed at $262,000, and applied at $240,000 (92%). The sale shows a 14% increase.
[24]
· Sale 7 – (32 Georgia Street, Godwin Beach – Lot 2 on SP 115592). This is a 2 hectare vacant parcel located about 9.4 kilometres south-east of the subject land. The sale is a level low wallum site that is mostly timbered, with a wet depression in its northern part. The sale is removed from the beach, with no views of the water, and limited access. The sale is similar in size, zoning and services, but has inferior water views. Overall the sale is far inferior, but provides some comparisons at $49,000 per hectare for the 1.632 hectares of the subject land at $20,000 per hectare. The sale sold in January 2002 for $110,000, was analysed at $104,000 ($52,000 per hectare) and applied at $98,000 (94%). The sale shows a 23% increase.
Mr Jones notes that all of his sales have shown increases of at least 25% for waterfront parcels. He notes that in fact some waterfront parcels reflected increases of 50% to 53%. He notes that Sale 1 has similar access to water, but is lower than the subject land. Mr Jones advises that Donnybrook was the only area in that locality that has elevated land like the subject land. He notes in fact that on the smaller Sales 3 and 4, the Council is requesting only two bedroom residences in view of the need for septic disposal trenches. Mr Jones notes that the 3,110 square metre unencumbered land on the subject is valued at $148,000.
In respect of his Sales 5, 6 and 7 Mr Jones notes that those parcels indicate that there is some value on the timbered back lands in that area. On that basis he argues that without a VCA upon the 1.632 hectares of the subject land, Sale 7 indicates that an additional $100,000 would be appropriate for that extra area. He argues that his application of only $33,000 to $34,000 for that VCA extra land is a fair recognition of that encumbrance. He notes Sale 7 does not have the esplanade frontage evident on the subject land.
In concluding his valuation, Mr Jones has estimated the subject land as a single residence site of 3,110 square metres, with attached timbered area under VCA of 1.632 hectares. On that basis he argues that 3,110 square metre parcel is valued at $148,000, and the 1.632 hectare balance is valued at $20,000 per hectare or $32,640, giving an overall value of $180,000 after rounding.
Decision:
Before proceeding to the evidence, I note that the subject land has been valued under s.17 of the Act as a site for a single residence as follows:
"17.(1) In making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house or for purposes of farming, any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other purposes shall be disregarded irrespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made.
(2) In subsection (1) – 'single dwelling house' means –
(a) a dwelling used solely for habitation by a single household;"
On that basis Mr Jones has valued the 3,110 square metre house site as the key part of s.17 comparisons, and the remaining 1.632 hectares under VCA as an additional area attached to that parcel. The use of that parcel for environmental purposes is seen only as part of the residential occupation of the site.
In respect of the nature of the land there is no difference between the parties, except in respect of some traffic movement problems entering the Esplanade in very wet weather. Mr Jones' comparisons have similar disabilities, and those matters are therefore covered in the comparisons provided. Mr Stevens really accepts that Mr Jones has fairly valued the subject land, but has problems with the whole rating process of the Council.
A similar concern was raised by the appellant in the matter of Poole Island Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (RV98-913) 25 June 2001, unreported. In that matter the appellant Dr Rosanove sought to challenge the method of valuation outlined in the Valuation of Land Act 1944; suggesting that the Act was outdated, and should be amended. In rejecting such a proposal the Land Appeal Court noted at para (3):
"The jurisdiction of this Court on appeal and the Land Court at first instance does not extend to a consideration of such matters as rates or rent, but is confined to valuations made under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. That was made clear by the Land Appeal Court in NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, where the Land Appeal Court said at 381:
'The Valuer General and the Court are concerned with finding unimproved value and not with the amount of rates that may be levied as a result. Rates are fixed by local authorities and may be varied annually according to the fiscal requirements of the Local Authority concerned. Any such variation may be made at any time during a valuation period and may be entirely independent of a new and increased valuation.'"
In the current matter Mr Stevens' appeal must be considered in light of the legislation which is the direction of the Parliament. It is within that context that all parties must seek to determine the unimproved value of the land. It is this Court's responsibility to ensure that the Chief Executive follows that direction. Any amelioration of rate indebtedness to the Council lies entirely within the power of the Council itself to provide a remedy.
Impact of the VCA –
The current VCA entered into by Mr Stevens has as its specific purpose to protect and preserve the native vegetation and environmental values of the land in perpetuity. It is a covenant registered against the title to the land, under which the owner agrees to take all reasonable measures to protect and maintain the vegetation and environment; and for which the Council provides certain assistance and relief against rating charges. Under those conditions it is similar to a Nature Conservation Agreement (NCA) issued under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Those similarities are recognised under the Chief Executive's practice procedures implemented by Mr Jones in the current matter.
Under the practice procedures in respect of NCAs or VCAs, the departmental valuer is to treat each so affected parcel on a case by case basis on the individual merits of each property. Issues to be addressed include the advantages achieved under the agreement, and whether comparable sales evidence dictates any diminution in value because of the agreement. Where there is no market evidence to indicate the level of impact of a VCA, then guidance should be taken from this Court's decision in IH and CC Herbert v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV98-288), 6 August 1999, unreported, where a reduction of 25% in the unimproved value may be appropriate.
Under the terms of an NCA, that agreement can only be terminated if the landholder who entered into the NCA requests its termination, and if the Minister agrees that the agreement is no longer needed. Under the VCA of the current matter, Mr Stevens has forgone his right to relinquish any residual right to terminate the covenant, which continues in perpetuity in favour of the Council unless both he and the Council are in agreement to release the Covenant under s.97(D) of the Land Title Act. On that basis the VCA is on all fours with any NCA, and Mr Jones was correct in applying that practice procedure to his valuation. In that respect Mr Jones has allowed any benefit of doubt to the owner by applying a discount of 30% to the value of the 1.632 hectares of land covered under the VCA.
Now while Mr Jones has allowed a 30% reduction in the unimproved value for the impact of the VCA, it is worth noting the potential that such restrictions can have in the marketplace. In the matter of Herbert v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (supra), the President had considered that the NCA in that matter had removed "any element of potential for subdivision" (p.9) and he concluded that on the sales evidence in that matter a reduction from $79,000 to $60,000 (25%) was appropriate. The President based that conclusion on an estimate of $10,000 for the agreement affected area (6.901 hectares) and $50,000 for the balance of the land (1,495 square metres) upon which a house could be built. It is noted that under s.17(1) of the Act, any potential for subdivision must be ignored anyhow as the subject land is valued as a single house site, irrespective of the presence of the VCA.
In respect of the habitat benefits of the VCA on the subject land, Mr Stevens advises that local birdlife is protected from migratory birds from Siberia who annually migrate to a local national park (Ramsar), located 400 metres from the subject land. While Mr Stevens does not explain that "Ramsar" connection, it is likely to be associated with an international agreement on waterfowl habitat areas. Under the "Convention of Wetlands of International Importance especially as Wildfowl Habitat", agreed at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971, certain wetland areas throughout Australia have now been set aside for habitat areas.
Those matters were explored by the Federal Court of Australia in Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Greentree and Others [2004] FCA 74, 11 June 2004, unreported. In that matter clearing of certain protected wetlands unlawfully occurred in 2003, and were subsequently sown to wheat (paragraph [187]). In the Federal Court, Sackville J found that a serious breach of the law had occurred in a protected area, and imposed penalties against the owner, and possible remediation relief to the Minister. Clearly the matter of breaches of habitat control is now gaining significance throughout Australia, and any prudent purchaser of the subject land would be conscious of those restrictions under the VCA.
Now a VCA has comparable restrictions upon the owner of land as those enshrined in a Vegetation Preservation Order (VPO), which can be implemented under legislation and enforced compulsorily by a Council under its planning ordinances. The only real difference between a VCA and a VPO lies essentially in the voluntary nature of the former, compared to the obligatory nature of the latter. However under both restrictions the landowner is prohibited from certain activities in respect of vegetation preservation.
To draw some analogy between a VCA and a VPO, I note the history of the legislation enshrining power to the Brisbane City Council to determine VPOs was explored by the Full Court of Australia in Queensland in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 QdR 600, from p.603 onwards. That matter dealt with lands at Runcorn in Brisbane, where about 32 hectares of land was covered by a VPO, and was subsequently cleared unlawfully. A fine of $20,000 was imposed upon the appellant. That history supports the findings of Estate of LV Bressow (Decd) v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV98-593), 23 December 1999, unreported, emphasising the particular sections of Chapter 22 of the Council Ordinances. Those sections in essence provide powers to consider the need to protect a tree (s.5); the issuing of a protection order (s.12); the prohibition for any person to destroy or interfere with that tree so protected (s.23(1)); and the penalties for such unlawful interference. The legislation to introduce VPOs came into force on 30 November 1991. The Council's local ordinance in chapter 22, s.5(d) providing for a VPO was lawfully established under s.26 (since repealed) of the City of Brisbane Act 1924, and is therefore lawful, and provides a serious consideration for any prospective prudent purchaser of land so impacted.
In Bone v Mothershaw the major thrust of the action was in respect of the authority of the Council to require rehabilitation of certain freehold land protected under a VPO, which had been unlawfully cleared. The Court of Appeal upheld that neither chapter 22, or a VPO made under that Council legislation was invalid; and that such legislation could prohibit change to or use of freehold land without involving acquisition, or providing compensation. In that matter McPherson JA relevantly noted at para [25]:
"The present case is different. The Council has not taken any interest of Mr Bone, so as to attract the operation of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise. He retains unimpaired, for what it is worth, his estate in fee simple absolute in the land. He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value. There is, as is attested by an affidavit from the valuer provided at the hearing, no doubt that the value of the land has been greatly reduced. But the law provides no remedy for this action or its consequences when it is the result of legislation validly passed under law-making authority that by its terms of nature authorises or permits such an outcome."
In his consenting decision in Bone v Mothershaw, the words of Williams JA in noting the concerns of the appellant, and also in light of the more recent findings of the New South Wales Court of Appeal have some significant. Williams JA noted at paragraph [33]:
"Counsel for the appellant in this case essentially attempted to contend that the bylaw here was so unreasonable that it could not be said to be a law for the welfare and good government of the citizens of Brisbane applying the Lynch test. In particular he referred to the fact that by virtue of s.23(2)(d)(ii) the mowing of lawn could even constitute a breach of a Vegetation Protection Order. Also, the removal of a tree blown over in a storm and thereby creating a nuisance could not be removed without Council approval (of course upon payment of the prescribed fee) unless it had 'become dangerous'. While the apparent unreasonableness of the bylaw in those regards is a matter of concern, the problems thereby identified are ultimately for the elected representatives of the community and not for the courts to resolve."
Clearly the findings of Bone v Mothershaw, direct that land severely impacted by a VPO has suffered some diminution in value. The question in the current matter is whether Mr Jones has allowed enough discount in his assessment of the VCA.
Comparison of sales -
Mr Stevens provides no sales to dispute Mr Jones' comparisons. In respect of Mr Jones' valuation of the 3,110 square metre house site on the subject land, I have the following comparisons:
SaleArea Applied Value Comparison
11,722 m² $99,000 Smaller/inferior
21,275 m² $125,000 Smaller/inferior
3607 m² $145,000 Much smaller/slightly inferior
4531 m² $120,000 Much smaller/inferior
54.79 ha. $111,000 Larger/inferior
6.2.01 ha $240,000 Superior
7.2 ha $98,000 Far inferior
Subject (part) 3,110 m² $148,000 -
In respect of the balance area of 1.632 hectares of the subject land under the VCA, Mr Jones provides the following comparisons:
SaleArea Rate Comparison
5.4.79 ha $23,200 per ha Inferior/no VCA
7.2.0 ha $49,000 per ha Inferior/ no VCA
Subject (part) 1.632 ha $20,000 per ha 30% for VCA
If I compared the 1.632 hectares of the subject land before allowing for the 30% reduction, I find that equates to $26,000 per hectare. Mr Jones also draws comparisons with Sale 6 of 2 hectares at $119,400 per hectare compared to the total subject land of 1.943 hectares at $96,400 per hectare.
Those comparisons suggest that the $32,000 allowed for the 1.632 hectares of land impacted by the VCA is a conservative figure. I note that the 1.632 hectares of the VCA land was previously valued at $35,000 ($21,446 per hectare) at 1 October 2000. There is nothing to suggest that Mr Jones has made any error.
Summary:
In summarising this matter I note that s.33 of the Act directs:
"33. Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered."
I am also aware that s.45(4) of the Act directs in respect of a notice of appeal in this matter:
"45.(4) Such notice shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner."
The evidence does not indicate that Mr Jones has made any error, or followed a wrong principle in this matter. On that basis the onus of proof has not been discharged.
Conclusion:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am not persuaded that the appellant has proved his case. The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 3 on SP 152318 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000) is affirmed.
NG Divett
Member of the Land Court
0
1
0