Welch v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
[2008] QLC 72
•1 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Welch v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2008] QLC 0072 PARTIES: Gay C Welch
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2007/0170 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation of land under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 1 May 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER Mr RS Jones ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation - comparable sales - presumption of correctness. APPEARANCES: Ms GC Welch, in person.
Mr G Smith, Senior Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Water, for the respondent.
Background:
Ms Welch, the appellant, has appealed against the assessment of the unimproved value attributed to her land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water.
The subject land is described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 128673, Parish of Redland, County of Stanley and is located on the south-western corner of Karawatha Street and Lynshanel Court in Springwood, a suburb of the City of Logan. The land comprises an area of 713 m² and is zoned "Residential 600" under the Town Plan of the Logan City Council. This zoning identifies the preferred land use being for urban residential development. As at the date of valuation, 1 October 2006, the land was (and is) being used for single unit dwelling purposes.
The unimproved value determined by the Chief Executive as at 1 October 2006 (effective as at 30 June 2007) is $220,000. In her notice of appeal Ms Welch estimates the unimproved value of the land to be $110,000. The appellant appeared in person. The Chief Executive was legally represented by Mr G Smith who is employed by the Chief Executive and relied on the evidence of Ms L Harvey a registered real estate valuer also employed by the Chief Executive.
Issues in the appeal
By reference to the various documents relied on by Ms Welch[1] and her oral testimony the main complaints concerning the subject land, which she contends the Chief Executive did not or did not adequately take into account, can be summarised as:
(i)The amount of parking along the frontage of the subject land to Karawatha Street, including parking at the reservoir site opposite the land.
(ii)The amount of traffic past the land particularly to and from the town house development on the opposite side of Karawatha Street.
(iii)The amount of works including roadworks and Telstra works which have been carried out along the footpath fronting the land.
(iv)The visibility of the reservoirs opposite.
(v)Poor video and other electronic reception.
(vi)The location of various services on or near the land including two "light poles", four "telephone pits" and a fire hydrant.
(viii)Proximity to various structures including a telecommunications tower, (or towers), a radio shack and pump house, two concrete reservoirs and industrial type gates.
[1]See generally Exhibit 1 – Notice of Appeal and Addendum, Exhibit 2 various photographs with annotations and Exhibit 5 written statement of Ms Welch.
As the evidence evolved it was my overall impression that the issues which concerned Ms Welch most were the passing traffic, the amount of parking, including of commercial and industrial vehicles, in Karawatha Street particularly on her side of the road and the continual disruption of what would otherwise be a quiet suburban environment.
Some Relevant Principles
Pursuant to s.33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA), Ms Welch has the burden of proving that the valuation appealed against is wrong. Further, pursuant to s.45(4) of the VLA, the burden of proving every ground of appeal relied on lies with her. In Brisbane City Council v The Valuer General[2] the High Court held that the presumption in favour of the correctness of the statutory valuation may be rebutted where it can be shown that the valuation is based on a wrong principle and/or involved a significant error of fact and/or is made by a fundamentally erroneous method.
[2](1977-78) 140 CLR 41 at 56-57; see also G Cominos & Co Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands 16 QLCR 311 at 331-332 (LAC).
Determination of the Appeal
While I accept that the matters complained of by Ms Welch would detrimentally impact on the enjoyment of the land, she did not put before me any probative evidence to show that the unimproved value applied by the Chief Executive was wrong. Ms Harvey gave evidence that in determining the unimproved value the facts and matters referred to by Ms Welch were taken into account. There was no serious challenge to the evidence of Ms Harvey.
In this appeal the appellant has produced no probative evidence and, in particular, no reliable sales evidence to support the level of unimproved value contended for by her. On the other hand, I am satisfied that in reaching her expert opinion Ms Harvey had regard to reliable sales evidence which was properly analysed and applied. Also, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Ms Harvey had sufficient regard to the matters raised by Ms Welch in determining the unimproved value of the subject land.
For all of the above reasons I have reached the conclusion and so find that Ms Welch has failed to show that the valuation appealed against is based on a wrong principle and/or involved a significant error of fact and/or was made by a fundamentally erroneous method. Accordingly, Ms Welch has failed to prove that the valuation appealed against is incorrect and ought be varied. In these circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.
Order:
The appeal is dismissed.
R S JONES
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0