Dale v Chief Executive , Department of Lands [1994] QLC 264

[1994] QLC 264 Re: Appeal against a Valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 17 JUNE, 1994 Local Government - Caboolture (AV93-104) Alan Laurence Dale v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands DECISION This is an appeal against a valuation of $155,000 applied by the Chief Executive, Department of Lands to Lot 148 on CG 851, Parish of Canning, for the purposes of the annual valuation of the area on 31st March, 1992. The relevant land is almost square in shape with an area of 63.94 hectares. The lot is situated on Old Toorbul Road about 5 kilometres north east of the Caboolture Post Office. Old Toorbul Road is a bitumen sealed road with earth gutters. Electricity, town water and telephone are available to the site. The land is used for rural homesite purposes. The appellant values the land at $105,000. This sum, he said, was derived by applying increases he thought fit to values applied some years ago. The method was not pursued. Rather the appeal was contested solely on the relativity between the subject lot and Lot 2 on RP34790, Parish of Toorbul containing an area of 61.02 hectares. This lot, which is of irregular shape with a frontage to Pumicestone Road on the northern boundary, is accessed by Volz Road. Lot 2 sold on 14 November, 1990 for $170,000. An analysis of the sale reflected an unimproved value $132,000. The value applied to the site for this annual valuation is $130,000. Former relativity between the sale lot and the subject lot is as follows - -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Lot 2 R.P.34790 Pumicestone Rd Valuation effective 30.6.90 $76,000 Valuation effective 30.6.91 $87,000 Valuation effective 30.6.93 $130,000 Subject Lot 148/CG 851 /5656/144 Old Toorbul Rd Valuation effective 30.6.90 $109,000 (=43.4% more than sale) Valuation effective 30.6.91 $130,000 (=49.4% more than sale) Valuation effective 30.6.93 $155,000 (=19.2% more than sale) Mr AR Thomason, who represented the appellant, could see some difficulty with this relationship. He, with his experience in this Court, is well aware that the question to be settled is the value which should apply to the subject land at the relevant date and that former relativity is of little or no assistance when, as is accepted in this case, there exists a comparable basis for valuation purposes. In short, the submission of Mr Thomason is that the only real difference between the subject lot and Lot 2 for rural homesite ptJrposes is that the subject lot has town water when the sale lot does not. Mr DR Lucas, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, who wrote the valuation is of a different opinion. The sale lot happens to be a sale upon which he relied in making the assessment of value. He described the subject lot as generally consisting of easy undulating coastal forest ridges with intervening watercourses low and swampy. A major wet area covers about one third of the lot. He says that any number of homesites exist on the frontage of Old Toorbul Road. The sale land is described as generally of low elevation with tidal influences off Ningi Creek which runs the eastern boundary of the lot. Mr Lucas said that although much of the sale lot floods and is prone to tidal inundation there is a good elevated homesite on a forest ridge in the south west corner. An aerial photograph produced by Mr -- 2 of 3 -- 3 Lucas shows mangrove and flooded land over the northern section and extending into the block proper. The photo shows the ridge and homesite area in the south western corner. The ridge has also been selected by the owner of the lot adjoining on the south as the safe and logical homesite area. Access to the site on the sale lot is by over one kilometre of gravel road to the boundary and for a considerable distance within the lot. Town water is not available to the site. Mr Lucas agrees that the lots_ are comparable in size and that the sale lot affords a good basis for valuing the subject lot, primarily because of their relationship in size. However as rural residential lots he emphasises that with respect to the subject lot a purchaser has a choice of sites along the road frontage whereas with the sale lot there is only a single suitable location for a homesite in the south west which must be accessed firstly by a gravel road and then for some distance internally. The analysis of the sale reflected a land value of $132,000. The applied value is $130,000. The elements of superiority of the subject lot which the evidence has established, leave me with the conclusion that the sale has been applied with due regard to matters which would be of relevance to a hypothetical prudent purchaser. In the circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Chief Executive is affirmed. D M WHITE President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --