Archos v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 244

- _::;.c,.wlll»U~-- ~ ... .............._......,:,,.._~ I a. r: ~.··., P'r) "'· p :•:'·Jr?~• c:-:;,' 'ff IJ ~ t i'. '.~ ;d: ·. r1 J ~di vh,"' t,, "'·" u .... -~, · , ·c.,,,, i1 6 -: ..__............ -...~--_.... _....,...:.... ,..,.,..--, ... ~~;:..,.-,...,._~~- Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane (Division of Yeerongpilly) (AV91-882) MD Archos v. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th June, 1992. This appeal is against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $80,000 for a "Residential A" zoned site described as Lot 29 on RP 131873-, Parish of Yeerongpilly containing an area ot5~6 m 2 • This parcel is situated at 49 Hedina Street, Sunnybank. The relevant date for the determination is = 31st March, 1990. · - The appellant contends within the Notice of Appeal for an unimproved value of $58,000. Mervyn Lancelot Archos, who is the father of the appellant, had the conduct of the appeal. Mr Archos "' objects to the method of valuation:- He say.s that an increase of some 50% on this annual valuation does not in realistic terms show a competence to quantatively value other than the use of a computer programming device of doubtful accuracy. Mr Arches stresses that imprudent purchasers or the sales speel of real estate agents should not be a guiding light on which values are to be based. Mr Archos does not believe that the valuations should be based on [1992] QLC 244 -- 1 of 2 -- - Page 2 - comparable sales. He referred in evidence to valuations of Lands in the suburbs of Hamilton and lndooroopilly but this reference is of no help to me in my task of determining the unimproved value of the subject land. The valuation under appeal was made by registered practicing valuer Ross Brian Cranstoun who describes the subject site as being at street level, of medium elevation and with a gentle cross-fall the rear north-east corner. Mr Cranstoun provided the Court with no sales evidence but relies upon relativity in unimproved values placed on the subject land in comparison with values placed on adjoining sites. This is a reasonable approach as no sales evidence was relied upon by the appellant. This Court has often commented that references to relative or percentage increases in valuations of lands within a local authority area upon revaluation has no merit as a ground of appeal. The best evidence is vacant sales evidence at or about the relevant date or, as in this case, evidence as to the adjoining land values what are statutorily presumed to be correct - (Vide Section 13 (7) of the Valuation of Land Act). Now in this case there simply has been no evidence provided by the appellant from which the Court could conclude that the value of the subject land should be $58,000. This being so then it follows that the onus resting upon the appellant under the provisions of Section 16(J) (3) of the Valuation of Land Act cannot be discharged. The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $80,000 is affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 2 of 2 --