Casey & Anor [1992] QLC 215

rrr-·~· ==~~?5DREii ~-w• 'A:t'l'''aJ>peal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Shire of Hinchinbrook. (AV91-398) R.C. & J.I. Casey v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Ingham) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 31st March, 1992. As at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of land described as Lot 54 on Plan CWL 3561, Parish of Waterview, County of Cardwell, containing 137 .5 hectares, in the sum of $41,000. The valuation was subsequently reduced on objection to $38,500 then to $31,500 in terms of Section 21A of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 (as amended). It is this latter valuation against which the appeal now lies. The appellants, in the Notice of Appeal, estimate the unimproved value to be $19,200. Grounds of the appeal include the extent of the increase in valuation over the preceding annual valuation, lack of amenities and services, poor wet weather access, the nature of the land and the large proportion of steep hillside, poor natural water supply. Mr R.C. Casey gave evidence in support of the grounds of appeal and tendered a statement setting out the background to the appeal. He was under the impression that some agreement had been reached with representatives of the Valuer-General as to the nature of the land, being 15 hectares of arable land, 19 hectares of semi-arable land and 95 hectares of unusable land. He had investigated the valuation which had been applied to [1992] QLC 215 -- 1 of 5 -- \ 2 neighbouring properties owned by the Spano and Tessolin families. He said that over 90% of the Spano property of 97 hectares is assigned cane land with potential for expansion on the balance area and the valuation equates $989 per hectare. It is Mr Casey's opinion that the 15 hectares of arable land on his property, on a direct comparison as land, excluding the assignment, should not be valued at more than $700 per hectare. He sees the Tessolin property of 199 hectares, which is flat and capable of cultivation for improved pastures for grazing, but of average to below average soil types and lacking a water supply, valued at $535 per hectare, supporting a value of $450 per hectare on his 19 hectares of semi-arable land. This area has rock outcrops and he says has unstable topography for cultivation. The balance area of inaccessible land described on original survey maps as "extremely rough with dense vines" he considers unusable for primary production including grazing with no value as such. He accepts however, that the land would have some nominal value and adopts $25 per hectare. The total of these calculations resulted in the sum of $21,425 which he sees as the upper limit and supporting his original estimate of $19,200, which was the previous valuation. It is his opinion that no positive growth in values has_ taken place in the 12 months since the previous valuation. It is mentioned here that Mr Casey did his calculations on a total area of approximately 129 hectares but with a past road closure the correct area is now said to be 137.5 hectares. The Valuer-General's valuation was carried out by Mr D.T. Treston, registered valuer with the Department of Lands. His valuation report describes the access to the property (which he says is 37.6 km south of Ingham) as being good, via the Bruce Highway to a bitumen sealed road then 600 metres of formed gravel. -- 2 of 5 -- \ 3 The nature of the land he describes as follows: The land comprises of 34 hectares of good to fair arable land and 103.5 hectares of steep stony ridges to mountain towards the western boundary. The arable land consists of 4.4 hectares of good quality well drained sandy loam and 29.6 hectares of loamy clay country timbered with Narrow Leaf lronbark, Gum and Pandanus Palm in the lower areas. Irrigation and stock water is available from an earth dam with domestic water supplied by a well. Fig Tree Creek is located near the southern boundary, however is only a temporary supply during the "Wet Season" . The steep country is timbered with stunted Narrow Leaf lronbark with ground cover of native grasses. This area is suitable for grazing. " The property is being used for the growing of tropical fruit and Mr Treston sees this or the growing of pasture as the best use of the arable land together with the grazing of cattle on the balance. The valuation has been apportioned on the basis of its primary production use, as follows: 4.4 hectares @ $1000 per hectare 29.6 hectares @ $650 per hectare 103.5 hectares@ $75 per hectare Adopt $31,500 = 4,400 = 19,240 = 7,762 $31,402 To support the valuation, Mr Treston provided the details of two sales. The first, at Harragans Road, Upper Stone, comprised a freeholding lease of 131.1 hectares which sold in March 1989, one year prior to the relevant date, to show an analysed unimproved value on a freehold basis of $45,339. As at the relevant date an unimproved value of $49,000 had been applied based on a classification of 49 hectares of arable land at $825 per hectare and 82.1 hectares of rough, steep broken grazing @ $100 per hectare. The purchasers are using the property for grazing although part had previously been used for the cultivation of sugar cane. The second sale was of 373.4 hectares of easy sloping ridges of medium forest, 60% infested with lantana, at Mt. Fox Road, Mt. Fox, in April 1989 to show an analysed unimproved value of $68,397 with an application as at 31st March, 1990, of $65,000 or $175 per hectare. This land is 64 km from Ingham with access -- 3 of 5 -- 4 described as only fair. The property has near permanent creek water but the locality has poor underground supplies. While he did not rely on it, property adjoining the subject of 283 hectares sold in June 1990, to show an analysed unimproved value of $112,696. The application of value to this adjoining land as at 31st March, 1990, had been 46 hectares of poor arable at $650 per hectare and 237 hectares of steep stony ridges to mountain at $75 per hectare. Access to this property is described as only fair and Mr Treston says the property was purchased for grazing purposes. Although after the date of valuation, Mr Treston sees the sale as demonstrating a level of value well in excess of his application. Mr Casey takes issue with Mr Treston's description of the adjoining land as to it having a lesser proportion of arable land and the classification of the steep country on the subject and adjoining properties as being suitable for grazing. Mr Treston saw no lack of relativity between the valuations placed on the Spano property of flat clay soils with some drainage problems, which had been valued as sugar cane land and the value applied to the small area of well drained arable sandy loam on the subject which was suited to orchard usage. He Sc;!id the arable land in the Tessolin property would have been valued in the range of $650- $700 per hectare, the overall value of $535 per hectare taking into consideration some inferior low-lying areas. In these matters, for the appellants to succeed, it is necessary for them to prove the Valuer-General's valuation to be wrong. Mr Casey points to what he sees as inconsistent relativity, between lands virtually across the fence, but it seems to me that the usage potential of the adjoining arable lands and their size offer poor -- 4 of 5 -- 5 comparisons for him to establish his basis. He suggests he is making "like with like" comparisons, but the evidence does not support such contention. It is well held that the extent of the increase over previous valuation "is in itself not a relevant issue provided bona fide sales of comparable parcels support the new valuation" - see N.R. & P.G. Tow v. The Valuer-General 1978 5 QLCR 378 at p.381 (Land Appeal Court). Also as the Land Appeal Court said in W.M. & T.J. Fischer v. The Valuer- General 1983 9 QLCR 44 at p.46 - • It is indeed a fundamental principle of valuation that the best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels. Whilst maintenance of correct relativity is also of considerable importance tor rating or revenue type valuations, we cannot prefer .... the use of the principle of relativity to the exclusion of the sales evidence. • The Valuer-General's valuation here relies on the evidence of sales from which comparisons are said to be capable of being drawn and then there is the sale of adjoining land which, while some months after the relevant date, could indicate that the valuation appealed against is quite conservative. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. (R. E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 5 of 5 --