Appleton v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 276

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Logan City Council. AV91-771 Ste phen Kendal Appleton V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 14th February, 1992 The appellant is the owner of Lot 1 on RP 150260, parish of Mackenzie. The lot has an area of 6.035 hectares and a frontage to Logan Reserve Road. The land is used for grazing cattle (with other land) and for turf farming. For the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General determined the unimproved value of the lot at $100,000. After considering an objection against the valuation, the value was reduced to $75,000. It is against this decision that the appeal is brought. Mr Appleton believes that the value should be fixed at $45,000. The lot was formerly valued at around $35,000. He said that the increase as reflected in the applied value is about 110% and that the average increase for the Shire was about 35% which, if applied • to the former value, would yield a sum at or near the value he seeks. The grounds of the appeal in substance are that the value applied by the Valuer-General should be reduced, due to the proneness of the land to flooding and by comparison with values applied to larger lots in the vicinity which are also used for ~purposes of the business of primary production. The use of the subject land has determined that the valuation be made under the provisions of s. 11 (1 )(vii) [1992] QLC 276 -- 1 of 4 -- ,, I 2 of the Act; that is that a value be ascertained on the assumption that the highest and best use of the land is for purposes of primary production and nothing else. In interpreting this provision Mr Appleton was under the impression that some value would be struck from which an allowance would be made (concession) for that the land is used for primary production. This is not the case. What has to be ascertained is what the subject lot in an unimproved state would fetch in the marketplace as at 31st March, 1990, if purchased exclusively for purposes of primary production. Mr I.G. Savage, registered valuer in the Department of Lands, answers this question by saying that within the adjoining Shire (Beaudesert) flooded parcels of 4 hectares or so were being purchased for primary production - e.g. small crops/flowers - for prices which reflected values unimproved of between $20,000 and $30,000 per hectare. No sales of small parcels were purchased in the relevant period in the area of the subject land. He therefore applied the only market existing by making allowances which he as a valuer thought fit for the differences in size, location, degree of flooding, etc. The applied value of $75,000 reflects a value per hectare of $12,500. But for the degree of flooding which is not in dispute, Mr Savage said that the value would have been in the order of $17,000 per hectare. Mr Appleton raised some sales of similar and smaller sized lots within the subject area. However, I find that I am unable to gain any assistance from them as they are, it would appear, residential sites and there is no sufficient detail of comparability upon which any opinion could be formed as to whether they would or would not disprove the valuation. One, for example, apparently covers Lots 17 /18 in Logan Parade, having a combined area of 8.347 hectares. The parcels sold with a dwelling for $65,000 in February, 1989. At the same time on the -- 2 of 4 -- 3 information available to Mr Savage, Lot 18 (5.691 hectares) sold separately as vacant land for $65,000. According to the flood map in evidence a small area of the frontage of Lot 18 is out of flood. Access, however, to the site is within the flooded area. Were there evidence that this lot was purchased for purposes of the business of primary production the sale may have had some weight in testing the value applied to the subject lot at March 1990. In the same locality, lots of about 50 hectares in size are valued for the purposes of this Annual Valuation at values which reflect values per hectare of $2,202 (Roll 16886) and $3,216 (Roll 16881). There is a massive difference in size between these lots and the subject lot which Mr Appleton accepts has an influence on value. Nevertheless he contends that the disparity is too great. The comparison lots rose in value by about 25%. It thus seems reasonable for him to ask the question why this should occur and I suppose it will always occur unless it is recognised that as time passes appreciations change along with other factors. It is the duty of the valuer to keep up with these changes by ascertaining value on the stipulated date. In Appeals by landholders against determinations of the Valuer-General - Manto Shire (1984-85) 10 Q.L.C.R. 32, the Land Appeal Court at p. 38 said: Relativity between properties or parts of shires may vary from valuation period to valuation period. It is not a matter of mere mathematical calculation or progression. The revaluation of a shire does not involve the application of a more or less uniform increase (or decrease) in the various types of land comprising the shire. What has to be determined is the unimproved value of each parcel of land within the shire at the relevant date. The task set the Valuer-General and the Court is to determine the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land, assuming it were in an unimproved state, might realise if offered for sale on the open market (section 12). The best method or basis for making such determinations is the use of properly analysed comparable sales conforming to the test of the Spencer case. • It is obvious that if the charter laid down by the Act is to be followed, any consideration given to history may, more than likely, cloud an issue rather than -- 3 of 4 -- 4 clear it. In the circumstances of this case, I find that an application of the relevant principles to the evidence leaves only the one conclusion and that is that the appellant has failed to prove that the applied value is incorrect. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White ~t~~~:?Grt'.i;. - -J. Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --