Boyling v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 133

...,................ __...,...., .•. •· . -·· . ,._ •·••........~ .. -·· ~ ~ ............,, ... -..-~ ""'"'_,.,. ~- . ·. ~'j .t.· ;·p i f. ·:·; t ;' ·,~ ' .,. 4 • l "' ~ ,\,- -~ ,~ 4' ,J "!". ,~, ;,,· r j . .. .• _-; ·;. -1<,· ;!: i ~.-. 1 :1 ''J, u ... ,v.- . f.:. ! :-,,·•· ,, >O:·, I .·... lfl-•-i..:l>.2d-~.;..,.;_...;.,.....,;:,:,;4--"'-'"-':0."~•"'<·-••-•;,a;,,.•,q •..tr.,c:,,_,. <>,~,:.,'>I' ••• _;,.,,,,,,_.,,,,_, '"' Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane . .. AV91-668. K.A. and M.F. Bo y lin g V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 5th December, 1991 Mr and Mrs Boyling are the owners of a residential allotment at the corner of Liatoki and lrandi Streets, Mansfield, described as Lot 528 on RP 115664, parish of Tingalpa, containing 529 square metres. In the annual revaluation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1990 (effective 30th June, 1991), the Valuer-General has valued this parcel at $57,000. Following the disallowing of an objection the owners have lodged an appeal to the Land Court and in their notice of appeal contend to a value of $56,000. II The grounds of appeal set forth in the notice of appeal are: The Valuer-General has not maintained the relativity of his valuation of Lot 528 (area 529 m2) with Lots 517, 524 and 527 in Liatoki Street, by valuing Lot 528 at $57,000. In 1969 Lot 517 (area 607m2) and Lot 528 (area 529m2) were valued at $2650 but on 17/6/1970 the Valuer-General reduced the unimproved value of Lot 528 to $2550 on Appeal to Land Court in terms of Section 21A. Subsequently, the landholder was unaware that the Valuer-General failed to observe and apply this relativity in later Valuations but in 1989 made a token reduction from $26500 to $26000 on Lot 528. To maintain the relativity this valuation should have been $25500. Lot No 829 (3 lrandi St) 718m2 area - BCC-Belmont valuation $56000 adjoins Lot 528 and has greater area 189m2 and lesser valuation of $1000. The V.G. since 1969 has not the relativity of Lot 528. Lots such as 517 and 402 of greater size and better position in Liatoki St. No allowance has been made for heavier traffic at cnr 28 Liatoki St. lrandi St. II [1991] QLC 133 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Evidence was given by Mr K.A. Boyling in support of the grounds of appeal. He speaks of the changes in relativity which have occurred with valuations of other allotments in the area over the years and how the valuation of the subject land has on three occasions been reduced upon objection. The valuation at March 1988 was reduced by $500 to $26,000; the valuation at March 1989 was reduced by $500 to $43,500; and on this occasion the land has been valued at $57,000 as at March, 1990 and the objection was disallowed. Mr Boyling concludes that having regard to the valuations of five other parcels it should be reduced by $1,000. Mr Boyling claims that the subject land which is at 28 Liatoki Street and the corner of lrandi Street is subject to heavy motor vehicle traffic at all times of the day and night. As lrandi Street with some 16 residences is a deadend street, he believes that no allowance has been made for this problem. He speaks of the vehicles passing the subject land particularly approaching and leaving the Aminya Street shopping centre. He makes reference to a survey carried out this year by the Brisbane City Council on the Mansfield Central Traffic Area and produces the results. He gives the valuation history of the comer allotment - Lot 517 on one corner of Luprena Street and Liatoki Street - which has been valued at $59,000 and also to Lot 402 on the other corner of Luprena and Liatoki Streets which has been valued at $57,000. Speaking of Lot 402, he believes that it suffers less traffic disability than the subject land. He canvasses these matters at length and supports his argument with a map and a copy of the report of the Brisbane City Council on the Review of Trial Residential Street Management Measures in the Luprena Street Precinct, Mansfield. Dealing with Lot 402 which, on the evidence I find is the best -- 2 of 4 -- ,· 3 allotment for comparison purposes, he says that it is larger in area (673 sq.m.), in a higher position~and facing north and that it is superior in every way. Views can be obtained from that allotment while there are no views to be obtained from the subject land and it also faces north. He agrees that Liatoki Street carries heavy traffic but this is through traffic and that allotment would not suffer in the way that he suffers from the traffic coming from the deadend lrandi Street. In cross- examination he agrees that when he contested the valuation as at June 1985 in the Land Court, the question of traffic problems was raised. He agrees that there is - now a roundabout outside Lot 402 but adheres to his view that it is superior. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr B.C. Skinner, who tenders a schedule showing the valuation history of the subject land -and the five lots to which Mr Boyling refers in his notice of appeal. He acknowledges that Lot 402 is larger in area but he is of opinion that it suffers more traffic disability than the subject land and both as corner allotments are fairly valued at $57,000. In cross-examination he acknowledged that a senior valuer had, after objection, reduced the valuation on the subject land in both the 1988 and 1989 valuations by $500. He does not know the reason for such reduction but such action has not altered his opinion that the previous valuations were in proper relativity with the properties in that area. While the question of relativity is important, it is also necessary to consider all factors at the date of valuation to see whether old relativities should be maintained. In this case I find that the best comparison is with Lot 402. There was a great deal of disagreement between Mr Boyling and Mr Savage as to the relative merits of each of those allotments arid the traffic disability as it affected them. As agreed by the parties I have inspected this area and the lots which have been the -- 3 of 4 -- .. ,. 4 matter of evidence in the hearing, with particular reference to the subject land and Lot 402. Suffice to say that I prefer the evidence of Mr Savage as to the traffic disability being greater at Lot 402 than the subject land and weighing one against the other, I find that as at 31st March, 1990, there are no grounds for reducing the_ valuation of the subject land below the level aoopted for Lot 402 and the appeal fails. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --