Donkin & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 179

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 5th December, 1991 Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Maroochy. AV91.:379. L. and P. Donkin V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) Mr and Mrs Donkin are the owners of a residential allotment described as Lot 679 on RP P93128, parish of Maroochy, containing 511 square metres as situated at 13 Petrel Street, South Peregian. In the revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Maroochy as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General valued this land at $64,000. An objection was disallowed and the owners have exercised their right of appeal to the Land Court against the valuation and contend in the notice of appeal to -a valuation of $50,000. The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal are: - II (1) The valuation is excessive. (2) The valuation does not correctly relate to comparable sales of unimproved land in close vicinity of the subject land. (3) The valuation does not correctly relate to the valuations placed on other allotments in the vicinity of the subject land. This applied especially to (2) rear allotments as since the date of issue of valuations a Shire Council sewerage pipe has been laid in the rear section of our property. 11 The removal of (7) trees/shrubs and the removal of the lower limbs of (2) very large trees has now caused noise pollution from the David Low Highway also eliminating privacy between the (2) rear property owners and ourselves. Due to this disturbance we contend the unimproved value of our allotment [1991] QLC 179 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 has decreased to at least those adjacent to the rear area of our property. Evidence was given by Mr Leslie E. Donkin in support of the grounds of appeal. He gives the valuation history of the subject land over the years and particularly a valuation in 1981 of $51,000. This was reduced following representation on their behalf by valuer, Mr A. V. Taylor, to $32,000. At that time Lot 669 which adjoins at the rear was valued at $38,500 and Lot 668 at $39,500. Lot 669 is now valued at $50,000 and Lot 668 at $51,000. Mr Donkin says the land was purchased in 1971 because of an approximate 120 degree view both of the Pacific Ocean and the hinterland. However, due to the high trees and building on the eastern aspect, there is no view to the ocean and very limited views to the hinterland. He believes that this puts the value of his allotment on par with the rear allotments. He speaks of the removal of trees with the advent of sewerage mains h April 1991 but this valuation is at 31st March, 1990, and the land must be viewed in its state at that date. He says that when he purchased_ the allotment he paid $3,750 for it compared to $2,650 paid for Lot 669 at the same time. There is a large house on Lot 670 which cuts out sunlight. In the event he considers that the subject land should carry the same valuation as Lot 669 which adjoins him at the rear. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr T.S. Alexander, who has had regard to sales to support the value for which he contends. The first is a sale in Jabiru Street in August, 1989, for $70,000. The other is in Oriole Avenue in Ja_nuary, 1990, for $69,000. Mr Alexander in his written report says that both sales and the subject block are located just on the western side of the dune and are of similar distance from the beach and David Low Way. -- 2 of 3 -- --- ------ --- - -- -- --•···· · ···---- 3 He believes they are similar to the subject land and support his valuation. In dealing with the comparison blocks referred to by Mr Donkin which are also located in Oriole Avenue, Mr Alexander is of the opinion that they are inferior and are on a through road carrying more traffic than experienced in Petrel Street. He says that neither of the sales have views of the ocean. He has not had any great regard to previous valuations and has relied on the sales to support the level for which he contends. While relativity block to block is important, the most important matter for the valuer to consider in fulfilling his duties under the Valuation of Land Act is to arrive at ari unimproved value having regard to what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land at a certain date (here 31st March, 1990) if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions assuming the improvements did not exist. A prudent person in that position would make enquiries as to what other 'lands are selling for in the vicinity and being prudent would not be prepared to accept for the subject land the sum of $50,000 when comparable allotments have sold for $70,000 and $69,000. I have no evidence before me as to the grounds for the reduction of the valuation in the past but the purchase price of the subject land would lead one to conclude that it is superior to Lot 669. Under the proyisions of the Valuation of Land Act, the onus is upon the appellants to show the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation. I find that they have failed to discharge this emus and the appeal must fail. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --