Day & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 163

I - ...___.. __ __..,.,.,._,_..,.,. ..~ ·•~ ,.. ., .......,...... ~.•-,·. ~....... ..,., .,, .,._...... , ·•·'-·••"""'..,.~"" .. ''"....._,~:.,~, i !J' ,,·."':"·. ·::· . "(I'.:. ,,., .., ~-~}. I':'.#-~- ;,,t,.• " ., ~ i l· \i f) r'Th t l, •1 ~1 ft .-{ '.'t ,, ·: ·, • t l ~ -:u ~t {~), ~:t !t ~.. [1_ i,, •\' "i, j '··--= "'•" Iii~ ••• , '"'" i, '-:.,,. '1}.,t,.f'' fii f:,--~~-'1"~~1(.'.l::l..,._~•·•~"!"f.~;,,,"',_,;-,JrN.\i--P.D>n1,4.tJt.,,cyr_~.l,t. Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Caloundra. V91-897. William M. and Ninna A. Da y V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th November, 1991 Mr and Mrs Day are the owners of Lot 1O on RP 168535, parish of Maleny, containing 4373 square metres. In the revaluation of the lands in the City of Caloundra as at 31st March, 1990 (effective 30th June, 1991), the Valuer~General has valued this parcel at $62,000 and amended this valuation on objection to $60,000. Mr and Mrs Day have exercised their right of appeal to the Land Court against this determination. The subject land is used as a single residential site and fronts the bitumen surfaced Mountain View Road. It is located about 3 kms by road south from the Maleny Post Office. Evidence was given by Mr Day in support of the grounds of appeal which are: A valuation of $60,000 is too high when compared with the valuations of other blocks in the area (and more particularly of lots 9, 11 and 12 of RP 168535) when the different advantages of each block are considered. " From the exhibits and the evidence of Mr Day, it appears that the subject land lies on the northern side of Mountain View Road which runs approximately east-west. Lot 11 adjoins to the east and Lot 12 adjoins that [1991] QLC 163 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 allotment. There is a road reservation on the western boundary of the subject l~md and then Lot 9 adjoins that road reservation known as Avocado Lane. Accepting that the valuations placed by the Valuer-General on these three lots are correct, then it is his contention the valuation of the subject land is, on relativity, too high. Lot 9 has been valued at $69,000; Lot 11 at $53,000 and Lot 12 at $51,000. It is his contention that the main factor for value in this locality is the view available rather than simply the elevation of the allotment. Lot 9 has a clear view to the north, east and south, guaranteed by the road reserves on two sides which prevent adjacent buildings on those sides. The land rises sharply on the western side of Avocado Lane allowing a house to be built well above any house on the subject land. In addition the allotments to the south on the other side of Mountain View Road are much lower. Lot 10 has a view to the north. Views to the south are largely prevented as the allotments there are only marginally lower and also Lot 11 is only marginally lower. Lot 11 has better views on the whole than the subject as the views to the north are the same but it has good views to the south-east where the land on the other side of Mountain View Road drops away quite sharply. All of the allotments have reasonable road access, except Lot 11, which needs a pipe culvert to Mountain View Road. Lots 9 and 10 have easy access to Avocado Lane. All allotments have satisfactory supplies of ground water. Lot 10 is only marginally more valuable than Lot 11 and much less valuable than Lot 9 and he says that his conclusion is supported by the previous valuations where Lot 11 was valued at $42,000 compared to $43,000 for the subject. This relativity has changed with Lot 11 being valued at $53,000 and the subject at $60,000. Looking at this evidence he concludes the appropriate value for the subject land is $55,000. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr J.D.M. White, who says he has relied on sales to support the values for which he contends. He has used sales to support the applied value but the sales are not really in issue here and it is a matter of relativity. He records that Lot 12 which has been referred to has an area of 4237 square metres and sold on 1st April, 1989, for $51,000. He says it is of similar size, aspect, outlook and elevation with the subject land, provides a level site with good building contour. There is a south-easterly aspect with restricted views over the Glasshouse Mountains to the coast. There is a power easement over the allotment which restricts the building site available to a small area adjacent to the eastern boundary. The easement extends over about 2000 square metres. Mr White says that having reviewed the valuations in the area he has now reached the conclusion that he has erred in the valuation that he has applied to Lot 11 and the valuation should be amended to $59,000. In cross-examination it was put to him that Lot 12 has better views than the subject land and he does not disagree with this. He, however, felt that the powerline easement was a blot upon that land and he has made a substantial reduction in the valuation he would have applied but for its existence. I am satisfied on the evidence that the sales used by Mr White support the level of value contended for. I also find that it is out of relativity with the valuation which has been applied to Lot 11, but I have the evidence that this valuation of Lot 11 is incorrect and should be adjusted to a valuation a little below the subject land which would restore generally the old relativity. Relativity between allotments, particularly when they are in close proximity, is most important but as -- 3 of 5 -- 4 was said by the Land Appeal Court in R. and M.M. Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (AV89-34) in a judgment handed down on 19th December, 1989 (to be reported): We are conscious that it is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, if the valuations are soundly based. It is, however, untenable to adopt a value for one parcel on relativity with another which has no sound basis. In Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v. West Middlesex Assessment Committee (1932) 2 K.B. 679; (1932) All E.R. Rep. 427 (C.A.), Scrutton L.J. (at p. 686 of (1932) 2 K.B.) said:- One would have thought that this evidence destroyed the ratepayer's objection, but he said: 'no, I will show you that seven other hereditaments in the borough are assessed at sums lower than the rents which their hypothetical tenant would pay, and I require that I also should be assessed at a sum lower than the hypothetical tenant would pay. I do this because the essence of rating is fairness and uniformity, and I prefer my assessment to be inaccurate but uniform, rather than it should be accurate but out of harmony with my neighbours. It is true that I can, if my facts are right, secure uniformity by correcting the inaccuracy of my neighbours' assessments, on objection to those assessments, and can get those assessments made uniform with my correct assessment. But I do not want this; I want to indulge my passion for uniformity by securing uniform inaccuracy, though that uniformity makes my correct assessment incorrect, but the inaccuracy is to my pecuniary advantage.' I think this view is wrong. It is a vital principle of the law of rating that each hereditament should be independently assessed. ' and at p. 688 - The appellants here, however, say that besides the principle of independent valuation there is another vital principle - that as between different classes of hereditaments and as between different hereditaments in the same class the valuation should be fair and equal, I agree, but, in my view, there is a third important qualification, that the assessing authority should not sacrifice correctness to ensure uniformity, but, if possible, obtain uniformity by correcting inaccuracies rather than by making an inaccurate assessment in order to secure uniform error. ' This third principle was referred to without disapproval by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Hastings Justices. ex parte Pevensev Levels Internal Drainage Board (1962) 1 All E.R. 278 and applied in Vaughan v. Auckland City Council (1973) 2 N.Z.L.R. 269 (S.C.). We adopt the third principle stated by Scutton L.J. • I find here that the valuation placed by the Valuer-General is supported by sales and is in relativity with the valuation placed on Lot 9. Lot 11 must be disregarded because the valuer says that an error has occurred and that valuation is too low. Lot 12 has been given special consideration because of the -- 4 of 5 -- 5 existence of the powerline easement and the substantial allowance .was appropriate in the eyes of the valuer. It does not assist in arriving at a valuation of an allotment not so encumbered. Accordingly I find that the appellants have failed to discharge the onus to show the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation 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 -- 5 of 5 --