Bromet & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 164

Re: Appeals against Valuations of the Valuer-General - City of Caloundra. V91-997 and V91-998. David and Lynette Bromet V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th November, 1991 Mr and Mrs Bromet are the owners of Lot 3 on RP 808714, parish of Durundur, containing 1.28 hectares. It once formed part of a larger parcel of land which was subdivided and on the sale of the subject land to them, it was necessary for the Valuer-General to issue separate valuations. For the valuation year ended 31st March, 1989, effective 30th June, 1990, which issued on 29th November, 1989, the Valuer-General valued the land at $54,500. An objection to this valuation was allowed and the valuation was reduced to $52,000. Mr and Mrs Bromet have exercised the right of appeal against this determination and contend to a value of $33,500. The next valuation was at 31st March, 1990, effective 30th June, 1991, when the Valuer-General valued the parcel at $68,000 and reduced this on objection to $65,000. In the appeal against this valuation the appellants contend to a value of $42,000. The land which is within the boundaries of the City of Caloundra is zoned Rural under the relevant Town Plan. It is situated about 5.5 kms by road south-east from Maleny Post Office and has easement access to Mountain View [1991] QLC 164 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 Road which is a full width bitumen sealed carriageway. Evidence was given by Mr Bromet in support of the grounds of appeal. He says the land is subdivided from a rough triangular shape to an awkward shape, most of which is on the side of a hill which restricted the area where a home could be sited. Mr Bromet says that they purchased the subject land and the home thereon on 23rd October, 1990, for $191,000. There was a kit home erected on the site and enquiries have shown that it would have cost $85,000 to which he has added the cost of flooring, the kitchen, carpets and all the other site and external improvements. He makes an allowance for the cost of all of the improvements existing at the time of sale and comes to the conclusion that an unimproved value of the land at that time was between $42,000 and $50,000, depending upon the rate of depreciation applied to the improvements. He says the home was 18 months old at the time of purchase, there was a lot of work still to be done on it and this work was still continuing. An alternative approach made by him is to consider the previous valuation of the entire parcel at $67,000. He says the subject land would be worth half or less than the whole portion and he adopts $33,500. He stresses in his evidence the difficulty of access in that there is no direct frontage to a gazetted road with access via a 300 metre easement and then up a 300 metre private driveway. He says that very little of the land is readily useable for any purpose. Because of the manner in which the parent parcel had been subdivided, it leaves part of the hillside separated from the main body of the land. Apart from a small section, the block is mainly hill and gully. Part of the land is not accessible from the allotment except by the use of a ladder. A gully runs -- 2 of 5 -- ' 3 through the property as part of a natural drainage system for the surrounding hills and catchment, the bottom of the gully is difficult to access as the terrain does not lend itself to being easily maintained and is quickly overgrown. The neighbouring properties _are level compared to the subject land or they are larger in size. He believes that a property which has much of its land able to be readily used is far more marketable and appreciates at a greater rate. Mr Bromet says that the balance parcel after the subdivision of their land is lot 1 on RP 808714, parish of Durundur, containing 6,500 square metres. It has easy access to the common easement, it has been on the market for $90,000 for two years and this has been reduced to $80,000. It is a vacant allotment and is far superior as an allotment. He says that if a pole house was erected on that parcel, it would command views similar to the views to be obtained from the subject land. He assists by providing a series of photographs taken at various points on the allotment which indicate the nature of the land on the subject and on neighbouring allotments. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr J.D.M. White, who in his written valuation says: II The property is situated within the established Mary Caincross Park estate approximately 5.5 km by road south east from the Maleny Post Office. Mountain View Road which is a full width bitumen sealed carriageway links with a steep gravel surfaced easement which provides direct access to the subject. The property, an irregular shaped rear allotment, is of steep sloping cleared scrub country, below road levet A level building site of high elevation and having a southeasterly outlook encompassing views to the coastline and over the Glasshouse Mountains is located adjacent to the boundary with lot 5. Levelling and some excavation works have been required for building purposes. " As a basis of valuation in each case he has had regard to sales. He says that the adjoining allotment referred to by Mr Bromet is, in his opinion, inferior because it -- 3 of 5 -- 4 does not command the views to be obtained from the subject land, except perhaps by building a home as suggested by Mr Bromet. He says that sales throughout the Shire of acreage land indicate that people will pay more for larger blocks irrespective of quality of country and blocks with views will also command a greater price. He includes in his basic sales a sale of a 5789 square metre parcel at McCarthy Road, Maleny, which sold on 25th September, 1989, for $65,000. He has applied a rate of $45,000 to this parcel in the revaluation. He says this is an irregular shaped rear allotment with hatchet and easement access to the building site. There is a gentle to medium cross-fall from the western to the eastern boundary with a gully along the northern boundary. It has good elevation for south-easterly aspect, limited views to Glasshouse Mountains and Pumicestone Passage. He says it is similar in locality, aspect, useable site area and access and superior in elevation but it has inferior views. A further sale in McCarthy Shute Road, Maleny, was of a 2,000 square metre parcel in July 1990 for $65,000. This has steep gravel road access via that road, it has a good level building site available, a south-easterly aspect, sweeping views from south to east over the Glasshouse Mountains to the coastline, it is inferior in size and elevation but with comparable views, these could be built out, which cannot occur to the home upon the subject land. He says this is overall inferior and he has applied a rate of $63,000 to this parcel in the valuation as at 31st March, 1990. The Valuation of Land Act requires a valuer to ascertain as best he can the unimproved value of a parcel of land which in terms of the Act requires him to ascertain what a prudent person would be prepared to take for a parcel of land if -- 4 of 5 -- . . 5 offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions at a certain date and assuming the land to be unimproved. The best test is to look for sales of unimproved land. The difficulties in considering an improved sale, even of the subject itself, is to arrive at the added value which the improvements give to the land. While it might be established how much was actually spent, this will not in the marketplace always reflect added value. The sales which have been introduced by Mr White satisfy me that at 31st March, 1989, no prudent person would accept the sum of $33,500 for this parcel of land, assuming it to be unimproved, nor at 31st March, 1990, would a person be prudent in accepting the sum of $42,000 for the parcel. It follows that I find that the appellants have failed to establish that the figures contended for are the appropriate unimproved value of the land at the different dates and they have failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer- General has erred in the valuation and the appeals fail. Accordingly, appeals V91-997 and V91-998 are dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General in each case is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 5 of 5 --