Craig v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 138

r Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Maroochy. AV91-662. S.F. and H. Craig V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 25th October, 1991 Mr and Mrs Craig are the owners of a 2.833 hectare parcel of land fronting Obi Obi Road, Mapleton, and they reside in the home erected upon this land. In the annual revaluation of the lands in the Shire as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General valued this land at $91,000 but, following objection, reduced the valuation to $87,000. Mr and Mrs Craig have exercised their right of appeal to the Land Court against this determination. Mr Craig gave evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. The main ground is that the Valuer-General has erred in not valuing this land under the concessional provisions of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act as land exclusively used for the business of primary production. It is agreed that, if the Court finds that this argument is correct, the appropriate valuation should be $37,000. In his evidence, Mr Craig states that at the date of valuation the subject land was owned by Mr Peter G. Pike. They entered into an agreement dated 14th June, 1990, to purchase the property for $134,000. Delivery was taken on 31st July, 1990. It is his contention the land should be valued under the , [1991] QLC 138 -- 1 of 4 -- t 2 relevant section as the land has been used for the business of primary production continuously since its original selection by all previous owners. He says that at the date of valuation the land was utilized by Mr Pike as a horse farm. He says that it is zoned Rural A under the relevant town plan and says it should be valued on the same basis. as the parcels which adjoin on the south and the east. They were all once part of one larger parcel subdivided in 1972. The valuation of these lands at $34,500 and $32,500 did not change from the previous valuation whereas the valuation of the subject land increased from a previous excessive valuation of $69,000 and he sees no reason for the discrimination. Mr Craig says that, when purchasing the subject land, it was their intention to go into the business of forestry. To fulfil that intention they have been in contact with officers of the Forestry Department and on 24th October, 1990, they received advice on appropriate millable timbers to plant on this land and on 26th November, 1990, an allocation of trees was made by the Department. On 17th December, 1990, they commenced spot spraying of the areas where the trees were to be planted. In February, 1991, they commenced to plant some 300 trees. "fhe position has now been reached where about one-third of the land has trees planted upon it. He says that the trees are slow growing and he would not anticipate any returns for about 20 years when some thinning could be undertaken but in the final result he believes the trees will be valuable with a 30 year old cedar tree being capable of returning $10,000 or more. He expresses the view that they meet the tests to be granted the concessional valuation as laid down by the Land Appeal Court in K. Crawford v. The Valuer-General (V89 ~460) handed down on 27th August, 1990. -- 2 of 4 -- , 7 3 Mr Craig says that the previous owner Mr Pike used the land for the breeding of horses and he had five mares and one cow grazing on the land. He is not privy to what profits Mr Pike gained from his activities. After taking possession of the land they permitted Mr Pike to continue to graze his horses on the land for a couple of months. Alternatively he says that the previous valuation of $69,000 and the new valuation of $87,000 are excessive when related to the analysis of the two recent sales of the subject property where it sold in September, 1988, for $100,000 and resold in June, 1990, to them for $134,000. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr J.D.M. White, - who says that the subject land was not previously valued under the provisions of Section 11 (1)(vii) of the Act as land exclusively used for the business of primary production. It had been valued as land used for a single unit dwelling and he has valued it in the same way. As a basis of valuation he _has had regard to four sales of large homesites including the sale of the subject land and contends that the sales support the value now under appeal. The adjoining lots referred to by Mr Craig are valued under Section 11 (1) (vii) and the level of value for such lands did not alter between the two dates. Mr White says that the sales of homesites did demonstrate an increase in prices being paid which resulted in the increase in valuation. The Court is entitled to consider the activities being carried on on this land between the date of valuation (31st March, 1990) and the date of the issue of the valuation (29th January, 1991). There is no evidence whatsoever before me to support a conclusion that the activities carried on by Mr Pike from the date of -- 3 of 4 -- 4 valuation until 31st July, 1990, when he gave delivery of the property to the appellants was such to support a conclusion that the lands were exclusively used for the business of primary production during that period. There is also no - evidence to suggest that the activities carried on by the appellants up to 29th January, 1991, by any test, qualify the appellants for the concessional valuation. It well may be that this could change in the future and it would be a matter for the appellants to make application to the Valuer-Generat at an appropriate time for his consideration on whether the development had reached a stage where it so qualified. Accordingly, I find that Mr White has correctly fulfilled his task under the Valuation of Land Act and valued the land for its highest and best use. The sales - which he uses as a basis of valuation fully support his conclusion on an appropriate valuation for the subject land and I find that the appellants have failed to discharge the onus to show that 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 -- 4 of 4 --