Brine v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 137

Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - Shire of Johnstone AV91-654 M Brine V . The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 25th October, 1991. This appeal is against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $230,000 for 4 vacant sites situated within the Hamlet of Coquette Point about 6 kms north east of the Town of lnnisfail. The parcels are described as Lot 1 on RP 724527, parish of Mourilyan containing an area of 746 m2 , Lot 2 on RP 724527, Parish of Mourilyan containing an area of 637 m2 , Lot 3 on RP 724527 containing 1.467 hectares and Lot 4 on RP 724527 containing 5.252 hectares. Lots 1 and 2 are zoned "Residential" and Lots 3 and 4 are zoned "Rural A" under the Johnstone Shire Town Planning Scheme. The relevant date for the unimproved value assessment is 31st March, 1990. The appellant contends for an unimproved value of $147,000 within the Notice of Appeal. The Departmental assessment is made as follows:- [1991] QLC 137 -- 1 of 4 -- Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Less 10% bulk holding - Page 2 - $36,000 $ 33,500 $ 70,000 $115,000 $254,500 $ 25,450 $229,050 - - - - - - - - - - Unimproved value adopted $230,000 It is perhaps best if I outline the evidence of registered Department valuer George Matthew Olsen at the outset. Mr Olsen describes the access to Lots 1, 2 and 4 ,as being directly from Coquette Point road while Lot 3 has an unformed gazetted road off Coquette Point road with the necessity to build about 40 metres of roadway to access the site. Mr Olsen says access to Lots 1, 2 and 4 can be described as reasonable but he regards access to Lot 3 as being poor. Mr Olsen says that all four lots comprise heavy virgin forest scrub with Lot 4 being intersected north to south by a belt of mangroves and palms. The sites vary in slope from gentle to steep and Mr Olsen points out that excellent ocean views would be available from strategically sited dwellings on each of the lots. Now Mr Olsen bases his valuation on the analyses of four sales, details of which are included within his tendered valuation report. Perhaps the most relevant sale for the smaller subject sites is that of Lot 4 on RP 725102 containing an area of 766 m 2 on 14th June, 1989 for $39,000 and for Lots 3 and 4 the sale of Lot 1 on RP 732966 containing 1. 762 ha on 12th October, 1988 for $125,000. But it is not for the respondent Valuer-General to support the level of value applied based on sales evidence, as the appellant really only bases her -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - appeal on the ground of relativity. Mr Olsen obtained the relativity basis from the notice of appeal and made out for us a map showing the location of the comparison blocks referred to by the appellant. An adjoining block with an area of 14.79 ha owned by W Prejawa is valued at $180,000. Across Croquette road from the subject land is a block with an area of 8.847 ha owned by Wilson which is valued at $160,000, and an adjacent block to the Wilson block containing 7.026 ha owned by Cunningham is valued at $145,000. Now these are unsubdivided sites and Mr Olsen has valued them as single rural sites as opposed to the valuation of the subject individual single sites. Perhaps some comparison could be made between the subject Lot 4 and the properties referred to in evidence by the appellant, but this seems about as far as it can be taken mainly due to large differences in areas. Mrs Mary Brine is owner /appellant. She informed the Court that her late husband gave the land to the Johnstone Shire Council which provides the unformed access to Lot 3. This created the four subject parcels and th is seems to her to have been the main reason for the large increase in the subject valuations. Mrs Brine points out that the area of her land is much less than the neighbouring properties already mentioned in this decision, but for the reason already stated it is difficult to compare values since Mrs Brine has the four individual sites. Mrs Brine polnts out that there has been a recent serious decline in the market value of her land and she finds it impossible to sell land in the area at present. Also referred to are the general disabilities of the area - a rough road, narrow bridge, no reticulated water supply and "wet" season isolation. Mr Olsen feels that the market for land peaked about mid 1989 and then fell a little to the -- 3 of 4 -- - Page 4 - relevant date but not sensationally. There is a downward trend and Mr Olsen says his valuation reflects this trend at relevant date. Taking an overview of the evidence I really cannot find that the valuation under appeal is excessive or unreasonable in relation to both the sales evidence provided by Mr Olsen and the valuation of the neighbouring properties which have been valued as sites and not on a per hectare rate. I am conscious of the difficult position in which Mrs Brine finds herself since she explained that she and her husband are being penalised by the Department of Social Security as the value of this land is over and above the asset limit for the age pension, but even though I have the greatest of sympathy for her in that regard since there is a receding market for her land, the question to be resolved is what was the market value of the appeal lands at relevant date for this valuation - viz 31st March, 1990. Mr Olsen says it is supported by the market evidence at that date and in these circumstances I cannot allow the appeal. It is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 on RP 724527, parish of Mourilyan as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $230,000 is affirmed. (C . H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --