Crosby v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 144

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - - Shire of Maroochy. AV91-372. Peter V. Crosby V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 25th October, 1991 Mr Crosby is the owner of Lot 693 on Plan C311253 (previously described as Portion 85V), parish of Mooloolah, containing 62.32 hectares. In the revaluation of the lands in the Shire as at 31st March, 1990 (effective 30th June, 1991), the Valuer-General valued this land at $39,000. An objection to the valuation was disallowed and Mr Crosby has exercised his right of appeal to the Land Court and in his notice of appeal contends to a value of $6,855. Prior to the matter coming on for hearing on 7th October, 1991, Mr Crosby was advised by the Valuer-General in a letter dated 24th September, 1991, that he had become aware that the subject land had assigned cane land prior to the date of the issue of the valuation on 29th January, 1991. The valuation of $39,000 under appeal had been formulated on a grazing basis and without knowledge of the assignment. Mr Crosby was advised that at the hearing, the Valuer-General would lead ev idence to support ari amendec;j valuation of $42,000 to take into account the cane _ assignment. [1991] QLC 144 -- 1 of 4 -- ( 2 Evidence was given by Mr Crosby in support of his grounds of appeal which are: 1. Valuer-General erred in law with respect to the application of The Valuation of Land Act to this portion's value currently, and at previous valuations. 2. Owing to this type of country; the Valuer-General has placed an errant value on this portion - this Wallum portion being of inferior nature to that of other land in the area. 3. The low, flat, flooding nature of the block requires that it be valued at a lower value. 4. The lack of services, and road access has not been fully compensated for, when arriving at this value. 5. Sales in the area - sales of flood prone country could not support this value placed on my property. 6. The Valuer-General, in arriving at this valuation has not taken into account, sufficient adjustment to compensate for improvements so far undertaken - cost of clearing; cost of levelling; costs of drainage; costs of cutterbar stumping and root raking; cost of water points. 7. Having regard to the subject land, the Valuer-General has no property applied property analysis and apportionment of sales found in area. 8. The Valuer-General has failed to take into account correct principles of law and valuation in making his valuation. He says that he has owned this parcel since 1962 and gives a history of the development of the land with substantial costs in clearing, cutter baring, discing, deep ripping, land plane levelling, drainage, pasture improvement and he says the cost at 1991 figures amounts to $135,385 which is $2, 172 per hectare over the total area but it would appear from his statement that the intensive work has not been carried out over the whole area but on certain parts. He lists the fixed improvements of a shed, bore, yards and dip and fencing at $36,600, giving a total cost at $171,985. When I add to this his estimate of unimproved value of $6,855 I -- 2 of 4 -- 3 arrive at a figure of $2,869 per hectare for the overall property in 1991. In his evidence he says that 21 hectares have in fact been fully developed and this has cost $4,774 per hectare. He speaks of the poor access, the low flat flooded nature of the land, and the other matters which are set out in his grounds of appeal. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr R.J. Hose, who says that in the first instance the land was valued as grazing land. Sales evidence supported a general increase of 15 percent over the previous values for grazing lands and this increase was applied to the subject land. When he became aware of an assignment now attaching to the land he amended the valuation to $42 ,000, an increase of $3,000. In his written valuation he sets out his exercise as follows: II 12 .6 ha assigned caneland @ 1250/ha Less Allowances Cartage (10%), Flooding, Drainage and Access Plus Balance Land 49.72 ha@ $600/ha (975/ha) ADOPT = $15,750 $ 3,465 $12,285 $ 29 ,832 $42,117 $ 42 ,000 To support the value he has applied to the assigned cane land, he has had regard to sales of lands which have assignments attached to them. He is of opinion that the subject land is amongst the poorer class cane land and he has made allowance for this in applying a_rate of $1250 a hectare to the assigned land. He has made a □ allowance for cartage, flooding, drainage and access of 1Opercent to adopt a rate of $975 per hectare for the assigned land. The balance of the land L -- 3 of 4 -- 4 has been valued at $600 per hectare and he lists sales to support this level of value. He was cross examined at length by Mr Crosby over a wide range of matters including a drop in receipts for cane and whether he had made allowance for various matters. The issue here is what is the appropriate unimproved value to be applied to this land at 31st March, 1991. The Act requires that the valuer should ascertain as best he can what a prudent vendor would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land at the relevant date if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions and assuming the improvements on the land did not exist. On Mr Crosby's calculations he would expect to obtain $178,840 for the property in its present state which is $2,869 per hectare. Of this amount he contends that the unimproved land component is $6,855 ($110 per ha). He produces no sales to support the value for which he contends. The only sales evidence before me has been presented by Mr Rose and I am unable to accept that any vendor who in his prudence would investigate sales would be prepared to sell the subject land for $110 per ha in its unimproved state. The sales evidence supports the conclusion reached by Mr Rose and I find that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus of proof cast upon him by the Act to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation 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 -- 4 of 4 --