Condie & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 118

( Re: LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 26th September, 1991. Determination of Unimproved Value - Shire of Pioneer AV91-261 KJ and NE Condie v. The Valuer-General DECISION The respondent Valuer-General had determined an unimproved value of $24,000 for Lot 14 on RP 738041, Parish of Ossa containing an area of 9183 m2 • The appellants contend within their notice of appeal for a value of $19,000. The appeal parcel is situated in Kippen Drive, Indian Head about 9 kms south of Seaforth and 47 kms north of the City of Mackay. The land is zoned "Rural A" and has been valued in accordance with its use as a rural residential homesite. Kevin John Condie had the conduct of the appellants' case. Mr Condie claims there is inconsistency in the valuations relative to other blocks in the -- rural residential subdivision within which his land is situated. He produced voluminous statistical evidence as the valuation of the subject and some 40 other lots showing the valuations prior to March, 1990, the original valuation of the sites - -- as at March, 1990, the valuation of the sites after objection conference adjustments, [1991] QLC 118 -- 1 of 4 -- !...:::.- -.'.· < · :· ,:.. . .... . ~:- .::.,,·.•.'::-,. ~/4 ·~· ·.·: ·· • ·,.· _.··, .•. · ·.·.. ··,··· ··· ... ·' •· -=-1·,· -•~ .·· ..... , ⇒- , .. -· ·- ·· .......... .... __ ·• .- ··.· .- -- · ·- ··- ·~ ,: · .. _ ..,. .. ,,_._,._ ·..... - ··------· --~ -...--·----·-- - '1 - Page 2 - and the percentage increases when the 1990 relevant date valuations were issued. On my reading of the schedule the value of the subject parcel was increased after an objection reduction of a factor of 42.8% and the increases vary within the subdivision by factors ranging from 6.9% to 77%. This, it is suggested, shows inconsistency although it is to be noted that subject Lot 14 has been increased by _about the middle of the range of increase factors. Mr Condie referred the Court to the sales of 5 lots within the subdivision, one of which was improved with a dwelling house. The 4 vacant land sales, prima facie, appear to support the level of unimproved value applied to the sale lots as at 31st March, 1990. Mr , Condie also placed in evidence a valuation appraisal by "Century 21" real estate agents at Mackay North which firm supplied him with the appraisal that the market value of his property fell within the $95,000 to $105,000 range. The house on the land was constructed at a cost of $67,000 in 1984 . After valuing the other improvements on the site (gardens, sheds etc) Mr Condie concludes that the value of the land should not exceed $18,000. The valuation under appeal by made by Mrs Robyn Joy Merritt who is a Registered Valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands. Mrs Merritt describes the nature of the land as being easy to sloping country intersected by small creeks and gullies. A view of the ocean is made unavailable by the presence of standing timber. Mrs Merritt has valued the land having regard to three sales of vacant rural residential lots in Kippen Drive. These sales vary in area from 5702 m 2 to 1.768 hectares and in analysed unimproved value from $23,000 to $35,000. - Mrs Merritt sets out in her valuation report her idea as to the comparison -as -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - between each of the sale lots and the subject land. Mrs Merritt did not compare the sale sites with the subject land on a unit area basis as did Mr Condie in his evidence. I find that when the task at hand is to value rural residential sites then it is preferable to compare blocks on a site to site basis and not on a unit area basis. Mrs Merritt explained to the Court that after objections were lodged against the _ :1990 valuations, she reinspected the subdivision and the sales and made relativity adjustments as she saw necessary. Not all of the blocks were inspected prior to the objection conferences. Mrs Merritt offers the view that when valuing lands in an unimproved state, it is better to rely upon vacant land sales evidence than on improved sales evidence. With this opinion I agree. Both parties have produced sales and on my appreciation of this evidence I cannot conclude that a valuation of I $24,000 for the subject land is excessive or unreasonable. Prima facie it appears to be well supported by the available evidence. It is fundamental that the vacant sales evidence provides a better basis than real estate appraisal provided by "Century 21" Real Estate. It has often been commented by this Court that references to percentage or relative increases in valuation upon the revaluation of a local authority area does not constitute a valid ground of appeal. What is to be determined is the value of the subject land and other sites at the relevant date and as aforesaid this is best tested in relation to sales evidence. This is not to be taken that relativity is not a ground of appeal, but in making relativity comparisons, sites . ·- - such as the subject and nearby sites should be looked at on a site to site basis. I have no evidence on this basis that the subject valuation is lacking in relativity albeit that the increases in the previously subsisting unimproved values vary considerably. -· ·- •··-:_...:,:~ -- 3 of 4 -- - Page 4 - It may well be that the previous valuations were lacking in relativity and the present valuations are not. This is more likely to be the case since Mrs Merritt made . . relativity adjustments and the Court files do not disclose any other appeals by landholders in the estate at Indian Heads. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot _ _14 on RP 738041, parish of Ossa as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $24 ,000 is affirmed. C.H. Carter Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --