Beak v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 106

,. 'i,i .... . .,~:1 _,.~:i Re: Appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Shire of Livingstone. AV91-165. B. Beak v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 13th September, 1991. The Valuer-General has assessed the unimproved value of land at Anzac Avenue, Yeppoon, described as Lot 2 011 R.P. 604527, Parish of Yeppoon, containing 341 square metres, in the sum of $72,000 as at 31st March, 1990. The land is zoned "Tourist Business and Residential" and a small "seaside cottage" on the land is rented out by the owner. The tenant, apparently without seeking permission, but to the owner's knowledge, uses the cottage not only for residential purposes but also for a small art gallery business. Mrs B. Beak attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the appeal. She contends for a valuation of $50,000. She says the size of the site is very small and bases her estimate of value on an offer she received in recent years. She sees the business future of Y eppoon as somewhat bleak. The thrust of her appeal is however that the effect of the valuation will be to create an unaffordable rating impost as it is intended to use the property in the future as a retirement dwelling. It is her opinion that the "art gallery" use is of a relatively minor nature. [1991] QLC 106 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr J.A. Thomas, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. He had not carried out the original - valuation but had taken over responsibility for it and tendered a supporting report. The land had been valued as zoned, based on one sale in the fringe of the business centre. Full details of the sale and the comparison with the subject property are contained in his report, a copy of which was provided to Mrs Beak. I am satisfied that the valuation is supported by Mr Thomas' basis. Mr Thomas advised that had the land been "exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling-house" it would have been valued in terms of Section ll(l)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 (as amended). The valuation on that basis would have been $60,000. He had satisfied himself that, at the relevant period and still at the current time, the cottage was used for both residential purposes and for the sale of art forms including pottery. The business was advertised by signage and the premises were stocked with items for sale and opened for business on a regular basis. I have no doubts on the evidence that the land is not "exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house" and that Mr Thomas was correct in assessing the value as zoned and not on the basis of a residential site under the protection of Section ll(l)(vii) of the Act. During the course of the hearing Mrs Beak indicated that she would consider having the use of the land revert to that of a single dwelling house. She established the procedure necessary to have the valuation amended. As it was pointed out, this course of action would prudently require some analysis of the benefit which might be gained as opposed to the potential loss of rental income. Of course under the present legislation if it happened that the use of the property did revert to that of a retirement dwelling then the protection could then be established. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 In the meantime, this appeal must fail, the appellant not meeting the onus of proving the grounds of appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --