Bellert v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 94

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th September, 1991 Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Nanango Shire Council. AV91-229. John Maxwell Bellert V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Kingaroy) Mr Bellert owns a property of 171.412 hectares (Lot 21, parish Tureen) in the above shire which is situated about 45 kilometres south-west of Nanango with frontage to the bitumen sealed Maidenwell-Bunya Mountains Road. The Maidenwell-Glencliff Road which is a gravel road runs the eastern boundary of the block. The block comprises blue gum and apple tree flats in the southern area where Wengen Creek traverses the block, thence low rises to undulating to broken mixed ironbark grazing country. The flats and an area of the low rises have been cultivated in the past and the low rises contour banked. It is agreed that these areas are not suitable for commercial cropping but are suitable for opportunity fodder cropping in favourable seasons. It is also agreed that the area, including the higher undulating country, is prone to erosion and must be carefully managed. Wengen Creek is a source of natural water in all seasons although it may cease to run in dry periods. The property is used by Mr Bellert for grazing purposes. For the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General valued the land at $29,500. This valuation was [1991] QLC 94 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 reduced on objection to $28,000. It is against that decision that the appeal is made. The valuation, the subject of the appeal, is equivalent to a rate of $163 per hectare. Mr Bellert values the land at $20,600 or about $120 per hectare. The grounds of the appeal are as follows: II 1. Property is only good for grazing and not cultivation. 2. Majority of property is only accessible by 4 w.d. vehicle. 3. Property is very hilly with erosion and timber regrowth problems. 4. Valuation is substantially higher than surrounding properties. 5. Price of rural properties has not increased in recent years. " Mr Bellert gave evidence in support of the grounds of the appeal. Whilst Mr C.I. Hurman, registered valuer, gave evidence on behalf of the Valuer- General. The matter contained in ground 1 of the appeal is not in dispute. Mr Bellert has estimated that about 10 hectares of the area comprises creek flats. Mr Hurman has estimated that there is about 9 percent of the block (about 15 ha) contained in the flats and low rises. The area although not suitable for cash cropping is accepted as better quality land whether under grass or put to cultivation for fodder. It is agreed that erosion and regrowth problems are common to the area (ground 3) and there is no dispute as to the accessibility of the higher country. Mr Hurman in this respect points to the advantage of the side road (Maidenwell-Glencliff Road) as an advantage in accessing the rear areas of the block by vehicle. The only evidence given by Mr Bellert in support of ground 5 was by reference to a property known as "Shannon Hill" which is on the market at a price relative in his opinion to the price he paid for the subject property in 1983. This evidence is inconclusive. His main argument for testing the valuation is found -- 2 of 5 -- ( 3 in ground 4. He put this schedule in evidence (Exhibit 4) - Portion 21 Portion 22 Portion 23 Portion 24 Portion 20 Portion 39 Area 171.4 ha 184.5 ha 180.4 ha 171.18ha 149.7 ha 228.3 ha Valuation per ha. $163.36 $133.07 $133.07 $121.06 $120.43 $135.78 Lot 21 (the subject property) is surrounded by Lot 20 (across the Maidenwell-Bunya Mountains Road; Lot 22 is on the west; Lots 24 and 23 are on the north and Lot 7 is on the east (across the Maidenwell-Glencliff Road). These lots individually range in area from 149.13 hectares (Lot 20) to 235.4 76 hectares (Lot 7). Generally speaking, the lots are of comparable country to that contained in the subject block. Lot 39 which contains an area of 228.278 hectares is north of Lot 23. Prima facie, the value applied to the subject lot is higher by comparison with the value applied to the lots listed by Mr Bellert. The explanation is found in the evidence of Mr Hurman. Lot 20 forms part of an aggregation in the one ownership totalling 556.3 hectares. Lot 24 is part of an aggregation, including Lots 26 and 7 totalling 561. 7 hectares. Lots 23 and 22 are part of an aggregation including Lot 10 having a gross area of 721.4 hectares. Mr Hurman's evidence is that these aggregated areas have been valued under the Act as one parcel and not as individual lots and that there is reflected in the applied values the element of size. In this respect I agree with his reasoning. It has been found almost endlessly that size is of significance in the marketplace and that smaller properties will attract higher unit values than larger properties assuming that the blocks are comparable in other respects. I accordingly find that there is no useful purpose in taking these - comparisons further. The remaining Lot 39 is valued at $135.78 per hectare. This '· -- 3 of 5 -- ' 4 block has an area of 228.278 hectares and is situated on the Maidenwell-Glencliff Road which is of gravel construction and not passable in all weather conditions (at least in the area of it running the eastern boundary of the subject block). Mr Hurman knew Lot 39 but had not been on it. On his limited knowledge of it he considered that the relationship in value was correct bearing in mind the access to the subject land and it being agreed that the subject lot has better water. I am unable to hold on the strength of this single comparison that the value applied to the subject land is incorrect. Mr Hurman based the valuation on sales with particular regard to two sales in the parish of Neumgna. which is the parish adjoining Tureen on the south- east. The analyses of the sales were not questioned and they reflected on previous values applied to those blocks an increase in value of about 15 percent which is also reflected in the value applied to the subject block. Mr Bellert knew 1 sale -- that of Lot 144 - which he considered had superiority having a main road access and the availability of bore water. The sale of this lot on analysis by Mr Hurman reflected a value of $275 per hectare. Clearly the sale land is a superior block. However, the comparison has been made on behalf of the Valuer-General by a person qualified in that behalf and who has been working throughout the district. He was aware of the particular disabilities of the subject locality as objections against valuations have been made previously in this area and relativity has been questioned. The particular features of the subject block contained in the evidence of Mr Bellert were known to Mr Hurman and he has had the experience of - -getting around the district analysing sales and inspecting blocks. His evidence in this respect is more impressive in terms of relativity than that of Mr Bellert which -- 4 of 5 -- 5 was in substance reduced to a comparison with one lot. In the circumstances I must dismiss the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General affirmed. ,. 1 D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 5 of 5 --