Bremer & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 83

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Thuringowa. AV91-23. u. and D. Bremer V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Townsviffe) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 2nd August, 1991 Mr and Mrs Bremer are the owners of a 41.68 hectare parcel of land which the Valuer-General in the annual revaluation of the lands in the City of _ Thuringowa as at 31st March, 1990 (effective 30th June, 1991), has under Valuation Roll 8549 valued at $60,000. The appellants have exercised the right of appeal to the Land Court against this valuation and contend to a value of $45,000. Evidence was given by Mr Bremer to the _effect that they reside at the home on this land at 3 Geissmann's Road after having purchased the property in August 1982. Access is off the Black River Road to Hervey's Range Road which is bitumen sealed except for about 2.5 kilometres of dirt road. While the dirt road is usually trafficable in wet weather, there is a bitumen sealed creek crossing on the road which can flood in heavy rains making access difficult. There is a further disability in that this same creek runs through the frontage of the subject land where crossing is more difficult. In the grounds of appeal, mention was made that the appellants were unable to find any sales of comparable land in the area to use as a basis of valuation. He now is aware of the sales referred to by the Valuer- General and says that he is aware of the ·first sale which occurred in February 1990 [1991] QLC 83 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 when a 43.37 hectare parcel was sold by Coal Country No 23 Pty Ltd to - Beauchamp for $72,000. It has been valued by the Valuer-General at $65,000. He believes that it is superior to the subject land with far better access by a bitumen road and no creek crossings. He does not know the other sales which are referred to by the Valuer-General. His main complaint is the difference in the valuations which have been placed on the subject land and the adjoining parcel owned by Carter. He says that the general geography of both properties are very similar, they are criss-crossed with numerous gullies and creeks and it has been increased to $42,500 compared to the valuation of the subject land. Evidence for the V~luer-General was given by valuer, Mr S.A. Cross, who has· originally valued the land at $70,000 and this was reduced on objection to $60,000 as a site value less an allowance of $5,000 because of the broken nature of the country. He says the block backs onto the Black River where it is heavily broken by gullies, the northern and western boundaries are also broken in nature with gullies running through them and internal access off Geissmann's Road through the western boundary is restricted as a result of the gullies. He says that in the previous valuations of this land and the carter land, they have been valued under the concessional valuation as land used exclusively for the business of primary production. On this occasion the land was valued for its highest and best use as a homesite. The Carter land in the first instance was valued at $42,500 under the concessional valuation but on objection this was amended to value it also for its highest and best use at $48,000. He believes that the subject land is superior because the Carter land is more broken on both the southern and eastern boundaries. He acknowledges that Carter does not have to cross the culvert referred to by Mr Bremer but he does not believe that this would restrict traffic for -- 2 of 4 -- 3 more than one or two days after heavy rain. The main problem suffered by the appellant is the internal access. He says in the revaluation regard has been made to the sale but the same sales have been used for the valuation of the Carter property and the only real issue here within the grounds of appeal is whether proper relativity exists between the subject land and the Carter land. In cross-examination Mr Cross agrees with Mr Bremer that Carter only has to traverse 800 metres of earth road to reach the bitumen sealed road and does not dispute that it could be about 2.5 kilometres of dirt road to the subject land. I have considered the evidence in the matter and accept the evidence of Mr Bremer of the difficulties with access to the land including the necessity to bridge the internal access to reach the homesite. I have doubts that a prudent purchaser would be prepared to pay more for this land with access by 2½ kilometres of dirt road with the dual creek crossing than he would be prepared to pay for the Carter land and I propose to apply the same value to this parcel as the Carter land at $48,000. A matter which has caused me some concern is that the valuation approach has been changed on this occasion. While this can happen, in many cases a landholder is disadvantaged when he is unaware of the reason for a substantial increase in the valuation. With annual valuations he can ascertain the new valuation by perusing the records of the Valuer-General but it would be almost impossible for the average person to understand from that record that the concessional valuation no longer applies. I feel that a reasonable approach would be to advise a landholder of such a change at the time of giving a decision on objection or during an objection conference so that he would be in a position to -- 3 of 4 -- 4 specifically test the matter within a ground of appeal if he so desired. The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General is set aside - and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at Forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000). (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --