Duncan v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 57

I • j_ ;, , . ~ -~ f_ ... -~•ta.,,....•.• .~.-.e.,.......,..._l'.-.-,-, ....~,.• 1:,,, ....-,. ,. ,J--,t~-.!,,if!~ LAND COURT, BRISBANE 19th June, 1991 Re: Appeals against valuations of the Valuer-General - Shire of Jondaryan. V90-618 and V90-619. David c. Duncan v. Th e Valuer-Ger1 eral DECISION (Hearing at Toowoomba) Mr Duncan is the owner of Lot 6 on RP 228656, parish of Gowrie, containing 6.381 hectares. The Valuer-General has undertaken valuations of this parcel of land for two valuation dates - 31st March, 1988 and 31st March, 1989 - . which have resulted in appeals against the valuations to this Court. The details are as follows: Appeal V90-618 Appeal V90-619 Valuation as at 31st March, 1988 (effective 30th June, 1989) $43,500. Reduced on objection by notice dated 7th August, 1990 to $39,000 and amended prior to this hearing under the provisions of Section 21A of the Valuation of Land Act to $34,500. Valuation as at 31st March, 1989 (effective 30th June, 1990) $50,000. Reduced on objection by notice dated 27th August, 1990, to $45,000 and further amended after appeal under the provisions of Section 21A of the Act to $39,500. In the Notices of Appeal to the Land Court, the appellant contended to a value of $30,000 in each appeal but at the hearing contended to a valuation of $22,000 in [1991] QLC 57 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 respect of appeal V90-618 and $24,000 in respect of appeal V90-619. The grounds of appeal set forth in the Notice of Appeal in each case are identical and read: " 1. Frontage of only 38.808 metres on to its only road, Carrington Road, prevents further subdivision. 2. Bordered on eastern boundary by a huge and very deep and · - dangerous, disused quarry. 3. Extremely steep block, restricting use for much of the land. 4. Bisected by a waterway which has proved to be destructive when in flow. (topography map available). " Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act, the appeal is limited to the grounds stated. Evidence was given by Mr Owen W. Duncan as agent for his son, the appellant in these cases. Mr Duncan gave evidence to the effect that the land was 4 purchased in November, 1989, for $13,500 but the purchase was part of an overall sale of the subject land and three other parcels to the Duncan family. He concedes that the vendor was an over-anxious seller and that the sale is not a sound basis of valuation. He speaks of the difficulties of the block, its narrow frontage, no subdivisional potential, the steep bank to the disused quarry floor and the difficulties with the waterway across the land. He agrees that there are a couple of sites on the allotment which would be suitable for the building of a home. I invited Mr Duncan to comment upon the sales which have been used by the Valuer-General as a basis of valuation but he says that he cannot comment upon them. He does not advance any sales evidence to support the values to which he contends. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr B.R. Krause. He says that he was not the valuer who undertook the valuations in the first instance but the records indicate to him that these Annual Valuations were done on the basis of maintaining relativity with previous valuations. He has carried out an -- 2 of 4 -- 3 inspection of the land and has formed the opinion that the views obtained from the land are not as extensive as first thought. The parcel has been valued as one large rural homesite without any subdivisional potential. He gives a detailed statement of the nature of the land in his written report, including reference to the gully, the disused gravel quarry which presents some safety problems and his opinion of the-· views obtained from the land. He says access is provided by the bitumen sealed Carrington Road on the northern boundary and on the eastern boundary, an unformed survey road exists and access in fact comes from this unformed road. It is serviced with power, telephone and town water from Toowoomba City and a garbage collection service is also available. As a basis of valuation he has had regard to certain sales and in his written report, gives details of the advantages and disadvantages of those parcels so far as access, situation and views are concerned. In cross-examination it was put to him that some of the sales were to purchasers purchasing for purposes other than as a single homesite. Two sales were to Sellars who have quarries in the area. He does not know what they intend to do with the land purchased but says that the prices paid are not out of line with the general level of value. He was cross-examined concerning a sale from Schloss to Scot of an 8.342 hectare parcel at Reithmullers Road, Glenvale, which sold in October, 1988, for $54,000. He describes it as an odd shaped parcel with gravel access. Mr Duncan in cross-examination suggested that the purchaser was a developer but Mr Krause says he is unaware of the occupation of the purchaser. He is aware that a home has been erected upon the land since the sale and he believes that sale is a sound basis for the valuation where he has considered it. In undertaking a valuation for the purpose of the Valuation of Land -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Act, the valuer is required to ascertain as best he can what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land at a given date if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions and assuming the improvements did not exist. A prudent person would look at the marketplace at the time of the proposed sale to guide him in reaching a conclusion on a sale price. In these cases the appellant,-· while contending to a certain value, has no sales evidence to support his values. The sales which have been used by Mr Krause are of parcels with, in some cases, difficulties and are an appropriate guide to value in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Mr Duncan has said that he could not comment on the sales which have been used as a basis of valuation despite his later cross-examination of Mr Krause concerning the sales. It is incumbent upon the appellant under the provisions of the Act to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation. I find that in these cases he has failed to discharge that onus and that the evidence adduced by Mr Krause supports the valuations for which he contends. Accordingly the appeals must fail. Appeal V90-618 and V90-619 are dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General in each case is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --