Carsburg & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 56

Re: Appeal against valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane. V90-736. F.C. and L.J. Carsburg V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 19th June, 1991 This is an appeal against the valuation of Lot 1 on RP 802607, parish of Toombul, containing an area of 8102 square metres. In the revaluation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General has valued this parcel at $245,000 ($30 per square metre). The appellants in their notice of _ appeal contend to a value of $220,000. The land is situated at 213 Elliott Road, Banyo, which is bitumen sealed with kerbing and channelling to the subject side of the road. It is a dead end street terminating about 100 metres easterly of the subject and is an irregular hatchet shaped block with a narrow 15.08 metre frontage to the road. It is zoned General Industry under the relevant town plan. Evidence was given by Mr David A. Elliott on behalf of the appellant company. He says the subject land was part of a large parcel of 16,370 square metres owned by Comforce Australia Pty Ltd. In April 1989, the appellants acquired part of this original holding for $340,000. At that time the valuation of the total parcel was $310,000 and the new valuation represents an increase of 58% over that figure for its area. In a written statement it is stated that such a valuation is approaching the property's full market value and unimproved values for the purposes of rates, etc., are considerably less than market value. He refers to the [1991] QLC 56 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 narrow entrance and lack of commercial exposure and that the land is located well away from all business facilities and main arterial roads. There is also the problem of lack of public transport for staff. He says that the valuation figure together with the cost of construction of a suitable building would require a rental to be charged to a prospective tenant to give a commercial rate of return on a developed property-· which would be uncompetitive. He makes reference to the low-lying nature of the land and the necessity for back filling and the construction of a concrete apron to overcome some of the drainage problems. He deduces that the appropriate valuation for the subject land would be $220,000. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr J.T. Houghton, who was unaware of the subject sale at the time of undertaking his valuation. He has relied upon sales of other parcels of land to reach his conclusion - on an appropriate value of $245,000 or $30 per square metre. He lists in his written valuation the sales referred to and the rate per square metre which has been applied to those parcels in the revaluation. He agrees with Mr Elliott that the original parcel owned by Comforce had been valued at $310,000. When the Valuer-General became aware of a subdivision of that parcel into two lots, he struck a valuation for each parcel with a figure of $237,000 being applied to the subject land as an 8102 square metre parcel. He does not dispute the problems relating to this land which have been aired by Mr Elliott but believes that the sales support the level of value for which he contends. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act, a valuer in endeavouring to ascertain an unimproved value for a parcel of land is to enquire what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for such parcel if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions assuming that the improvements did not -- 2 of 3 -- .. ... 3 exist. The best evidence of such value is the sale of the subject land itself and while Mr Houghton was unaware of the sale of the subject land when he undertook the valuation, that sale, in the month after the relevant date of March 1989, was for the sum of $340,000 and in the light of that sale the valuation of the Valuer-General is indeed a modest valuation. It follows that the appellant has failed to discharge-· the onus to show the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation and the appeal must fail. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --