Edwards & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 244

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Shire of Emerald - A V90-405. LJ. & N.M. Edwards v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Emerald) DE C ISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 24th May, 1.991-; As at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of land containing 20.34 hectares situated in Talafa Road, about 9 km south of the Emerald Post Office, in the sum of $30,500. The real property description of the land which is zoned "Rural A" and used primarily for residential purposes, is Lot 1 on RP.606112, Parish of Selma, County of Denison. Talafa Road is of formed gravel construction providing easy access to the property. Telephone and electricity services are provided and water can be obtained by a 2 megalitre licence for stock and domestic purposes and/ or a 10 megalitre water right from Weemah Irrigation Channel. The Valuer-General describes the land which is at road level as comprising gently undulating blackbutt and brigalow ridges. The appellants attended the hearing, the conduct of the case left in the hands of Mrs N.M. Edwards who gave evidence in support of the appeal. The primary ground of the appeal is that there is a perceived discrimination against the subject property when the valuations of three other properties of similar area in the same street have much lower valuations. Mrs Edwards said that a vacant site adjoining had a similar valuation as the subject property but then lots 3,4 and 5, used for grape-growing, custard apple orchard and beekeeping respectively, were valued, she thought, at $15,000, $14,000 [1991] QLC 244 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 and $14,000 respectively. She holds the strong opinion that on an unimproved basis these properties, regardless of the use to which they were placed, should carry similai: valuations and rating burden. With specific regard to the subject property, she said that a disability is caused by a gully running through it, then there was a shape disability with an elongated strip to the rear. She said that Talafa Road is not well maintained and accidents in the vicinity are prevalent. Mr K.I. Murray, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence in support of the Valuer-General's valuation, for which he was responsible. He said that the land had been valued as a rural residential site, the use to which it was placed, and the valuation had resulted from a standard increase over the previous valuation having been applied. This had resulted from an interpretation of the overall sales evidence since the previous valuation, but in specific support he provided the details of two sales of rural residential sites. The first was of a 21.2 hectare site in Big John Road which sold in November 1988 for $40,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $37,250 with an applied value at the relevant date of $33,000, the sale property being considered superior to the subject property. The second sale was of a 20 hectare site in Pilot Farm Road in September 1988 for $47,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $44,000, which figure was applied as the valuation. This sale property was seen as considerably superior to the subject property. Mr Murray agreed that the Lots 3,4 and 5 in Talafa Road were valued at significantly lower amounts than the subject, but at the relevant date these values were $20,000, $19,000 and $19,000 respectively. The reason for these lower valuations was that each of the three properties was exclusively used for the business of primary production and had been valued as provided for in Section ll(l)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 (as amended). -- 2 of 3 -- 3 During the course of the hearing, it became obvious that the appellants, while aware of this provision within the legislation, saw it as discriminatory and offensi'C'e to the pure definition of unimproved value. The legislation does, of course, provide in these circumstances some protection to properties used exclusively for the business of primary production, just as it does to properties used exclusively for purposes of a single dwelling house when potential fqr; higher or better use in such cases exists. Section ll(l)(vii) of the Act reads as follows: II In making, pursuant to this subsection, the valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling-house or for purposes of the business of primary production, any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other pu,poses shall be disregarded illespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made. " The appellants agree that they do not use their property for the business of primary production and it follows that no good purpose is served in endeavouring to make comparisons as is the basis of their case. The general level of value for rural residential sites of the size of the subject land is well established from the sales evidence. The subject site does have a shape disability, which Mr Murray says is of little significance in a rural residential site of this size. Nevertheless, in comparison with the superior shape of the adjoining site which carries the same valuation, and in terms of a practical rounded valuation for a rural residential site I will make a minor adjustment by finding an unimproved site value of $30,000. In these circumstances the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General set aside and the unimproved value of the site as described, is determined in the sum of $30,000. (R.E. Wenck), Member of the land Court. -- 3 of 3 --