Darday & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 260

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General, Brisbane City Council. AV90-674. Martha Darday & Stephen Darday v. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 10th May, 1991. This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of a parcel of land of 637 square metres situated at 12 Barker Street, East Brisbane, in the sum of $47,500 for the purposes of the annual valuation of the area as at 31st March, 1989. The appellants valued the land at $43,000 on grounds that the valuation is out of relativity with the value applied by the Valuer-General to an adjoining lot of about 800 square metres at $47,500 ($49,000 stated in the Notice of Appeal) having regard to size, the effect of an easement running the driveway of the subject lot and having regard to the zoning of the land as "Inner Residential" under the town planing scheme which was gazetted on 13th June, 1987. Mr Stephen Darday appeared on behalf of the appellants and set out in his statement of evidence the method by which he derived the appellants' value of $43,000. The calculation is made on the relationship in area between the subject lot and the comparison lot in perches (25 perches to 40 perches). The calculation is: 25/40th of $49,000 less easement plus special zoning 30,625 5,000 25,625 17,375 $43,000 [1991] QLC 260 -- 1 of 3 -- ... 2 He worked on the assumption that the adjoining block (8 Barker Street) had been valued at $49,000 whereas in fact the value applied to the site is $47,500. He agreed with Mr Uday Singh, registered valuer, who wrote the valuation on behalf of the Valuer-General that 8 Barker Street was used for single unit residential purposes and so also the property adjoining the subject land on the north and that the subject land was developed with a residence and 2 x 1 bedroom flats. Mr Singh said that the valuation in the subject case was made under S 12 (lA). This section enables the Valuer-General to value land unimproved but having a potential use to the extent to which it is developed - that is that because the subject land is developed for multi unit purposes it may lawfully be valued as a site with that potential and not as a single unit residential site, which is the manner in which the adjoining lot was valued. He is correct in his approach. It follows that the basic evidence relied upon by the owners is irrelevant (the properties not being valued on a common footing). The further aspects of comparison raised by Mr Darday suffer the same sort of ambiguity. The subject land and the comparison lot are within the inner residential zone which (under clause 7.4 of the Plan) is a zone intended to remain as a relatively low density but closely settled residential area primarily comprised of detached houses. Duplex houses maybe allowed with the consent of the Council however any duplex house will require a site with a minimum area of 800 square metres and a frontage of 20 metres or more. Mr Darday submits that this is relevant in that the subject land could not be developed for such purposes under the Plan. This reasoning may be relevant if the subject lot and the adjoining lot were to be valued as unimproved land and for their highest and best use. However, whilst the comparison lot remains as a lot exclusively used for single unit residential purposes the lot must be valued as a site -- 2 of 3 -- 3 with no greater potential (S 11 (l)(vii)) and that whilst the subject lot remains developed for multi unit purposes it must be valued as a site capable of that potential, notwithstanding that such development would not be permitted were the land unimproved. Lack of a common footing and comparability between the lots remain. There are therefore no grounds upon which the Court could allow the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --