Allard & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 268

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Pine Rivers Shire Council. AV90-476. ._, William L. Allard and Gloria R. Allard V. Th e Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT,, BRISBANE 3rd May, 1991 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 7 on RP 111065, parish of Samford, containing an area of 6.154 hectares in the sum of $67,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1989. The appellants value the land at $55,000. The appeal is brought on four grounds, three of which were pursued, being: that the Valuer-General has not considered all relevant matters; that the Valuer-General's value is out of relativity with other properties in the area; and that the Valuer-General's use of the sales evidence and applied unimproved values from sales is inconsistent and not fair and equitable to the subject land, having regard to all relevant matters and the Valuation of Land Act. Mr C.W. Allard appeared on behalf of his parents and tendered a written submission in support of the grounds of the appeal. The submission was prepared by himself and his father. Mr Allard is a registered valuer. The subject land is situated in McLean Road South, Camp Mountain. The subject lot and 1O or so other lots are situated within the horseshoe (head of valley) formed by McLean Road South and its continuation into Sutton Ct with the subject lot being at the tip (western area) of the curve. McLean Road South is a narrow formed bitumen strip roadway with earth shoulders and channelling. The [1991] QLC 268 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 land is situated about 8 kilometres from Ferny Grove. The lot is zoned "Rural" and is used for residential purposes - this being accepted as the highest and best use of the lot and of other lots in the area. No town water is available. Electricity is available and was brought to the subject land from the eastern boundary of the adjoining Lot 2 at the expense of the owners. The land in the area may generally be described as broken moderate to steep and very steep forest country subject to slip and requiring (it would appear) some form of piling in the building construction. The subject lot is described by Mr D.R. Lucas, Valuation Manager in the employ of the Department of Lands, as consisting of moderate/steep sloping uncleared forest country below road level with a building site of good elevation and having a good north-easterly outlook located about 200 metres from the road. This site is situated on a ridge which Mr Allard said runs perpendicular to the western road alignment and in his opinion is the only practicable building site on the lot. He said that the construction of access to the site cost $4,000 some time ago. The lot has an area of 6 hectares and generally speaking is 2 hectares or more larger than other lots within the horseshoe. Whilst Mr Allard admits that size is a valuation consideration, he discounts the impact thereof in the valuation of the subject land due to the contour of the land and to the difficulty of getting over the block. He compared the lot with the adjoining Lot 2 and Lot 3 which is one lot removed from Lot 2 to the east. These two lots were the subject of sales in March and April, 1989, and are listed as sales 3 and 4 on the schedule of sales appended to the valuation of Mr Lucas. The remaining sales in the schedule comprise the sale of Lot 52 in Vonne Court and Lot 12 in Brahan Court. Lot 2 adjoining has an area of 4.092 hectares and sold for $75,000 with clearing. The sale analysed to an unimproved value of $73,000. Lot 3 which has an area of 2.011 hectares sold for $50,000 with clearing -- 2 of 4 -- 3 and analysed to an unimproved value of $47,700. The lot was resold in June, 1990, for $59,000. It is agreed that Lot 3 falls steeply from the road and has a very limited area where a dwelling could be built. For the purposes of this Annual Valuation, this lot is valued at $39,500. The value applied to the adjoining Lot 2 is $52,000 which again is a sum well below the analysed selling price. This came about through the investigations carried out into the market by Mr Lucas. Having considered a considerable number of other sales in the Camp Mountain region including sales 1 and 2, he concluded that the selling prices of Lots 2 and 3 were not truly indicative of the market and discounted them for valuation purposes. This approach is consistent with correct valuation principles. If the comparison then with Lots 2 and 3 is turned to one of relativity with values applied to those lots, the evidence satisfies me that the subject lot is much superior to Lot 3. Lot 2 is valued at $52,000. Mr Allard described Lot 2 as a moderate to steep block but with direct access off the road and with power at the road alignment. He sees the block as being slightly inferior to the subject block overall. Mr Lucas on the other hand argues, and it is accepted by Mr Allard, that the most practicable place to build a home on the sale lot is near the road, that cut and fill was required (also required in the development of the site on the subject land) and that as site to site the subject land was superior, notwithstanding that access was required to be constructed from the road alignment to the site. If electricity was provided to the subject site boundary prior to March 1989, which appears to be the case, the lot must be valued as a lot with electricity at the boundary, notwithstanding who bore the cost. When all the evidence of comparison is refined and consideration given to size in affording space and privacy from neighbours and from road users, I am satisfied that the subject lot is markedly superior to Lot 2. It is evident that the relationship in -- 3 of 4 -- .,: 4 which Mr Allard had them is too close for comfort. Rather, I prefer the degree of superiority as is reflected in the valuation applied by Mr Lucas. Accordingly I must dismiss the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed.·~·t.. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --