Donohue & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 81

----------=---------·--- l.!.-l_··.;;_;;_~...t~___ :!:......ri_t_L_'.~~-:.[_t~t_~--~~-)__1 _r-_)_t_)_\_i!•_'_,_ Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Murweh Shire Council. V90-709 Trevor E. and Kay Donohue V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Charleville) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 28th March, 1991 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of an area of 52.5 hectares in the parish of Charleville in the sum of $35,000 for the purposes of the general revaluation of the Area as at 31st March, 1989. The subject land is made up of four parcels of freehold land being Lot 1 on RP 2459; Lot 26 on Plan C1407; Lot 28 on Plan C1408; Lot 1 on RP 14314 and an area held under permit to occupy being PO 10/2459. The permit to occupy covers a strip of land along the frontage (being part of the old Cunnamulla Road reservation) containing an area of 3.74 hectares. The land is situated on the fringe of the urban area of Charleville, being about 1.1 radial kilometres from the Post Office and with bitumen access except for about 60 metres which can be difficult to traverse in wet weather. There is no dispute that the land abuts the Warrego River on the western (rear) boundary and consists of levees and channels timbered with coolibah, doolan and black wattle. The home is situated on a narrow low ridge in the south-eastern corner of the property. The entire property was heavily flooded in the 1990 flood but in times of normal river floods, the homesite is free of flooding. [1991] QLC 81 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 The land is zoned "Residential B" under the Town Plan of the Shire which was gazetted on 28th November, 1987. Under this zoning, the construction of a dwelling house on the land is an "as of right" use. The land has been valued by the Valuer-General as a single rural residential site without regard to the fact that the land is subdivided by survey and could be sold as separate lots. In doing so, he has followed the provisions of s. 11 (1) (vii) of the Act. The appellants value the land at $6,500 and they brought the appeal on these grounds: " (a) The land is used exclusively for a single dwelling residence. (b) With the exception of a narrow ridge that runs through part of Portion 28 and Subdivision 1 of Portion 29, the remainder of the land is subject to extensive flooding. This point was stressed to Officials of the Valuer-General at a conference held at 8.40 a.m. on Wednesday 18th April, 1990. The events that occurred in Charleville on 20th and 21st April, 1990 proved our point as our land was completely flooded with 5' 4" of water entering the bottom section of our dwelling. Photographs are available for perusal. (c) Soil erosion is a problem due to flooding. (d) Heavy infestation of "Black Wattle" on land close to Warrego River. (e) Subdivision of land is not leasable due to restrictions imposed under Council's Town Plan and associated flooding of the land that occurs. (f) The land has no potential for grazing purposes as same has a carrying capacity of one head to three hectares in an extremely good season, otherwise extensive hand feeding is necessary. (g) Cultivation or cropping is not feasible due to lack of a permanent water supply in close proximity. Town water is metered and is not suitable due to high soda content. (h) Access to land is by an unformed dirt road which causes problems in wet weather. " In the hearing of the matter Mr T.E. Donohue gave evidence about the heavy infestation of black wattle on land close to the Warrego River and of the concern of the relative authorities to the spread of this bush. His statement of evidence also covered flooding effects, the potential within the land for grazing -- 2 of 3 -- 3 purposes and other purposes. It appears that the value he applied to the area is one which might have some relevance if the land to be valued was confined to a small homesite without regard to the whole area comprised in the unit which must be valued. Mr R.P. Rosenberger, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Valuer-General. He said that he was aware of the disabilities affecting the land and that the land had been valued as a single rural homesite, adding that in his opinion the existence of the permit to occupy added nothing to the value of the site. . He was of the opinion that sales (details of which he tendered) of rural homesites both before and after the relevant date supported the valuation, more particularly when the element of size is taken into account - the sale lands being of much smaller areas. Under the Act (s. 21) an appellant is limited to the grounds stated in the Notice of Appeal and the burden of proof is upon him. This ruling which was made during the proceedings when Mr Donohue introduced evidence dealing with relativity (which was not a ground of the appeal) took much away from the case prepared by the appellants. In applying the statutory direction to the evidence left for my consideration, I am unable to conclude that the determined value is in error. Accordingly, I must dismiss the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --