Dobson v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 2

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 22nd February, 1991 Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - City of Brisbane Act (s.44(11)). VC90-677. Lesbia C.A. Dobson v. The Valuer-General D E C I S I O N This is an appeal against the decision of the Valuer-General disallowing an objection by the appellant against the category in which the land upon which she resides at 64 Charlton Street, Ascot, should be included for rating purposes. The subject land is zoned "Residential B -R2" which according to Mr J.T. Houghton, registered valuer, who represented the Valuer-General in the hearing of the matter, may be described as a zone which would permit of lower density multi unit development. The land however has upon it a dwelling which some 25 years ago was converted into two flats. The reason for the conversion is contained in the evidence of Ms Dobson. The flat was attached at her expense in order that she could care for her aged parents and at the same time maintain a degree of independence. She described it as a classic "granny flat" which was constructed, not as a commercial proposition, but rather to facilitate a "carer/caree" relationship. On the death of her father some 20 years ago, she moved in with her mother and the flat was let to a single man who has remained as a tenant since that time Ms Dobson is now 67 years of age, unmarried and without close relatives. She said that although not infirm she has an arthritic condition and a gradually encroaching cataract condition. Accordingly her motivation is reduced. The tenant, she says, helps in this respect by maintaining the property and putting his car at her disposal. In return she said that he pays only a nominal rent - "just enough to cover rates and maintenance". The Valuer-General in valuing the land for rating purposes has valued the site [1991] QLC 2 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 as if it had no potential for any higher and better use than as a single unit residential site. This he is required to do under the provisions of s. 11(1)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. In that section, single dwelling-house means - "(a)a dwelling used solely for habitation by not more than one family; (b)a dwelling occupied by the resident owner and used solely for habitation - (i)part of which stands converted for use as a flat; or (ii)part of which is used or for use as a furnished room or furnished rooms, by a person or persons other than the owner's family; or (c)a building used solely for habitation and that consists of 2 flats, one of which is occupied by the resident owner; ....... " The unimproved value applied for this purpose is in excess of $100,000. In the criteria adopted by Brisbane City Council for the purpose of categorizing rateable land in the City, a site used for a single unit (dwelling) house with an unimproved value in excess of $100,000 would be included in category A3, whereas a multiple dwelling (flats) site would be included in category B. In the subject case, the Valuer-General included the land in category B - multiple dwelling (flats). The appellant contends that the land should be included in category A3. The submission put by Mr Houghton on behalf of the Valuer-General is to the effect that whilst in valuing the land he is required to have regard to s. 11(1)(vii), the identification of the category in which in his opinion the subject land should be included is not governed by s. 11(1)(vii) but rather by the policies of the Council which, for the purposes of this case, are found in Standing Order 2.19 dated 17th November, 1976, which deals with the establishment or retention of two unit multiple use dwellings (the granny flat principle) under which the proposal must be for one of the following - " (ii)The purpose of the application must be for one of the following reasons:- (a)To provide accommodation for an aged or ailing parent(s) or parent(s)-in-law of the applicant. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 (b)To provide accommodation for the son, son-in-law, daughter and/or daughter-in-law of any aged or ailing applicant. (c)To provide accommodation for aged or ailing relatives. (d)To provide accommodation for a relative of any aged or ailing applicant(s). " The evidence in the subject case shows that the land lost its identity with these provisions years ago with the result that the dwelling was and for present purposes is registered as multiple dwelling - flats. In the circumstances, Mr Houghton submits that the Valuer-General had no discretion in the matter and was correct in including the land in category B. With this submission I must agree. Whilst the property remains registered for the purpose for which it is registered, the appropriate category is that determined by the Valuer-General. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Valuer-General affirmed. Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --