Dale v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 295

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Caboolture. AV90-57. Alan L. Dale V. Th e Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Caboolture) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 20th February, 1991 Mr Dale is the owner of a 63.94 hectare parcel of land situated with frontage to Old Toorbul Road about 5 kilometres north-east of the Caboolture Post Office. In the annual revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Caboolture as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General under Valuation Roll No 5733 has valued this parcel at $130,000 (the valuation as at 31st March, 1988, was $109,000). Mr Dale has exercised his right of appeal to the Land Court against that valuation and in his notice of appeal contends to a value of $80,000. Mr Dale gave brief evidence to the effect that he resides in the home upon the subject land. He makes reference to valuations placed by the Valuer- General on two parcels of land located about 2 kilometres east of the subject land on the same road. A 22.35 hectare parcel owned by Fox has been valued at $68,000 and a 1~.84 hectare parcel owned by Circe Development Pty Ltd has been valued at $70,000. He says that there is a home on the property owned by Fox and the other property is vacant. Having regard to these valuations he considers the valuation of the subject land as excessive. In cross-examination he says that town water is available to the subject lahd but he does not know if town water is available to the two properties which he mentions in evidence. [1991] QLC 295 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Mr A.R. Thomason who appeared as agent for Mr Dale gave evidence that he was unable to find a comparable sale to use as a basis of valuation. In the result he has had regard to valuations which have been placed by the Valuer- General on other properties within the Shire. Mr Thomason makes reference to a 17.4 hectare property owned by Harney valued at $75,000 and another of 49.27 hectares owned by Bell, valued at $116,000 and two other properties at Sirl Road, west of Woodford. He expresses the opinion that the difference in area in large rural homesites should not _attract any more than a marginal increase in valuation and contends that the valuation of the subject land should be $80,000. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Valuation Manager, Mr D.R. Lucas, who says that while the subject land is a substantial parcel it is used exclusively as a single dwelling site and accordingly has been valued under the provisions of s. 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. He lists in his written valuation a number of sales of rural homesites of varying sizes. In short he has reached the conclusion that the subject land as a 16 hectare parcel would attract a valuation of $90,000 and he increased this by 50 percent, taking into account the substantial size of the subject land. He acknowledges that it is only one homesite but sales indicate that buyers are prepared to pay more for large areas. He believes that the subject land is well situated close to the Highway. The Fox and Circe properties referred to by Mr Dale do not have the benefit of town water supply. He acknowledges that the Harney property is a good rural homesite with outstanding views in its situation at Mt Mee and that the Bell property is also elevated with views but that land drops away rapidly. Mr Thomason in his submissions says that the Bell land at Mt Mee is the most comparable and working on Mr Lucas's approach of arriving at a value of -- 2 of 3 -- 3 a 16 hectare of parcel of land and applying the loading for extra area, the valuation of the subject land should be between $90,000 and $100,000. He criticizes a sale referred to by Mr Lucas from Brough to Kauga of a 57.6 hectare parcel sold on 16th April, 1988, for $155,000 because in its zoning it could be subdivided. This parcel is situated about 8 kilometres west of Woodford with good bitumen surface limited access highway frontage. Mr Lucas had said that about half was flood prone broken creek flat and half was easy low forest ridge. This sale analysed to show an unimproved land yalue of $105,500. Mr Lucas considered it was overall inferior, in a more remote location with a greater proportion of flood affected land but with easier terrain. Mr Lucas was of opinion that any application for subdivision of this sale property would be refused by the Local Authority. The appellant here has advanced no cogent evidence to show that the valuation is incorrect. While an attempt has been made to establish this through cross examination of Mr Lucas, I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence that this has not been accomplished and that the evidence overall supports the conclusion reached by Mr Lucas and the appeal fails. Accordingly, the appe2I is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --