Bonnet v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 168

... LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 12th December, 1990. Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Beaudesert Shire - V90-300. M.D. Bonnet v. The Valuer-General DECISION In the revaluation of- Beaudesert Shire as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer- General has determined the unimproved value of land situated at Alpine Terrace, Mount Tamborine, described as Lots 14 and 15 on RP 14285; Lot 2 on RP 100324 and Lot 3 on RP 155256, Parish of Cedar, County of Ward, in the sum of $120,000. The aggregated area of the individual parcels is 3.212 hectares and the Valuer- General through his registered valuer, Mr A.R. Kirby has interpreted that the use, as improved with a single dwelling house, qualifies the property for the benefit of Section ll(l)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 (as amended). This allows the existence of individual titles and the higher usage potential of the property in the real market place to be ignored. Mr Bonnet has appealed against the valuation on the grounds that the property is a farm and should be valued on this basis. He estimates a value of $70,000 and contends for this amount. The Valuer-General on the other hand would value the property at $92,000 if under this same section of the Act, its use was deemed to be for the business of primary production, rather than as a single dwelling house. Mr Bonnet attended the hearing and gave evidence to support his contentions. He described how his uncle had purchased the property in 1973 as an avocado farm and had continued to use it for that purpose until his death at an advanced age and after a [1990] QLC 168 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 long illness, in October 1987. Due to the excision of a small part of the property an amended valuation showing an increased sum (from $48,000 to $60,000) was received shortly after the uncle's death. Mr Bonnet who had no involvement in the property until becoming an executor of the estate, thought this was a normal revaluation of the Shire, but then when it further increased to $120,000 at the current relevant date valuation, subject of this appeal, he realised that the classification of the property from primary production to residential use had earlier been changed. He advised that at the time of his uncle's death it was the start of the avocado picking season and he sold the existing crop on the trees at 10 cents per fruit, grossing about $500. Then, in December 1987 he rented the whole property for $150 per week, he says on the basis of $75 per week for the house and $75 per week for the farm to the same person. He thought a relation of the tenant was involved in some form of partnership with the tenant on the working of the farm. He agreed that at the time he became involved in 1987 the avocado orchard had become neglected owing to the uncle's age, health and poor management, even though he understood people had been employed to maintain the property. When the farm was rented to the present tenant, Mr Bonnet had no knowledge of the tenant's farming experience if any, but the orchard was now improving and he was aware that in addition, crops of pumpkins and watermelons had been grown on an area of about 8000 square metres of cultivation. He had no idea of the tenant's income from the farming activity. He thought that about 60 to 80 mature avocado trees had survived the past neglect. Both Mr Bonnet and his tenant had carried out injection of the trees to try to combat the root disease phytophthora cinnamoni. The orchard and cultivation area was capable of irrigation from a bore with an existing reticulation system and the locals had informed him that the underground supply was one of the best on the Mountain. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Mr Kirby informed the Court, in confirmation of Mr Bonnet's evidence relevant to the recent valuation history of the property, that consequent upon a detailed inspection of the orchard by another valuer in January 1988, and due to its neglected state, the primary production use benefit had been removed at that time. It had been replaced with the less advantageous but still beneficial single dwelling house use classification. Mr Kirby had himself inspected the property in mid 1989 but not for the purpose of deciding whether it was being used at that time for the business of primary production. He had been guided entirely in that :regard by the earlier report by the other officer which indicated that of a total orchard of 122 trees about 74 were in poor to very poor condition. He had not carried out a full inspection of the orchard but while he noticed some maintenance had been effected the orchard still had a run-down appearance. As a result of objection to this relevant date valuation further information had been sought from the appellant as to the use of the property but to his knowledge no information had been forthcoming to confirm that a business had been re-established. This is another case where definition of "business" needs to be considered. There has undoubtedly been a primary production business operation in the past but there seems no dispute that the avocado orchard became quite neglected in more recent times, causing a lack of continuity of the past operation. There is also evidence that some reinstatement and maintenance of the orchard has been effected by both the appellant and the tenant. The degree of effective reinstatement is not clear on the evidence. It would seem that the level of "farming" activity being conducted on the property is, and was at the period relevant to this valuation, solely at the discretion of the tenant in return for a relatively low rental. There is no precise or convincing evidence before me to suggest that the tenant's operation is a serious business activity, even though it may well be. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 It seems to me that the property even with the existing orchard has the potential for qualifying primary production use. If it is the tenant who is conducting this business then it will be necessary in future considerations for supporting evidence to be provided from this source as to the extent of the business operation, together with financial evidence relative to sales and expenditure. If the owner has formulated some clear plan of business operation which has been put into effect then that information together with any supporting evidence from the tenancy arrangement should be provided to the Valuer-General for his future considerations. While I accept that some form of farming activity is again being conducted from the property, there is insufficient evidence before me to find that the use constitutes a "business" of primary production as it needs to do to qualify for the protection under the legislation. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --