Croker v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 177

Re: An appeal against the determination of the Valuer-General. Beaudesert Shire. V90-226. K.K Croker -v- The Valuer-General (Hearing at Beaudesert) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 5th December, 1990. As at 31st March, 1989 the Valuer-General has determined the unimproved value of the land described as Lot 2 on Registered Plan 168893 and Lot 2 on Registered Plan 209750, Parish of Cedar, County of Ward, containing an area or 2.618 hectares, at $65,000. The land is situated on the southern side of Coomera Gorge Drive, Mount Tamborine, about 6 kilometres by road south-easterly of the Township of North Tamborine. It is zoned partly "Residential A" and partly "Rural" and is used for residential purposes being improved with a single dwelling house and a small avocado orchard. Mr K.K. Croker, the appellant, provided an estimate of the unimproved value as being $12,000. The basis of this estimate is that, to Mr Croker's knowledge, [1990] QLC 177 -- 1 of 4 -- - Page 2 - the valuation of neighbouring lands have increased by a factor of 60 since 1972 and a valuation of $12,000 for the subject would also represent a 60 factor increase. It transpires that Mr Croker was not specifically aware of the relevant date valuations on the neighbouring lots and had made certain assumptions regarding the previous valuations and the various increases. Mr Croker attended the hearing and gave verbal evidence as to his understanding of previous valuations on the subject property. His primary purpose in appealing against the present valuation was to seek consistency in increases in valuations between his and adjoining parcels. It became difficult to correlate the stated previous valuations of the subject as supplied by Mr Croker but in any event the available records of the Valuer-General did not go back further that 1983. Mr A.R. Kirby, the registered valuer responsible for the Valuer- General's assessment, advised that while he was unaware of the 1972 valuations on the subject property, the previous valuation as at March 1983 had been $39,000. He provided the Court with the 1983 and 1989 relevant date valuations of the various small lots adjoining the subject. It is noted that a factor of approximately 1.66 increase had resulted from 1983 to 1989 with the valuations on the subject and this factor was generally consistent on the adjoining parcels, including a large area of 86.47 hectares to the south. Mr Kirby described the subject land as being located on the south-east rim of the Tamborine Plateau. Areas of the land adjoining Coomera Gorge Drive are of fairly regular contour where the property falls steeply to an easy to medium sloping shelf area at the rear. Extensive views are available mainly from the fairly level north-eastern corner. The property is of awkward shape and comprises two individual areas -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - each with access strip frontage to the street. A dwelling is located on the wider eastern frontage section. Mr Kirby explained that he had valued the two surveyed parcels in amalgamation as a single homesite providing the benefits accruing under such usage in terms of Section 11 (l)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 (as amended). He had used as a basis the sales of two small sites which adjoin the subject property, with areas of 1,492 square metres and 1,057 square metres respectively which showed by analysis unimproved values of $40,000 and $45,800, to indicate a level of value of at least $40,000 for the actual homesite area on the subject. He then used a sale of a superior 2.203 hectares site in Munro Court which showed an analysed unimproved value of $117,000 to indicate an upper level for the larger total area of the subject with its inherent developmental disabilities. He saw an added value of $25,000 for the area additional to the actual homesite. Mr Kirby has indicated a well reasoned approach to the valuation which is supported by the sales evidence. The appeal will fail accordingly. Mr Croker seeks an explanation of how the valuation process applies when in his mind inconsistent increases have resulted over the years. Even though his claims as to the level of the 1972 values are unable to be confirmed, it is of no consequence. Indeed, even had inconsistent increases been demonstrated from the previous valuation (1983) to the 1989 valuation (which was not the case), it is the correctness of the valuation appealed against which is to be considered. There are many reasons why previous relativities may vary on revaluations. The important aspect of any appeal is that the appellant carries the burden of proving the grounds of appeal. The purpose of each revaluation is to establish the fair unimproved market value of the individual properties at the relevant date of valuation, and while in revenue gathering valuations, correct relativity from property to property is -- 3 of 4 -- - Page 4 - important, the primary basis of valuation is the comparison of each property with the available sales evidence, of preferably vacant or lightly improved land. In this matter I find that the Valuer-General's valuation follows correct principles. The appeal is therefor dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Co urt . -- 4 of 4 --