Bakhash v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 191

Re: Appeals against valuations of the Valuer-General. Shire of Ooncuny. (V89-373 and V89-374) Robert Michael Rakbash -v- The Valuer-General - DECISION - (Hearing at Cloncurry) IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 27th April, 1990. The Valuer-General has revalued the lands in the Shire of Cloncurry as at 31st March, 1988. Mr; Bakhash has lodged in the Land Court notices of appeal against two (2) of these valuations, particulars being as follows:- Appeal V89-373 Valuation Roll 334, Lot 161 on R.P. 703304, parish of Cloncurry containing 1012 sq. metres. Valuer-General's valuation $4,000 - Appellant's valuation $1,200. Appeal V89-374 Valuation Roll 366, Lot 5 on R.P. 707012, and Lot 1 on RP 716605, parish of Cloncurry containing an area of 888 sq. metres. Valuer-General's valuation $5,400 - Appellant's valuation $2,000. The parcel under Appeal V89-37:3 is a vacant parcel of land situated at the corner of Ramsay and King Streets, Cloncurry. It is zoned "Central Commercial" under the relevant Town Plan. It has a frontage of 20.12 metres to Ramsay Street and a frontage of 50.29 metres to King Street. Appeal V89-374 is in respect of another parcel of land in Ramsay Street which has been developed with shops. It has a frontage of 17.65 metres to that street. It is also zoned "Central Commercial". Evidence was given by Mr. Bakhash in support of his grounds of appeal V89-374 which read: "On 16th September, 1983, the Valuer~General saw fit to allow my appeal and kept the valuation of this land from $4070 to $3600 and there has been nothing that has happened in Ramsay Street, Cloncurry, to change the wisdom of that decision by the Valuer-General. Buildings and land have been for sale in Ramsay Street especially around this part of Ramsay Street and have not been able to sell. I have had the properties on this land up for sale for years at a decreased property price and have not been able to sell. It makes it very hard in small western towns such as Cloncurry to own land. Ramsay Street has dropped off in the last 10 years and has deteriorated as being the main street of the town and as the rates are 33 cents in the dollar (land rates) in Cloncurry, the owning of land in Cloncurry, particularly in Ramsay Street is very unattractive. I cannot see the reason for a new valuation of this land by any valuer if the last appeal has not been investigated [1990] QLC 191 -- 1 of 4 -- I - Page 2 - by the person doing the valuation. I would ask that this land be seen as the Valuer- General in his wisdom saw fit in 1983 and drop the valuation and give me some chance of selling and if valuation of this land keeps rising it will be impossible to sell. As it is at present in Ramsay Street, Cloncurry, it is very difficult to sell without making it more difficult." Toe grounds of appeal in respect of Appeal V89-373 are identical to the above grounds save that the valuation figures in this case show that the valuation was reduced from $2,820 to $2,500. Mr. Bakhash emphasises the various points set out in his notice of appeal in support of his contention that nothing has changed in Cloncurry and the value should remain as established in the 1983 revaluation. He says that a property opposite his shops and located at 34 Ramsay Street had an old valuation of $3,240. This was increased to $4,800. In October 1989 there was an auction and although the price sought was reduced down to $20,000 there were no bids. A house property at the corner of King and Ramsay Streets sold for $49,000 although in his opinion the house was worth over $100,000. He says there is no justification for an increase in the valuations in Ramsay Street by 50%. He says that he does not really believe that the land has any value at all. He does not adduce any evidence in support of the figures contended for in the notices of appeal. He was asked to comment on the sale used by the Valuer-General on the basis of valuation and he says that there might always be some person prepared to pay a substantial price because of a particular need at the time, but this was no proper basis to value his lands. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer Mr. M.J. Campbell. He was not the officer who undertook the valuation in the first instance but he has conferred with that officer and examined the records and carried out inspections and is satisfied that the valuations are correct. Toe sale which has been used is the sale of a 1619 sq. metre parcel of "Central Commercial" zoned land in Ramsay Street in September 1987 for $7,000. Toe sale is from the Cloncurry Shire Council to Hoch. That sale was analysed and from that analysis a rate of $200 per metre was applied to that parcel which has a frontage of 32.2 metres. -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - The sale is separated from the subject vacant parcel of land by a very small frontage parcel. He says investigations established that the sale land was to be offered by the Council at auction but, prior to the auction, Mr. Hoch made an offer and this was accepted. Mr. Hoch informed an officer of the Department that he wanted this land to establish a motor repair shop in Ramsay Street. There was a further sale in Ramsay Street on 7th January, 1988 when a 379 sq. metre parcel sold for $5,000. This was an adjoining owner sale and for that reason it was not used. In making a comparison with the Hoch sale and the vacant parcel of land, Mr. Campbell says that they are located on the fringe of the Cloncurry Shopping area, the sale land is larger and slightly superior in location but the subject land has the advantage of comer influence. He has applied the rate of $195 per metre to this parcel and added $100 for comer influence to arrive at the overall valuation of $4,000. For the shop premises he uses the same sale and says that the sale property is larger than the subject but it is in an inferior location. He has applied a rate of $305 per sq. metre to the shop premises to arrive at his valuation of $5,400. He says that the values in Ramsay Street have been kept in the same relativity, block to block, with the values established at the previous revaluation. On the northern side the values start from $375 per metre tapering to $225 per metre. On the southern side of the street they commence at $300 and taper to $195 per metre. He says that the circumstances have changed since 1983 and it was necessary to look at sales close to the relevant date of this revaluation. In the result there was a general increase in the values of 50%. He says that he has looked for vacant land sales as he is required to determine an unimproved value of each parcel of land. It is difficult to arrive at an unimproved land value looking at sales of improved parcels in endeavouring to determine the appropriate added value for the improvements upon the land. While Mr. Bakhash says that he has been endeavouring to sell the subject lands he is endeavouring to sell them as one parcel. He has not offered the vacant parcel of -- 3 of 4 -- ., . .. - Page 4 - land for sale separately and is not prepa~ed to concede that the sale of the parcel which is almost adjoining is any proper basis to arrive at the value of his vacant land. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act the Valuer-General is required to value each parcel of land in the Shire. Each valuation must be looked at afresh. Circumstances may change over the years and it is only possible by looking at sales close to the relevant date to see whether values have increased or decreased. Under the Act he is required to ascertain as best he can, the unimproved value of each parcel of land. This means what a prudent vendor would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions assuming that the improvements did not exist. In this case he has a parcel of land almost adjoining a sale which occurred at about the relevant time. I am quite satisfied tha.t had Mr. Bakhash been offering the vacant parcel for sale at the relevant time he would investigate other sales to see what the land was bringing in the market and as a prudent vendor he would not be prepared to accept the sum of $1,200 for that parcel as he contends for in his notice of appeal. I am satisfied that the valuation contended for by the Valuer-General on the vacant parcel of land is well founded on the sales evidence and that the other appeal parcel is in a superior location to the vacant land. He has not disturbed the pre-existing relativity between the parcels in Ramsay Street and there is no evidence before me to justify any variation in that relativity. In appeals under the Valuation of Land Act it is for the landholder to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation and on the evidence here that onus has not been discharged and the appeals must fail. Accordingly, Appeal V89-373 is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. Appeal V89-374 is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. (Signed: D.J. Barry) Pres ident of the Tand Court -- 4 of 4 --