Anderson v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 199

' I ' Re: Appeal against the determination of the Valuer- General, Shire of Pittsworth (AV89-141) J.R.G. Anderson - V - The Valuer-General - DECISION - (Hearing at Toowoomba) LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 23rd March, 1990. Mr. J.R.G. Anderson has appealed against the Valuer-General's valuation of land described as Lots 10 and 11 on Registered Plan 30912, Parish of Rolleston, containing 2023 sq. metres. The date of valuation is 31st March, 1988 and the Valuer-General's valuation is $10,500. The appellant contends for a valuation of $5,400. The land comprising two (2) surveyed adjoining lots is situated on the eastern frontage of Well Street, Pittsworth, northerly of the railway line. Well Street is bitumen sealed and the land is described as gently sloping. Mr. Anderson had appealed against the previous valuation, as at 31st March 1987, when the land had been vacant. The Valuer-General's valuation at that time was $14,800, based on highest and best use as two (2) sites with an allowance for a multiple holding. The decision of the learned Member, Mr. Barry, handed down on 6th September, 1988 was to dismiss the appeal. It is worthy of mention at this time that Mr. Barry said in his decision - ''It well may be that since the relevant date prices may have dropped in Pittsworth, but this is a matter for consideration in the next annual valuation as is the question of a valuation as one (1) site and not two (2)." It emerged that as a result of a house having been shifted on to the land, as at the relevant date of the subject valuation, the Valuer-General had this time valued the land [1990] QLC 199 -- 1 of 4 -- - Page 2 - as one site in terms of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (as amended). Mr. Anderson again gave evidence that he purchased the lots for $4,000 each or a total of $8,000 in (he says) September 1987. He was looking for cheap land on to which he could move a house. He was aware that the land had been advertised for $5,000 for each lot, had offered $4,000 per lot through an agent and the offer was accepted. He said that while he was not aware of the circumstances at that time, the price of this and other land nearby sold by the same vendor could have been affected by a property settlement matter, but had he known he might have offered less. He had made some investigation of other land available at higher prices at the time of his purchase, but he was looking for cheap land. He felt the standard of houses in the immediate area and a truck depot (sand and gravel) opposite detracted from the market value of the Well Street land. Mr. Peter John Klupfel F.A.I.V., a Registered Urban Valuer employed by the Valuer-General, said that while he was not originally responsible for the valuation appealed against, he had looked at the evidence and the valuation and agreed with it. He submitted a report with a schedule of supporting sales evidence, comprising eleven (11) sales scattered throughout the town. With varying sizes and locations, sale prices ranged from $5,000 to $15,500. The schedule included all sales used in the valuation of the town to show the total picture, but it became obvious that many of the sales could not be regarded as comparable to the subject land. Mr. Klupfel says that the total evidence indicated to him that the purchase of the subject property was below market value as was the second block nearby in Florence Street which was sold for $5,000 by the same vendors and at about the same time. He points to the property settlement matter as being the probable reason for what he saw as low prices. Included in the schedule is another site in Well Street one lot removed to the north of the subject property. This site was sold by the Royal Order of Buffaloes to an adjoining owner, Elsden, in February 1988 for $6,000. -- 2 of 4 -- - Page 3 - The sales analysis indicates that the Valuer-General had applied a valuation of $8,000 to this property. Although the sale price was again considered to be low, Mr. Klupfel had not been able to establish any reasons to support his opinion. A site of 1897 sq. metres in Bowden Street (zoned light industry) on the northern side of the railway, as is the subject land, sold in September 1987 to an adjoining owner for $5,000. To this property the Valuer-General applied $7,400. There is then a sale of a 2023 sq. metre site (the same area as the subject) in Factory Street in March, 1988 for $9,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $8,600 to which was applied $7,400. Mr. Klupfel describes this site as a long narrow lot affected by some storm water run-off but importantly opposite the saleyards. He was not aware whether or not the saleyards were now rarely used, as was put to him, but felt that apart from the usage of the facility, the visual impact of a saleyard structure detracted from the site. The evidence showed that values in Pittsworth are affected by a number of factors, the higher values being commanded in those visually pleasant locations with good quality homes. There is also considered to be strong evidence to indicate that a weak market existed in the poor residential areas and there was general agreement that the subject location fell within that category. While it is accepted that there were circumstances which may have caused the vendor of the subject land and the site in Florence Street to have fallen within the over-anxious category, there is evidence that the land in question had been reasonably exposed to the market. There is then evidence of other land, again in the less desirable areas, having sold at - in the Valuer-General's opinion - "low" figures for no explained reason. This valuation is to be made on the basis of a single residential site of 2023 sq. metres. There is evidence of a sale of a site (the Factory Street sale) with similar area and with disabilities, in terms of surrounding development not dissimilar to the subject, to which the Valuer-General applies a value of $7,400. The subject property was purchased at a total price of $8,000 not long before the relevant date and while it was purchased on -- 3 of 4 -- .. - Page 4 - the basis of it comprising two (2) surveyed lots, at a figure which might have been below market value on a single lot basis, it is now used as a single dwelling site and falls to be valued on that concessional basis. I am of the opinion that at the relevant date, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the Valuer-General's assessment of the single dwelling site value for the subject land was in excess of fair market value. As an annual valuation is being dealt with and a fresh market may be interpreted quickly if change is evident, I see no reason to do other than adopt the figure paid as representing also the concessional single dwelling site value of the property as at the relevant date. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer-General is set aside and the unimproved value is determined as $8,000. (Signed: R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --