Burke v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 201

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Shire of Rosalie. V88-193 VJ. Burke V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Toowoomba) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 23rd March, 1990 V.J. Burke has appealed against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of the land contained in Valuation Roll No 2846. Details are as follows: Appeal V88-193 - Lot 4 on RP 155502, Parish of Toowoomba, and Lot 2 on RP 155510, Parish of Meringandan - area 67.44 hectares - unimproved value $80,000 - appellant's estimate $33,040 - date of valuation - 31st March, 1987. The property, the subject of the appeal, is situated approximately 13 kilometres north-westerly of the Toowoomba Post Office, with access available via either Rody-Burkes Road or the Cawdor-Shirley Road, both of which are formed earth and gravel roadways. It is described as being of undulating contour with an elevated ridge with excellent views available from north through to south-west The land was zoned "Rural A" at the relevant date. Mr V.J. Burke, the appellant, gave evidence to support his appeal. Mr Burke is a veterinary surgeon by profession but does not conduct that business from the subject property. He advised it was not until immediately before the hearing that he became aware of the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act and the relevance of [1990] QLC 201 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 some properties having been valued on the basis of exclusive use for the business of primary production. Mr Burke's evidence was accordingly directed to show that in his opinion the property had been used in such manner during the relevant period. The history of the property is that it had been held in the family for about 120 years and used as a dairy until recent years, when that operation had become unviable. From the date of valuation to the date of issue of the notice of valuation, Mr Burke advised that the property was running up to 18 quality Simmental and Charbray cows and calves and an average of about 12 horses, some of which were on agistment to produce income, together with some poultry. While he provided no records, he agreed that income during the period in question would have been limited to less than $3,000. Mr Burke stressed however that his breeding programme was aimed at quality more so than quantity and due to family circumstances there had been severe disruption to the operation of the property immediately prior to the relevant period. Bret Lonnie Taylor A.A.LY., a Registered Rural and Urban Valuer employed by the Department of the Valuer-General and responsible for the valuation appealed against, gave evidence in support of his valuation. Mr Taylor explained that the property had been valued in accordance with Section ll(i)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (as amended) as a single dwelling house with a site value of $80,000, the basis being three sales as contained in his report. Mr Taylor gave evidence that he interviewed Mr Burke during the relevant period and as a result accepted that at the time of inspection the property was carrying 8 cows, 9 horses and no cultivation was being carried out. He formed the opinion then and confirmed that his current opinion was that during the relevant period, the primary production activities were of insufficient scale and of too spasmodic a nature for the property to quality for the concessional primary production valuation. Under cross- -- 2 of 3 -- .. 3 examination by Mr Burke, when it was suggested to him that the answers given at the time of interview regarding stocl( numbers might well have been on a casual basis and not specifically directed to the business of primary production, Mr Taylor advised he had no reason to doubt the information provided at the interview. The question to be decided in this case is whether the use of the property at the relevant period constitutes the business of primary production. The importance to the appellant is obvious as the Valuer-General would contend for a valuation of $32,000, i£ it is decided in the affirmative. Continually before the Court are matters of a similar nature and the criteria in deciding the use of property have been well aired, but include such matters as continuity, diligence, repetition of action, degree of substantiality or viability. As at the relevant date, I find that the evidence with regard to the scale of the operation even as Mr Burke described to the Court, did not constitute sufficient substantiality or viability as to qualify the property for the concessional valuation. The evidence did indicate that the property has the potential for qualifying use, particularly as the appellant is now aware of the provisions of the relevant sections of the Valuation of Land Act. While the sales evidence available was not ideally comparable, it is the only evidence before the Court as to the single dwelling site value of the property and Mr Taylor demonstrated a well considered approach in the application of the evidence. Irt the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (Signed) R.E. Wenck. Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --