Britten & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 205

~- ... 1 ~.'\ ·> ~ ,.. -~ >'•'1,~' ,,...,~ '' .!\ ' .., ,:r:~· Re: Appeal against valuation of the Valuer-General, , Shire of Pine Rivers (V89-251) EJ, an d N,G. Britten -v- The Valuer-General - DECISION - IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 21st March, 1990. In the revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Pine Rivers as at 31st March, 1988 the Valuer-General has determined an unimproved value of $49,000 upon land owned by Mr. and Mrs. Britten and described as Lots 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 179620, Parish of Samsonvale, containing 6,399 sq. metres. An objection to this determination has been disallowed and Mr. and Mrs. Britten have exercised their right of appeal to the Land Court against that determination. The subject land is situated fronting Attunga Lane, Mount Glorious which is a narrow gravel road. It is described by Valuation Manager, Mr. G.J. Dunn, who gave evidence on behalf of the Valuer-General, as being below road level and having a gentle fall for approximately 30 metres then it continues to fall moderately and then steeply. There are good views of the sea and coast line. Erected upon the land is a home and while the parcel comprises two (2) separate subdivisions, it has been valued as one parcel, exclusively used for a single residence as required by the provisions of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. The subject land is a battle axe shaped parcel with Lot 1 being the handle of the axe. Mr. Britten explains that when the appellants wished to construct a garage beside the existing dwelling the usable area of the frontage of Lot 1 was too narrow to permit the building of the garage. In the result they purchased Lot 2 and arranged a new survey to excise .about 3 metres from the side boundary of Lot 2 which was amalgamated into [1990] QLC 205 -- 1 of 4 -- - Page 2 - Lot 1 to comply with the width requirement for the building of the garage. Mr. Britten says that the usable area of Lot 1 is 1,195 sq. metres while the remaining area of 4,173 sq. metres is unusal:>le. It is an extremely steep mountainside covered by rain forest. It is bordered on the north and east by the Maiala National Park and with privately owned rain forest on the southern boundary. Mr. Britten says it is difficult to understand why this rear area was included in Lot 1 in the original survey when clearly it should have formed part of the National Park. He calculates that the total usable area of the subject land is 2,226 sq. metres which approximates the areas of his two neighbours who also have dual allotments. On the northern side the homesite being Lots 45 and 46 owned by Chew, containing 2,795 sq. metres, has been valued at $42,000. While the southern neighbour at Lots 41 and 42 with an area of 2,228 sq. metres has also been valued at $42,000. He says there is no difference in the amenities available to the three (3) properties. There is no water supply or sewerage system nor garbage service. They all share the narrow gravel lane which is too narrow to allow vehicles to pass. He believes that the subject land should carry the same valuation as those parcels. In dealing with the rear land, Mr. Britten says there is a drop of elevation of 30 m from rear of the usable area of the subject land to the lower eastern boundary with a fall of one in two which makes it too steep for building or gardening. It should never be cleared because of the risk of soil erosion and the possibility of land slide. Mr. Britten tenders to the Court a series of photographs to highlight some of the evidence given by him. In his evidence Mr. Dunn says that this valuation was undertaken by another officer who has since resigned from the Department He has carried out an inspection and having considered the evidence used to support the valuation is in agreement with the figure. He says that he was not able to go onto the subject land at the time of his inspection but he gained access to the neighbouring property to assist him in his -- 2 of 4 -- . , - Page3 - appreciation of the subject land. As a basis of valuation he has relied on sales, but these sales have been used for valuing the adjoining properties. They are not challenged and I do not need tq discuss them further. It is clear from the evidence that the reason for the difference in the valuation is that an additional amount has been added because the subject land has some 4,173 sq. metres of rain forest in addition to the usable area. Mr. Dunn is in no disagreement with Mr. Britten on his evidence regarding the rear land but he says that, in his experience, the subject land in the market place would attract a higher figure than the adjoining allotments. A prudent seller would market the parcel as being one of 6,399 sq. metres highlighting the fact that, included in that area, was some 4,000 sq. metres of virgin rain forest. From his knowledge of the market at the relevant date and since, this factor would be attractive to a section of the market which would be prepared to pay a higher figure for the extra land because it was virgin rain forest. Mr. Britten stresses that there is no benefit to them in having this additional area. His northern neighbour looks across the same type of rain forest in the National Park, while the southern neighbour looks across and probably has a better view of the rainforest on the subject land and this is not disputed by Mr. Dunn. The difficulty here is that the valuer in terms of the Act is to ascertain what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land if offering it for sale at a certain date on reasonable terms and conditions assuming the improvements did not exist. The best evidence is to be found in sales of comparable parcels. These sales support the conclusion of value for the comparison allotments and indeed would support the value for the subject land if the blade of the battle axe was excised. The question is whether a prudent vendor would expect to receive a greater figure for the land because of that additional area. The only evidence I have on this point comes from Mr. Dunn who says that, in his experience, this is a factor which would be recognised in the market place and the subject land would attract a higher figure because it has this additional 4,000 sq. metres of rainforest attached to it. This is the view of an expert in the field and -- 3 of 4 -- - Page4 - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must accept this evidence. Having done this, there is really only one opinion on what this additional amount would be and there is no basis on the evidence to substitute some other figure. Under the provisions of the Act the onus is upon the appellants to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation. I must find that this onus has not been discharged and the appeal fails. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. (Signed: D.J. Barry) President of the I ;md Court -- 4 of 4 --