Dibley v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 207

•. ~ IP' ; t, 1'.;r ·f" .. ~~ .. &: Appeal against valuation of the Valuer-General, Shire of Pine Rivers. (V89-l77) Ju dith E. Dibley - V - The Valuer-General - DECISION - IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 21st March, 1990. This is an appeal against the valuation of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 10 on RP79062, Parish of Warner, containing 4.08 hectares. In the revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Pine Rivers as at 31st March, 1988 the Valuer- General has valued this parcel at $62,000. Ms Dibley has exercised the right of appeal to the Land Court and contends to a value of $52,000. The subject land is situated in the gravel surface Warner Road, Warner about 5.5 kms by road south-west from the Strathpine Post Office. Electricity and telephone are available but there is no water supply. It is described by valuer Mr. G.J. Dunn who has valued the property on behalf of the Valuer-General as comprising generally level land from the road for approximately 300 m and then a gentle rise to the front boundary. He notes it is one of the lowest blocks in the area and is cut by gullies. It is zoned "Future Rural Living" under the relevant Town Plan. It is presently vacant land. Evidence was given by Ms Dibley in support of her grounds of appeal. She says that she acquired this land in 1986 or 1987 and was aware at the time of purchase that there were some problems with water logging on the land. She says that there is a creek running through the middle of the block surrounded by a large area of flat wet land with the frontage of the block suffering badly from subsoil seepage. She says that recent development has aggravated the position. A new road known as Paddy Road has been [1990] QLC 207 -- 1 of 3 -- - Page 2 - constructed and since those works have been undertaken the water logging problem has increased as the water flows across the land. There are problems with the crossing on Warner Road wl;rich can be cut during heavy rain, but the major problem is that following heavy rain, the water at the crossing will bank back onto the subject land and for long periods it is not possible to cross the nature strip onto the allotment due to the wet conditions. She says that this makes the subject land inferior to adjoining allotments. She refers to the adjoining Lot 9 valued at $63,000. While it has the creek crossing through it, it does not have any problems with the nature strip which along the frontage of the subject land is not maintainable due to seepage giving the allotment an unkept frontage. While Ms Dibley contends to a value of $52,000 she does not really advance any evidence of sales to support this figure. In his evidence Mr. Dunn says that he has relied on sales to support the valuation for which he contends. He includes the sale of the subject land itself on 7th March, 1986 for $68,000. He has analysed the sale making allowance for clearing and fencing to arrive at an unimproved land value of $64,000. He has in the revaluation of the land applied $62,000. He says that as the land is vacant he has valued it for its highest and best use and while he considers that this would more likely be for a large homesite, it does have the potential under the zoning for subdivision. It was put to him in cross-examination that because of drainage problems the Council has intimated that approval for subdivision would not be forthcoming but he was unable to comment on this. As to the valuation which has been placed on the adjoining Lot 9, he says there was a home on this parcel and it has been valued under the concessional valuation applicable to allotments exclusively used for a single residence whereby any potential for a higher use must be disregarded. He says that Lot 9 is not as disadvantaged by the water problems as is the subject land. The task of a valuer under the Valuation of Land Act is to ascertain what a prudent person would be prepared to accept for a parcel of land in its unimproved state -- 2 of 3 -- if offering it for sale on reasonable terms and conditions. Such a prudent person would make enquiries in the market place to find what land was selling for at that time to arrive at an answer to the question. In this case Ms Dibley has highlighted the problems relating to this parcel of land. She says that she was aware that it was somewhat low lying at the time of purchase but the problem has worsened since that date. The question still remains to be answered as what would a prudent person be prepared to accept for this parcel at the date of valuation 31st March, 1988? There is no suggestion that the market had decreased between the date of sale and the date of valuation and there is no cogent evidence upon which I could reduce the valuation to the figure contended for of $52,000. In appeals under the Valuation of Land Act the onus is upon the landholder to show that the valuation of the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation. In the evidence before me I find that that onus has not been discharged and the appeal must fail. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. (Signed: D.J. Barry) President of the T;md Court -- 3 of 3 --