Burton & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 165

&: Appeal against the valuation of the Valuer-General Shire of Pine Rivers (V89-326) D,A. and CJ. Burton -v- The Valuer-General - DECISION - LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 21st March, 1990. Mr. and Mrs. Burton are the owners of a residential allotment at 70 Learmonth Street, Strathpine containing an area of 1,042 sq. metres. In the revaluation of the lands in the Shire as at 31st March, 1988 the Valuer-General has valued this parcel at $29,500 and the appellants in the Notice of Appeal contend to a value of $20,000. Evidence was given by Mr. D.A. Burton in support of the grounds of appeal. He speaks of the narrow frontage to this land being only some 15 metres which makes it difficult to position a house on the allotment and give access along the side boundary for a vehicle to pass. He says that the Local Authority will no longer permit subdivision with such a small frontage. He speaks of the problems of building on the land because of the unsuitable clay soil which has resulted in structural cracks in the residence. He speaks of the flooding of the lower portion of this land and other disabilities attaching to it. He says it is in an inconvenient locality being too far for the children to walk to school and not far enough for them to take advantage of the free school bus service. I am advised by Counsel for the Valuer-General that following the revaluation of the lands in the Shire. as at 31st March, 1983 the then value of this land came on appeal to the Land Court and a decision was handed down on 17th July, 1985. Many of the matters canvassed by Mr. Burton in his current Notice of Appeal were canvassed on that occasion. The Court allowed the appeal and determined a figure of $28,000 to place it in relativity with other allotments in the area. On this occasion Mr. Burton relies on [1990] QLC 165 -- 1 of 3 -- - Page 2 - relativity with the valuations placed by the Valuer-General on four (4) parcels of land, one at 26 Beitz Street with an area of 607 sq. metres valued at $19,000. Another at 7 Hedge Street wi~h an area of 607 sq. metres valued at $17,000 and another at the corner of Hedge and Farrow Streets with an area of 602 sq. metres valued at $17,200. These are all situated on the opposite side of the railway line from the subject land. Another parcel at 54 Learmonth Street with an area of 620 sq. metres is valued at $20,500. All of these are, he says, much smaller than the subject land and I am not quite certain how he uses them to arrive at his value at $20,000. He acknowledges in cross-examination that none of these have river frontage and that this could be an attraction in the market place. He acknowledges also that the subject allotment is in a quiet area. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Valuation Manager, Mr. G.J. Dunn who has used as a basis of valuation the sale of a 589 sq. metre allotment in Pitchie Street for $30,000 in March 1988 and a 617 sq. metre allotment in Jilloong Street on 21st August, 1987 for $29,000. These are in close proximity to the subject land but they are both smaller than the subject land and do not have the benefit of river frontage. He lists in his valuation the sale of 80 Learmonth Street which occurred on 28th November, 1988 but it was not used for the purposes of arriving at the valuation of the subject land as at 31st March, 1988 and does not require further discussion. He says that from his experience purchasers are prepared to pay more for allotments with river frontage than for inside allotments. He does not consider that the properties on the other side of the railway line are comparable. They are in a different area with older style homes and are all much smaller. The property at 54 Learmonth Street is smaller in area and does not have river frontage. In his view it is inferior. Mr. Dunn says that in undertaking the valuation of the subject land regard was had to the relativity established by the decision of the Land Court on 17th July, 1975 at $28,000. H~ says that the sales evidence generally showed increase in sale prices up to -- 2 of 3 -- .. ; I - Page 3 - the date of this valuation of 31st March, 1988. He believes that the valuation is correct and is in relativity with the other valuations in the area. I have c,onsidered the evidence advanced by Mr. Burton. He, in contending for a value of $20,000 is asking me to determine a value as at 31st March, 1988 $8,000 less than the figure determined by the Land Court in a decision of 17th July, 1985. It is not for this Court on this occasion to do other than to accept that that figure is correct. The new valuation is a very small increase over a valuation for a date five (5) years earlier and the approach made by Mr. Dunn is preferred. The appellants have failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation 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 Tand Court -- 3 of 3 --