Black v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1997] QLC 138

[1997] QLC 138

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

10 SEPTEMBER 1997

Re:     Determination of  unimproved value

Valuation of Land Act 1944 -

Local Authority:        Kingaroy

V96-148

Percy Arthur Black
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearing at Nanango)

D E C I S I O N

This appeal lies against the determination by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $65,000 for a "Rural B" zoned site which is more particularly described as Lot 1 on RP 200546, Parish of Booie, County of Fitzroy, containing an area of 11.3118 ha.  This land is situated on the eastern outskirts of the Town of Kingaroy at the corner of the Kingaroy-Malar Road and Allen and Redmans Road, approximately 5 km east of the Kingaroy Post Office.  The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 January 1996 and the appellant contends within his Notice of Appeal for an unimproved value of $39,000.

The grounds of appeal, to which the appellant is limited under the provisions of s.56(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, read:

"I consider this land should not be valued any higher than land beside it which has been sold recently at $1,500 per acre.  My area is 26 acres and the fair value would be $39,000.  As the value placed recently on this land is obviously taken on sale of house allotments in the area and as I would not be allowed to subdivide, I feel I am unjustly penalised."

Mr Black furnished evidence in the matter.  The adjoining land referred to in the grounds of appeal was sold by one Bayliss for $3,705.72 per ha, and Mr Black also referred to the recent sale of land across the road from the subject land by one Hansen for $3,175.72 per ha.  It is on this basis then, that Mr Black contends that the subject land should be valued at $3,440.72 per ha (the average of the two sale prices) and not at the rate of $5,733.94 per ha, which is the value under appeal.  Mr Black is of the opinion that the sale sites are about 50 acres to 60 acres in area (20 ha to 24 ha).

Mr Black contended in evidence that he is a farmer, and has recently increased his area by leasing a further area of 82.59 ha, and before long he hopes to further increase the area. He runs cattle on the subject land and on the leased area. But it cannot be construed that the grounds of appeal enable the appellant to press his claim that his land should be valued for the purpose of "farming" as defined within s.17(2) of the Valuation of Land Act.  There is simply no reference to this aspect of his evidence within the grounds of appeal without which it is not competent for the Court to even consider it.

The valuation under appeal was made by departmental registered valuer Anthony Gordon Clift.  Mr Clift describes the nature of the subject land as consisting of an elevated property of mixed topography, varying from easier to part moderate, generally westerly and part northerly sloping country.  The property has good to excellent rural and distant town views.

Mr Clift says the subject land is improved with a dwelling house and associated structures, which are used by the owner for residential purposes.  The balance of the land is used for cattle grazing activities, running about 12 head in recent years.  Mr Clift considers the grazing activities are not of sufficient commercial purpose or character to qualify the land to be valued under s.17(1) and (2) of the Act for the "business of farming".  With this contention I agree, especially in view of the authority of recent Land Appeal Court decisions.  Accordingly, Mr Clift has valued the subject land on the basis of its highest and best use as a large rural residential parcel due to its zoning which prevents further subdivision.

Mr Clift has based his valuation on the sales of five rural residential sites in the Kingaroy locality.  These sale sites range in area from 4,003 m² to 4 ha and in analysed unimproved values from $39,000 to $74,800.  Details of the description of the sale sites and the comparison between each and the subject land are incorporated within Mr Clift's tendered valuation report which is in the hands of the parties for reference.

Mr Clift knows the Bayliss property and about the sale of it.  It is Lot 3 on RP 153513 containing an area of 26.825 ha for $105,000 ($3,914 per ha).  Lot 3 adjoins the subject land on the southern side.  The sale took place on 27 November 1995, but the details of it have only recently been lodged with the Department.  There was an application to subdivide the sale land into nine lots on the road frontage, and an application to rezone it from "Rural B" to "Residential C".  Now although the sale is relevant in time (it took place just prior to the relevant date for valuation in this case), Mr Clift says it is not of much use as a guide to the valuation of the subject land as it was purchased for a different purpose.  Further he says there were additional costs borne by the purchaser such as those for rezoning, title corrections and survey.  Notwithstanding these considerations, Mr Clift believes the sale would support his valuation of the subject land. 

Mr Clift is not aware of the Hansen sale, but he thinks it is of Lot 4 on RP 848615 containing an area of 54 ha.  He feels that this sale took place after the relevant date for valuation in this case.

Now on the evidence before me, I cannot hold that the onus of proof which rests upon the appellant has been discharged.  I accept the evidence of Mr Clift that the Bayliss sale, in the circumstances of it, is not good evidence as to the value of the subject land as a rural homesite.  In addition, the Hansen sale is very much larger than is the subject land, and was sold at a much higher price ($171,500 on Mr Black's evidence) than the valuation applied to the subject land ($65,000).  It is to be recognised, of course, that the valuation of rural homesites on a unit area basis (rate per ha) has not received the endorsement of this Court over the years.  Unimproved value comparisons, when the task in hand is to value homesites (whether rural or residential), are best made on a site to site basis.

For these reasons, and especially for the deficiency in the grounds of appeal in relation to the claimed "farming" activities carried out on the subject land, the appeal must fail.  It is accordingly dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 200546, Parish of Booie, as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of $65,000 is affirmed.

CH CARTER
  MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT