Jones v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
[2006] QLC 46
•15 August 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Jones v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 46 PARTIES: Lorraine Jones
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2005/1812 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation of land under the Valuation of Land Act1944. DELIVERED ON: 15 August 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr RS Jones ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Appeal pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 against an assessment of unimproved value – s.33 of the VLA presumption of correctness of statutory valuation. – no reliable sales evidence provided by appellant. APPEARANCES: Mr N Massey for the appellant
Ms C Liu for the respondentBackground
These proceedings concern an appeal against the unimproved value attributed to the appellant's land pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA). The subject land is located at 10 Equinox Street Taringa, more properly described as Lot 20 on Registered Plan 23620 and Lot 1 on Registered Plan 61285, Parish of Indooroopilly. The land is located approximately 10 kilometres southwest of the Brisbane GPO. All of the usual urban services and amenities are reasonably available to the land, however, the closest Brisbane City bus stop is about 400 metres to the east.
The appellant has appealed the respondent's assessment of the unimproved value of the land determined as at 1 October 2004 (affective as at 30 June 2005) in the amount of $310,000. In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant's estimate of the unimproved value is said to be between $150,000 to $200,000.
The appellant was represented by a Mr N Massey. Mr Massey has no legal or valuation qualifications but is the next-door neighbour of the appellant and a retired accountant. There was no objection taken to Mr Massey representing the appellant in these proceedings. The respondent was legally represented by Ms Liu a senior legal officer employed by the respondent and relied on the evidence of Mr U Singh a registered real estate valuer also employed by the respondent. Mr Singh was not the valuer actually responsible for the assessment of the unimproved value attributed to the land. However, Mr Singh gave evidence that his independent investigation and analysis of the subject land and comparable sales led him to conclude that the valuation figure appealed against was a fair and reasonable one.
This appeal was heard together with the appeal by the neighbouring landowner.[1] Mr Massey was the advocate and the only witness to give evidence in both appeals. In these circumstances it not surprising that most of the matters raised in this appeal are the same as those raised in the other.
[1] Massey v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (2006) QLC 0047.
Issues in the Appeal
As at the relevant date the land was zoned "Low Density Residential LR" under the Brisbane City Plan 2000. The land was also located within the "Toowong/Indooroopilly District Local Plan" as defined within the Brisbane City Plan 2000. Consistent with its land use designation the land use was used for single unit residential purposes. Accordingly, the unimproved value is to be assessed in accordance with s.17(1) of the VLA.
As the land is "improved land" for the purposes of the VLA s.3(1)(b) of that Act is relevant and provides:
"For the purposes of this Act –
'unimproved value' of land means –(a) …
(b)in relation to improved land – the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.
(2) ..."
Pursuant to s.33 of the VLA, the valuation appealed against is deemed to be correct until proven otherwise. The appellant therefore bears the burden of proving that the valuation is wrong. Further, pursuant to s.45(4), the burden of proving every ground of appeal relied on also lies with the appellant. It is now well established that the presumption in favour of the correctness of the statutory valuation may be rebutted where it can be shown that the valuation was based on a wrong principle and/or involved a significant error of fact and/or was made by a fundamentally erroneous method.[2]
[2]Brisbane City Council v The Valuer General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41 at 56 – 57, per Gibbs J; see also G Cominos & Co v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-97) 16 QLCR 311 at 331 – 332 (LAC).
In her notice of appeal the appellant raised several matters which she contended the respondent had no (or insufficient) regard to. Some of the more significant matters raised on behalf of the appellant, much of which I accept as being correct, included:
i. A part of the land was relatively useless and therefore had only a marginal value when compared to the balance area. This area was said to be about 15% to 20% of the total area.
ii. Equinox Street was a very narrow road causing a number of problems, particularly in respect of access, parking and traffic flow. The road carriageway and footpaths were also in a generally run down and poor condition.
iii. The remoteness of public transport access points and shops.
iv. The increase in value of the subject land was disproportionate to the values attributed to other land within the same general area, particularly where, according to the appellant, some of these other properties were much better serviced by facilities including public transport and shopping.
v. The topography of the land which included a fairly steep slope from the southwest to the northeast.
vi. Pests including scrub turkeys, termites and snakes from the nearby reserve at Mt Coot-tha.
No expert valuation evidence was called to support the value contended for by the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent relied on the expert evidence of Mr Singh who I found to be a considered and thoughtful witness. Importantly, Mr Singh in his valuation exercise had regard to the sales of three lightly improved properties in the general area of the subject. It is now well established that the best evidence for determining a basis for the assessment of unimproved value is that of sales of comparable vacant or lightly improved land.[3]
[3]Fischer v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46 (LAC); Grahn v The Valuer General (unreported decision of the LAC, 20 November 1992 – AV90/472, AV90/473).
Having regard to the totality of the evidence I am satisfied that, in reaching his conclusions concerning the valuation appealed against, Mr Singh had had regard to reliable sales evidence which he properly analysed and applied. I am also satisfied that in reaching his conclusions concerning the unimproved value of the land Mr Singh had proper regard to the matters and circumstances raised on behalf of the appellant in her notice of appeal and supporting evidence.
For the reasons canvassed above, I have reached the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent's assessment of the unimproved value is wrong and should be reduced. It seems to me that this appeal involves yet another unfortunate example of the situation where the prices being paid for land in old well-established areas seem unrealistically, even incomprehensibly, high to the long term residents.
In conclusion I have decided that the appeal must be dismissed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed.
R S JONES
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0