McDonald v The Valuer-General

[1992] QLAC 10

[1992] QLAC 10

 

  LAND APPEAL COURT

BRISBANE.

3rd April 1992

Re:     Appeal against determination
  of the Land Court -
Valuation of Land Act 1944-1987.
  AV91-287.

William Thomas and Patricia Ellen McDonald

v

The Valuer-General

J U D G M E N T

WT and PE McDonald (the appellants) have appealed against a decision of the Land Court dismissing an appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of a parcel of residential land at 35 Nulu Street, Bongaree.  The appellants argue that the determination by the Valuer-General is excessive when considered relative to the valuation of a much larger nearby property.
           The subject land is Lot 707 on Plan B6325 in Parish of Woorim, County of Canning.  It has an area of 1012 square metres.  Nulu Street is a bitumen sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling.  Town water, sewerage, electricity and telephone services are connected to the site.  The land is zoned "Residential A" and is used by the appellants for single unit residential purposes.
           The Valuer-General has valued the subject land in the sum of $48,500 for the purposes of the annual valuation of the Area as at 31 March 1990.  The determination was based on other sales in the area, in particular, two lots in Spowers Street to the south-east of the subject land.
           One lot, on the corner of Spowers Street and Kendall Street, has an area of 630 square metres.  It sold in November 1989 for $45,000.  The sale analysed to an unimproved value of $44,200.  A value of $43,500 has been applied to the lot for the purposes of this annual valuation.  The other lot has an area of 637 square metres.  It sold in April 1990 for $44,000.  The sale reflected an unimproved value of $42,500 and a value of $38,500 is applied to the site for the purposes of this valuation.  Each of the two lots is zoned Residential A and is a single unit residential lot.  The registered valuer who represented the Valuer-General considered each of them to be inferior to the subject land.
           The appellants argue that the valuation of the subject land should be substantially reduced by reference to the valuation applied to a lot of 4414 square metres at 54/58 Webster Street, some 30 to 40 metres east of the subject land.  Despite its size, that lot was used for single residential purposes and was valued as a single unit residential site.  The valuer who prepared a valuation for the purposes of the appeal to the Land Court, Mr CJE Eaton, gave evidence to that Court that the land is valued as a single site because that is its most advantageous use at present.  It has a special facilities zoning (for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs uses) which limits the potential for subdivision or redevelopment of the land.  For the purposes of this annual valuation it was valued at $113,000.
           The appellants submit that because the larger lot was valued at a lower rate per square metre ($25.60) rather than the rate per square metre derived from the subject valuation of $48,500 ($47.92), the subject land should be valued at the same rate.  On that basis, the subject land would be valued at approximately $25,900.  By comparison the rates per square metre on the annual valuation of the other two lots in Spowers Street were approximately $69 and $60 respectively.  The appellants gave no evidence of the annual valuation of residential blocks adjacent to their land.
           The appellants fail because the appropriate basis for the valuation of a residential lot is not the application of a rate per square metre but an assessment of the unimproved value of each lot as land used for single unit residential purposes.  As the Land Appeal Court said in H and E Grahn v The Valuer-General, AV89-246 and 247, 13 December 1990 (not yet reported):

"for the purpose of valuing residential sites, the preferable method of comparison is on a site to site basis and not on the basis of a unit area value comparison.  Site for site comparison should take into comparison such matters as the size of the lots, the situation of and access to the lots, the shape and topography of the lots etc and comparisons on a unit area basis do not necessarily reflect valuation considerations for the above features."

The evidence before the Land Court shows that the annual valuation of the subject land, and of the other lots to which reference has been made, was determined on a site to site basis in a way consistent with the method endorsed by the Land Appeal Court in Grahn's case.
           Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General is affirmed.

(signed Lee J)
  Judge of the Supreme Court

(signed CHC Carter)
  Member of the Land Court

(signed GJ Neate)
  Member of the Land Court