McGrath v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 67

[1995] QLC 67

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

8 AUGUST 1995

Re:     Appeal against Annual Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Local Government:  Cooloola
  (AV95-145)

Lily I McGrath
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Gympie)

D E C I S I O N

In this matter the landholder appealed against the value placed on the subject land by the Chief Executive.  This value was in the amount of $11,000 as at 1 January 1995, whereas the appellant says that the land ought to be valued at $9,000.
           Lily Irene McGrath came to the Court and gave evidence in person.  She tendered a statement which reiterated and slightly expanded upon the grounds included in her Notice of Appeal.  Of particular concern to the appellant is that the subject allotment is subject to flooding.  On many occasions floodwaters had almost entered her home, however, in 1992 floodwaters entered the home for the first time.  Ms McGrath suggested also that, given that the subject land was zoned "Rural B" under the Gympie City Council Town Plan, the land ought to be valued at less than it would be were it zoned "Residential"  Finally, Ms McGrath said that she understood her property had suffered an increase in value higher than the rate applied to properties across the street. 
           Blair Paterson Fuller, registered valuer, wrote the valuation for the Chief Executive and gave evidence in this matter.  He described the land as having an area of 1267m², being situated about 1.2 kilometres north-west of the Gympie Post Office.  Access to the site is via Iron Street.  He described Iron Street as a full width bitumen carriageway with concrete kerbing and channelling.  Electricity, telephone, water and sewerage are connected to the block, which is an easy sloping block below road level.  The land is improved with a dwelling and is used for residential purposes.            
           Mr Fuller agreed with Ms McGrath's description of the flooding disability impacting upon the subject land.  He is of the view, however, that this disability is taken into account in the application of the sales evidence included in his written valuation.  The sales relied upon range in value from an analysed figure of $26,000 to $34,000 and all are described by Mr Fuller as being superior to the subject.  Mr Fuller said that each of the sales was selected on the basis of having a disability which makes the bases suitable to indicate the value of the subject land, though only one of the bases was subject to flooding.  Even this block, according to Mr Fuller, was not subject to the extent of flooding which impacted upon the subject land. 
           In addition to reference to these basic sales, Mr Fuller mentioned in evidence that there was a general increase in residential land values in Gympie to the extent of 22% during the period since the last annual valuation.  This increase had applied to blocks on the other side of the street to the subject and to the subject, contrary to Ms McGrath's understanding, and this tended to support his conclusion about the value of the subject land. 
When land is used for residential purposes, the valuer is compelled to value it as such irrespective of the zoning of the land. Section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (reprinted 27 January 1994) says this:-

"In making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house or for purposes of farming, any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other purposes shall be disregarded irrespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made."

It follows from this section that the land in question being used for residential purposes must be valued as such. I should add that this is the case notwithstanding that the zoning of the land is "Rural B", for the zoning is irrelevant in circumstances where it is lawful for an existing improvement (in this case a dwelling) to continue to be maintained and used. Section 3(4) of the Valuation of Land Act supports this:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, in determining the unimproved value of any land it shall be assumed that -

(a)the land may be used, or may continue to be used, for any purpose for which it was being used, or for which it could be used, at the date to which the valuation relates; and

(b)such improvements may be continued or made on the land as may be required in order to enable the land to continue to be so used;

but nothing in this subsection prevents regard being had, in determining that value, to any other purpose for which the land may be used on the assumption that any improvements referred to in subsection (1) had not been made."

In the circumstances of this case, I find that the valuer for the Chief Executive has proceeded on the correct legal basis and has valued the subject land in accordance with proper principle.  I find that the evidence referred to by him supports the Chief Executive's valuation.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is affirmed.

RP SCOTT
  MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT