Midson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 63
•12 May 1997
LAND COURT, BRISBANE 12 May 1997
[1997] QLC 63
Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane -
Division of Moggill - (AV96-355).
Leslie James Midson v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (formerly Department of Lands)
D E C I S I O N
Falling for determination is the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 162886, Parish of Moggill, County of Stanley, containing an area of 4 hectares. The valuation under appeal is $170,000, while Mr Midson contends within his Notice of Appeal for an unimproved value of $136,500. The appeal land is situated at 100 Liversay Road, Moggill, about 1.25kms south of the Bellbowrie Shopping Centre. The land is zoned "Future Urban" in the City of Brisbane Town Planning Scheme and the respondent Chief Executive has valued it in accordance with its use as a rural homesite. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 January 1996.
Leslie James Midson conducted his own case and furnished evidence in the matter. The basis for his appeal is that in the 1 January 1996 relevant date annual valuations, the respondent Chief Executive has altered the previously subsisting unimproved value relativity as between the subject land and other specified lots nominated by Mr Midson, all of which front Liversay Road in the neighbourhood of the subject land. The tabulated valuations over the years read:
Valuations Effective 30.6.93 Percentage
Previous ValueNew Value
Subje
Change ct land $ 105,000 $ 135,000 +28.63
84 Liversay Rd
92,000$
110,000
89 Liversay Rd
$ 144,000$
172,500
112 Liversay Rd
$ 99,000$
119,000
120 Liversay Rd
$ 315,000$
380,000
121 Liversay Rd
$ 170,000$
205,000
+ 19.56
+ 19.79
+ 20.20
+ 20.63
+ 20.58
Valuations Effective 30.6.94
Subject Land $ 125,000$ 130,000
+ 4.0
84 Liversay Rd $ 110,000$ 116,000
+ 5.45
89 Liversay Rd $ 172,500$ 180,000
+ 4.34
112 Liversay Rd $ 119,000$ 125,000
+ 5.0
+ 5.2
120 Liversay Rd $ 380,000$ 400,000
121 Liversay Rd $ 205,000$ 215,000
+ 4.87
Valuations Effective 30.6.95
Subject land $ 130,000 $ 130,000 + O
+ 5.1
+ 5.5
+ 4.8
+ 5.0
+ 4.6
84 Liversay Rd $ 116,000$ 122,000
89 Liversay Rd $ 180,000$ 190,000
112 Liversay Rd $ 125,000$ 131,000
120 Liversay Rd $ 400,000$ 420,000
121 Liversay Rd $ 215,000$ 225,000
Valuations Effective 30.6.96 (Valuation under appeal)
Subject land $ 136,500 $ 170,000 + 24.54
84 Liversay Rd $ 122,000$ 122,000
0
89 Liversay Rd $ 190,000$ 190,000
0
112 Liversay Rd $ 131,000$ 131,000
0
120 Liversay Rd $ 420,000$ 420,000
0
121 Liversay Rd $ 225,000$ 225,000
0
Now the tabulated figures clearly demonstrate Mr Midson's case. It is that the subject land should have been treated in valuation terms in the same way as the nominated blocks - no increase for the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuation. This is the basis for Mr Midson's value of $136,500 as contained in the Notice of Appeal.
Mr Midson told us that he has objected to previous valuations when effect was given to change in value relativity. As a result, he says that the value of the subject land has moved in line with that for surrounding properties for a significant period except, of course, for the current valuation. Mr Midson knows of no new circumstances which have made his property more valuable than the surrounding properties in the period in question.
During the course of his evidence, Mr Midson told us about the physical characteristics of the subject land and the comparison properties but I feel no good purpose will be served in covering this aspect of his evidence here as there seems to be no divergence of opinion as between him and the respondent Chief Executive in this respect.
The valuation under appeal was made by Departmental registered valuer, Uday Singh, who also described the nature of the subject land within a tendered valuation document. Mr Singh also relies upon the ground of relativity in unimproved values for his valuation assessment, supported by the analyses of three sales of rural homesites which were also included within his valuation material.
Mr Singh explained to the Court that in the discharge of his duties and field inspections for the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuations in the Moggill Division, he
observed that the value of the subject land was out of relativity with the unimproved values of surrounding properties. While the unimproved value of neighbourhood properties remained the same as for the previous annual valuations, Mr Singh decided to alter the previous unimproved value relativity by increasing the value of the subject land to $170,000 to put it more in line with the value of surrounding properties.
Mr Singh placed in evidence a relativity map showing the unimproved values placed upon neighbouring lots. He is strongly of the opinion that the previously existing relativity did not take account of some of the advantageous features of the subject land, including the availability of views, although recognising the broken nature of the land. The authority for the proposition that unimproved value relativity can change from valuation to valuation, can be found in the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in Re:
Barnwell v.The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13 p.17, where the Court said:-
"It has been well recognised over the years that previously established relativity in unimproved values can and does change from valuation to valuation. If there was no justification for a change in relativity, the valuer's task would be very simple in that all that would be required to establish value would be accomplished by the use of an adjusting formula. This, of course, is undesirable."
Now, in this case the Court has the professional valuation opinion from Mr Singh that the unimproved value relativity should have changed in the 1 January 1996 relevant date valuation. This is the only professional opinion before the Court. It seems to me, then, that the previous valuation relativity has no significance in determining the outcome of this appeal, especially as the Court does not have the benefit of the basis for that unimproved value relativity.
In these circumstances, then, the appeal must fail since the appellant has not discharged the onus which the Valuation of Land Act 1944 places upon him. The unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 162886, Parish of Moggill, as determined by the respondent Chief Executive, in the sum of One hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($170,000) is affirmed.
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0