Simonsen v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 20

[1995] QLC 20

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

31 March 1995

Re:     AV94-381 - Appeal against an unimproved valuation
  Shire of Sarina

R.P. Simonsen
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Mackay)

DECISION
           Mr Ronald Percy Simonsen owns land containing 7.402 hectares situated at Range Road, Sarina.  It is described as Lot 2 on Plan CI2939 in the Parish of Sarina, County of Carlisle.  The land is zoned Rural A and there is no dispute that the dominant use is for rural residential purposes although the property is said to be registered with the Department of Primary Industries as a plant nursery.
           Through Mr B.G. Williams, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, the subject land is described as comprising broken flats interspersed with gullies and watercourses over about half the site with the remainder being partially cleared sloping coastal forest.  The property is about 7.5 kilometres west of Sarina.  Good access is provided and electricity and telephone services are connected.
           The valuation which is contested is in the amount of $24,500.  The relevant date of valuation is 30 June, 1993.  Mr Simonsen contends for a valuation of $8,000.  He attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the appeal.  It was his understanding that an inspection of the property by a departmental valuer was mandatory before a valuation increase could be applied.  He provided the escalating valuation history of the land and his regular objections which were largely successful in having the increases waived or reduced until this particular occasion when the Department "refused to negotiate".  It appears from his evidence that the use of the land was, at least at some time in the past, considered by the Department to qualify for the legislative benefits of land being exclusively used for the business of primary production.  There is no submission that the land should be valued in terms of current legislation as now being exclusively used for the business of farming. 
           Mr Simonsen is concerned that the basis adopted in making valuations, with rural residential prices escalating due to development costs and activities of investors in the marketplace, is defective and results in the levying of higher rates, penalising owners such as himself who in his opinion receive no compensating services.  He sees a further penalty attaching to the owners of rural residential land when they are required through their rates to support rural land owners when there is a downturn in prices such as has occurred in the past with cane lands. 
           Mr Simonsen does not accept that a valuer is able to gain a true concept of a site such as his in its true unimproved state when many years of back-breaking work has gone into its development.  He describes his land as being comprised of "rocky hills, broken gullies and heavy clay soils, and approximately one hectare goes under water in flood times".
           Mr Williams explained the impossible logistics of the Department carrying out a physical inspection of each property within a local authority area for each annual valuation.  Records compiled by the Department over the years from previous inspections and discussions with owners provide a satisfactory base for the valuation task.  The levels of value of the various categories of real estate
are then assessed relative to the movement in the market as indicated by the sales evidence available.  He had given consideration to the known physical disabilities of the subject site.  After consideration of those matters which reflect unimproved value, as opposed to the condition of the site as developed, he felt that the applied valuation of $24,500 was fair and reasonable.  Mr Williams provided details of three sales which in his opinion supported that valuation.  Those details were contained in his report, a copy of which was provided to Mr Simonsen, and will not be repeated here.  Disregarding the site improvements carried out and considering the subject land in its unimproved state, but with all surrounding infrastructure in place, the Department's valuation as a rural residential site appears fair and reasonable and indeed probably conservative.
           Mr Simonsen's main concern is, not unnaturally, the escalating cost of Shire rates.  While that burden is seen to be directly linked to the rateable value, it is not something which is capable of being dealt with by this Court, except where the principles of valuation in conformity with the relevant legislation have not been followed.
           Mr Simonsen has not been able to prove, as he is required to do, that the Department's valuation is wrong.  The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value as assessed in the amount of $24,500 affirmed. 

(RE Wenck)          
  Member of the Land Court