Summers v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 75
•31 May 1996
|
BRISBANE
31 MAY 1996
Re: V95-84 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of land Act 1944
Local Authority: Warwick
M.H. & J.M. Summers
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Warwick)
D E C I S I O N
Mr and Mrs Summers own land described as Lot 1 on RP 184538, Parish of Gilbert, containing 115.31 ha. It is situated adjacent to the Cunningham Highway about 9 km east of Maryvale.
As at 30 June 1993, the Department of Lands assessed the unimproved value of the land in the rounded amount of $23,000, based on $200 per ha - it being accepted that the land was being used for the purposes of farming. Mr A.B. Cowley is the registered valuer who made the valuation. He described the land as being easy to moderate sloping forest with 12 ha classified as arable and the balance forest grazing.
The appellants estimate the value to be $20,000. Five grounds of appeal referred to the inferior nature of the land, the relatively small arable area, the lack of natural water or fertile creek flats and a comparison with Lot 2 on the opposite side of the highway.
Mrs Summers gave evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. Reference was also made to the existence of an electricity transmission line and a Telstra cable and the lack of control over associated access and maintenance activities. It became evident that the main valuation concern was however, the assumed relativity between this land and Lot 2 opposite. Lot 2 had been sold by the appellants and this caused a separate valuation to be issued for each lot. When the two lots had been amalgamated for valuation purposes the total valuation had been in the amount of $51,000 at the relevant date. Subsequent to the sale of Lot 2 the notice of valuation that first issued to the appellants for Lot 1 was in the amount of $25,500 which appeared to the appellants to be an equal split of the original total valuation. On objection the valuation of the subject land had been reduced to $23,000. On the assumption that the valuation of Lot 2 remained as $25,500, the appellants perceived a problem with relativity of values - Lot 2 being in their opinion, significantly superior.
Mr Cowley informed the Court that Lot 2 had been separately valued in the rounded amount of $33,000 based on $235 per ha overall. Mr Cowley agreed that the arable land on Lot 2 was superior to the arable land on Lot 1 and that Lot 2 was overall superior as indicated by the valuation. However the degree of superiority had been lessened, in his opinion, because of the much steeper nature of some of the forest country.
The base level of value applied to the subject land had been seen to be supported by two sales, the details of which were provided to the Court and to the appellants. Both sales were of superior country used for the purposes of farming and the analysed unimproved values were in the range of slightly below to slightly above $400 per ha.
Now, it may be that in comparison with Lot 2, the degree of steepness of the forest grazing component in that parcel has carried more emphasis than was warranted, when the superior qualities of Lot 2, including the long creek frontages and adjacent lands are considered. However, there is no compelling evidence before the Court to suggest that a valuation of $200 per ha for the subject land as its worth for the purpose of farming, is too high.
It is clear that Mr Cowley has given the appellants the benefit of doubt as to whether the subject land, as a separate entity, was in fact being used for the purposes of farming. The acceptance of such use, at the relevant date of valuation, has attracted a significantly reduced valuation for, it seems that the unimproved market value of the land, as a rural site, was, on Mr Cowley’s verbal evidence, at least $70,000.
For the specific information of the appellants, s.17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, as it relates to use for the purposes of farming, provides as follows:“(1) 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.
(2) In subsection (1) -
`farming’ means -
(a)the business or industry of grazing, dairying, pig farming, poultry farming, viticulture, orcharding, apiculture, horticulture, aquiculture, vegetable growing, the growing of crops of any kind, forestry; or
(b)any other business or industry involving the cultivation of soils, the gathering in of crops or the rearing of livestock;
if the business or industry represents the dominant use of the land, and -
(c)has a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character; and
(d)is engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous or repetitive basis.”
Interpretation of s.17 is not a simple exercise as it relates to the purposes of farming - suffice to say that in the present circumstances the obvious benefit of use for such purposes has not been denied the appellants.
The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0