Wood v The Valuer-General

[1991] QLC 46

[1991] QLC 46

 

  LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

13th December, 1991

Re:     Appeal against determination of
  Valuer-General -
  City of Brisbane Act (s.44(11))                   
  VC91-504.

Terence D. Wood and Anne L. Wood
  v.
  The Valuer-General

D E C I S I O N

The land upon which the appellants reside is situated at 29 McConnell Street, Bulimba, containing an area of 1480 square metres.  For the purpose of making and levying differential general rates, Brisbane City Council in the rate notice issued on 15th April, 1991, placed the property in category B.  The appellants objected to the inclusion of the land within this category and submitted that the land should have been included in category A3 (Single Unit (Dwelling) where the unimproved capital value of the land exceeds $100,000).  The objection was dismissed.  In the appeal to the Court, there are the following statements -

"There are three vessels moored to the jetty at the moment.  One pays a rental of $50.00 per week, the other two, belonging to friends, pay nothing.  This is quite a common practice on the private jetties in the river.

Part of the area under the house is used to hold incoming stock for my wife's antique and secondhand business.

The neighbouring property, No. 25, and next door but one, No. 17, are both categorised A3, which is the category for which I make application.    "

In the hearing of the matter, Mr Wood said that the mooring facilities are now used only by friends and free of charge.  He agreed that stock connected with the business of Mrs Wood is stored on the property.
  In the report of Mr B.C. Skinner, registered valuer, who represented the Valuer-General, he describes the use made of the property as follows -

"(a)Commercial Vessel Mooring (Harbour Industries) (39)

(b)Furniture Storage - (Warehouse and Bulk Stores) (28)

(c)Dwelling (02).   "

In his submission the inclusion of the subject land in category B (which includes land use codes (39) and (28) but does not include (02)) is correct as it fits the specific criteria adopted by Brisbane City Council for this category.  He said that the property does not fit the criteria for inclusion in any of the remaining five categories adopted by the Council.  The uses (whether multiple or dual) made of the land and agreed with by Mr Wood render the land unfit for inclusion in category A3 - the category sought by the appellants and there being no other category (other than category B) which could apply, I must dismiss the appeal.
  In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed.

Member of the Land Court