Rajkovic v Valuer-General[2015] QLC 33

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an appeal by landowners against the unimproved value applied to their land located in the Local Government Area of the Southern Downs Regional Council, by the Valuer General as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012. 

Background

2. [2]
   Mr and Mrs Rajkovic are the owners of land located at 983 Granite Belt Drive Dalveen and otherwise described as Lot 22 on Crown Plan SP131784 County of Merivale, Parish of Rosenthal which land contains an area of 4.049 ha.
3. [3]
   As at 1 October 2011 the respondent applied an unimproved value to the land of $110,000 under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act (“the Act”).
4. [4]
   Mr and Mrs Rajkovic objected to that valuation but were unsuccessful and subsequently appealed to the Land Court advising that their estimate of the unimproved value of the land was $55,000.
5. [5]
   The notice of appeal was drafted by Mrs Rajkovic and identified, basically, six grounds of appeal — all of which were raised in their objection against the valuation.
6. [6]
   In a carefully prepared notice of appeal Mrs Rajkovic set out the following grounds of appeal:^[1]

“(1) Approximately 4 acres of our land is swamp – vegetated with swamp grasses and spear grass.  The soil of the swamp – appears to be white clay which cannot sustain any useful vegetation. 

2. (2)
   In addition the creek – approximately 20 metres wide on the southern boundary but crossing the whole block from north to south – is constantly being eroded due to the storm water pipeline from New England Highway.  This surplus water drains onto our land on the southern boundary at three locations.

3. (3)
   Between the house and creek, before we lived on this site, there was as orchard grown on hillocks created by the previous owner.  We realise now that the hillocks were to give the fruit trees a chance to grow raised from the clay and wet.  This land is not used as an orchard now but is it not viable for any land use.  It is not possible to use this land for any cultivation.

4. (4)
   In addition storm water is diverted off Granite Belt Drive onto our land on the eastern boundary.  When we purchased this block of land it was a dry time.  We had no idea that stormwater from Granite Belt Drive would be diverted through our land – so much so that after any rain it is necessary to pump out water from right beside the front door of the house which we built on stumps on higher ground.  If we do not pump out water after any rain, then water would enter the house. 

5. (5)
   A high voltage (three phase) power line which passes over the land between the house and the swamp from south to north is not ideal for personal health.  Since it is not possible to place a dwelling in the swampy area there is limited choice of house site.  Having such a power line dissect one’s land and having to live so close to such a power line (approximately 15 metres) – surely reduces the value of the land.

6. (6)
   Our land on the eastern boundary is approximately 10 metres from Granite Belt Drive, approximately 20 metres from the Railway Line and approximately 70 metres from New England Highway.  The latter is a busy highway being one of the main Brisbane/Sydney routes for traffic and trucks at night.  Therefore we have considerable noise pollution.  This also must contribute towards lowering the value of the land.”

7. [7]
   In addition to those grounds of appeal which were raised in the original objection, which was dismissed, Mrs Rajkovic also points to the fact that a block adjoining their property consisting of 17 acres sold for $33,000 in 2011 and two other blocks of land namely:

   1. (a)
      Property ID:  3129786 Lot 1 on RP31091 Parish of Rosenthal with an area of 4.737 ha was valued at $71,000; and
   2. (b)
      Property ID:  3129794 Lot 3 on ML2205 Parish of Rosenthal with an area of 12.5 ha was valued at $16,200.

The subject land

8. [8]
   The land the subject of this appeal is located about 1.7 km south-west of Dalveen and 18 km north of Stanthorpe township. 
9. [9]
   The land is actually located on the corner of Granite Belt Drive and Hamilton Road.  Granite Belt Drive is a dual lane bitumen road with grass table drains on the eastern boundary of the subject land.  Hamilton Road is a dual lane gravel road again with table drains which run along the southern boundary of the subject land.^[2] 
10. [10]
    Both roads provide access to the subject property.
11. [11]
    The land is serviced by electricity and telephone connections but does not have access to the town water supply or to sewerage.
12. [12]
    The subject land was created as a consequence of a resurvey on 12 May 2000.^[3]  The subject land is set in a rural area. 
13. [13]
    The property is used for a single detached dwelling to which is attached what appears to be an old work shed.  At the rear of the property there is a more substantial machinery shed. 

Legislative provisions

14. [14]
    This appeal is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA).
15. [15]
    The LVA made a number of significant changes to the valuation process which had previously been carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA).
16. [16]
    The LVA retains an obligation upon the Valuer-General to carry out a valuation of all properties throughout Queensland for the purpose of rating, land tax and other associated purposes. 
17. [17]
    The respondent is required to comply in its conduct with the requirements of the Land Valuation Act when undertaking various valuations required. 
18. [18]
    The LVA has brought about a change to the valuation approach insofar as under the previous Act, the Valuation of Land Act, all valuations were of unimproved value but now under the LVA valuations are broken into two categories:  non-rural land which embraces residential, commercial and industrial land on the one hand and rural land on the other. 
19. [19]
    Pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, the value of land to be valued by the respondent is, in the case of non-rural land, its site value which term is defined in the Act, and for rural land, its unimproved value.^[4] 
20. [20]
    The Land Valuation Act also draws a distinction between the unimproved value of improved land (Chapter 2, Part 2, Subdivision 4) and the value of unimproved land (Chapter 2, Part 2, Subdivision 5).
21. [21]
    Section 26 of the LVA provides a meaning for the “unimproved value of improved land” in the following terms: 

“26 What is the unimproved value of improved land

 (1) If land is improved, its unimproved value is its expected realisation under a bona fide sale assuming all site improvements and non-site improvements on the land had not been made.

 (2) However, the land’s unimproved value is affected by any other relevant provisions of this chapter.”

22. [22]
    Similarly, s 29 provides a meaning for the value of unimproved value in the following terms:

“29 What is the site value and unimproved value of unimproved land

If land is unimproved, both its site value and its unimproved value are its expected realisation under a bona fide sale.”

23. [23]
    The Dictionary in Schedule 2 to the LVA defines “unimproved” as:

“means land in its natural state.”

24. [24]
    In the present case the valuation exercise which must necessarily be conducted is one which calls for the determination of the unimproved value of improved land, that is assuming that all site and non-site improvements do not exist.
25. [25]
    In the Lawson decision, footnoted above, His Honour Mr Smith referred to a decision^[5] of His Honour Mr Isdale in Steers v Valuer-General^[6] where His Honour was obliged to consider the valuation of land pursuant to the LVA.
26. [26]
    His Honour Mr Isdale said:

“[8] The use of sales to provide comparisons of value is well established. In NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, the Land Appeal Court constituted by Stable SPJ, Mr Smith and Mr Carter said at page 381:

“Courts of the highest authority have laid down that the best test of value is to be found in the sales of comparable properties, preferably unimproved, on the open market round about the relevant date of valuation and between prudent and willing, but not over-anxious parties.”

[9] This Court is required to follow the decisions of the Land Appeal Court and accordingly must prefer the evidence of comparable sales to the method contended for by the appellant, simply increasing a previous value by a factor of 10. Mr Steers did not explain why this particular multiplier and not some other one should be applied.”

27. [27]
    His Honour Mr Smith in Lawson then said:^[7]

“[14] I consider it remains a relevant feature under the LVA, to consider market value. As then President Trickett said in Fairfax v. Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

[11] The principles for determination of the ‘market value’ of land were established by the High Court in Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418. In that case, the High Court found that the value of land is determined by the price that a willing but not over-anxious buyer would pay to a willing but not over-anxious seller, both of whom are aware of all the circumstances which might affect the value of the land, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding facilities, the then present demand for land and the likelihood of a rise or fall in the value of a property. (See Griffith CJ at 432 and Isaacs J at 441).

[12] It has been well established that the unimproved value of land is ascertained by reference to prices that have been paid for similar parcels of land in Waterhouse v The Valuer-General (1927) 8 LGR (NSW) 137 at 139, Pike J said that:

 ‘Land in my opinion differs in no way from any other commodity. It certainly is more difficult to ascertain the market value of it but-as with other commodities-the best way to ascertain the market value is by finding what lands comparable to the subject land were bringing in the market on the relevant date-and that is evidenced by sales.”

[15] Despite the legislative change, it is refreshing that the views expressed by the High Court in Spencer, now well over a century ago, remain just as current and relevant today as they did when they were first uttered. It is certainly my view, at least at this stage until other authorities may prove me wrong, to continue to apply the Spencer test under the LVA.”

28. [28]
    In addition to the changes with respect to the valuation process, the regime established by the Land Valuation Act also brings a change in the evidentiary onus.
29. [29]
    Under s 3 of the Valuation of Land Act the valuation made by the Valuer-General was deemed to be correct unless proved otherwise either upon objection or appeal.  That is to say there was a presumption of correctness in favour of the valuation contended for by the Valuer-General.
30. [30]
    The Land Valuation Act does not retain that evidentiary provision but rather provides at s 169(3):

“However, the appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal.”

31. [31]
    The only grounds of appeal which are able to be contemplated at a hearing are those grounds stated in the valuation appeal notice.^[8] 
32. [32]
    Accordingly, Mrs Rajkovic is limited to those matters which are recited in the notice of appeal.  Those matters are set out above.

The Witnesses

33. [33]
    Mrs Jelena Rajkovic appeared, representing herself and her husband but did not call any evidence from a valuer.  Nor did she produce a valuation report.
34. [34]
    For the respondent, evidence was given by Mr James Bomford, a registered valuer in the employ of the Valuer-General. 
35. [35]
    I have on previous occasions commented on the difficulties confronted by lay persons appearing on their own behalf and failing to call any expert valuation evidence in circumstances where they are confronted by expert evidence called by the Valuer-General from a registered valuer. 
36. [36]
    Generally, as was apparent in this case, lay persons representing themselves lack the skill for effective forensic cross-examination and have limited skills at advocacy notwithstanding their genuine and heartfelt dissatisfaction with the valuation against which they bring the appeal.
37. [37]
    Mrs Rajkovic contends that the valuation of $110,000 overstates the value of the land and she contended that I should find the land to be more appropriately valued at $55,000.
38. [38]
    Mrs Rajkovic also pointed out that in the ten years since their block was valued at $19,000 the value has risen to more than 550% of its original value to $110,000.

The Evidence of Mrs Rajkovic

39. [39]
    Mrs Rajkovic gave evidence on behalf of herself and her husband.
40. [40]
    In preparation for the hearing Mrs Rajkovic had provided a bundle of material to the Court which became Exhibit 2 and which included a rate notice, an affidavit sworn by herself and Mr Rajkovic, a bundle of photographs which showed various aspects of the subject property and a newspaper article.^[9] 
41. [41]
    In the course of her evidence she tendered a number of rate notices with respect to the subject property^[10] and further photographs which she relied upon to support her oral evidence with respect to the water prone nature of the subject land.^[11] 
42. [42]
    In the affidavit sworn by Mrs and Mr Rajkovic they made a number of points, in particular:

    1. (a)
       Approximately a third of the land is swamp which is vegetated with swamp grass and spear grass – the soil of which swamp area appears to be white clay which cannot sustain any useful vegetation. 
    2. (b)
       The creek, which is approximately 20 metres wide on the southern boundary but which crosses the whole block, is constantly eroded due to overflow from a stormwater drain carrying water from the New England Highway and Granite Belt Drive. 
43. [43]
    Mrs Rajkovic said that surplus water drains onto their land on the southern boundary at three locations.
44. [44]
    With respect to the historic use of the subject land Mrs Rajkovic said that it was previously an orchard and she realises, in retrospect, that hillocks apparent on the subject land were mounds created to give the fruit trees a chance to grow on raised areas above the clay and wet land. 
45. [45]
    Mrs Rajkovic also contended that storm water is diverted from Granite Belt Drive onto their land along the eastern boundary.
46. [46]
    She gave evidence that at the time she purchased the land the general area was dry and they had no idea that stormwater would be diverted through their land.  She pointed out on the inspection and in photographic evidence that after any rain it is necessary to pump water from right outside the front door of the house to prevent it entering the house.
47. [47]
    Mrs Rajkovic also drew the Court’s attention to a high-voltage three phase power line which passes over their property between the house and the swamp land to the rear in a north-south direction. 
48. [48]
    She contended that the concerns by any prospective purchaser about personal health generated by proximity to such high voltage power lines has an effect on the value of the land. 
49. [49]
    With respect to the question of relativity Mrs Rajkovic pointed to a block of land comprising 17 acres located on the northern boundary of the subject property which was sold by the Normans to Mr S Chapman in 2011 for $33,000.  She said that that land sold by the Normans was a swampy area and that they retained that the north-eastern part of their land which is less wet.  That retained area of 6.72 ha is valued at $120,000.
50. [50]
    She told the Court that the representatives of the Valuer-General assert that that was a transaction between related parties hence the lower selling price.  She disputes a relationship between the parties. 
51. [51]
    The Court had the benefit of a site inspection accompanied by the parties and that inspection enabled me to understand better the evidence by Mrs Rajkovic.
52. [52]
    In her oral evidence Mrs Rajkovic pointed out that the land was unsuitable for carrying any kind of livestock and also, she said, the top soil was insufficient to support any kind of vegetation. 
53. [53]
    In her evidence^[12] the evidence revealed as follows:

“I would like to see another block like ours that the water is coming from everywhere.  I don’t know if you stopped on the highway.  From another side of New England Highway the whole water is coming on the New England Highway because our road, Granite Belt Drive, it was the New England Highway.

Understood?‑‑‑Because it was always a problem – after each rain, flood.  They decided to do the bypass.  Now the highway is safe but we are not.

So do you get flooded in?‑‑‑Always.  After each – every bit fall of rain, always.

And for how long is the longest period of time you’ve been flooded in?‑‑‑We have in 2012 when I tried to ask Mr Bomford to be so nice and come and inspect a second time the land and he wasn’t willing, we had then two months in – we were flooded in water.  As I told you this ‑ ‑ ‑

But you could get in and out of your property but you had to drive through flood water?‑‑‑No, we wasn’t able to go through our property.  We wasn’t driving through the flood water because it’s – the water is going underneath and water is going in parallel of Hamilton Road and coming to our block and go down.”

54. [54]
    With respect to the three phase high-voltage power line, Mrs Rajkovic told the Court that it is only 45 metres from her home and she thinks it is not good for the health of herself or her husband. 
55. [55]
    She also pointed out (and this was confirmed by the inspection) that running along the whole of the frontage of her home on the other side of Granite Belt Drive is a railway line, along which what she described as a “choo choo train” passes, presumably for some sort of a tourist enterprise.^[13] 
56. [56]
    She says that that train, which must by implication be of an old-fashioned type, belches smoke from burning coal.  She says that on occasion it is accompanied by the Dalveen Fire Brigade.^[14]
57. [57]
    Mrs Rajkovic says that her amenity and enjoyability of having the house on her land was reduced because of the presence of the train and she fears that it affects her health.  Similarly, she says that the presence of heavy vehicular traffic on the highway interferes with her sleep so that again the location of the land is said to be one matter which has affected amenity.^[15] 
58. [58]
    On the inspection it was apparent that there was water lying on the surface of the land and that generally the land itself was damp underneath.^[16]
59. [59]
    As to the proposition that the land may have been suitable for some sort of livestock endeavour, Mrs Rajkovic told the Court that the only way in which they could have sheep or cattle on their property is if they are hand-feeding those beasts.  She did acknowledge that she presently has about 20 sheep on the property but says that they are a hobby for her husband who is deaf, disabled and, she informed the Court with some embarrassment, suffers from the onset of dementia.^[17]
60. [60]
    Mrs Rajkovic, on being questioned about her husband’s disability,^[18] told the Court that she was unable to speak of his condition but did write it out for the Court and the respondent.  That note provided by Mrs Rajkovic said that her husband had dementia.^[19]
61. [61]
    In her evidence Mrs Rajkovic spent a considerable period of time drawing the Court’s attention to the effect of water on her property.  Her evidence was to the effect that even after only light rainfall the whole of the site remains waterlogged for a considerable period of time. 
62. [62]
    Mrs Rajkovic said that that condition of the land on inspection was about as good as it gets.  She pointed to the fact that the creek was, at the date of the inspection, still seeping and running although there had only been a small amount of rain a week earlier.^[20]
63. [63]
    She said that in heavier rainfall events sheet water flows across the whole of the block from south to north. 
64. [64]
    She gave evidence that the consequence of the water flowing across the property and waterlogging it was that clay paving tiles laid by her and her husband were undermined when the bedding sand was washed away. 
65. [65]
    She also gave evidence of having placed 45 m³ of gravel across their driveway in order to attempt to render it weatherproof but she said that after four years the effect of that had been washed away.^[21]  That oral evidence about clay paving and the granite laid track was supported by photographic evidence prepared by Mrs Rajkovic.^[22]
66. [66]
    She also gave evidence of the need to have installed a submersible pump at the point near the corner of her home to pump out water to preclude flooding of their house. 
67. [67]
    Other photographs tendered by Mrs Rajkovic^[23] demonstrate the effect of sheet water flow across the property evidenced by grass laid flat by the water flow.
68. [68]
    Mrs Rajkovic also gave evidence that the roadworks carried on in the vicinity of her home, including a drain on the right hand side of Granite Belt Drive heading south which causes water to flow under the New England Highway, under the railway line and then across under Granite Belt Drive to Hamilton Road, had the effect that the water flowing onto Hamilton Road some 40 m from her block is then caused to flow across her block.
69. [69]
    In support of this Mrs Rajkovic produced a photograph showing the drainage works which had been placed under the road on Granite Belt Drive.
70. [70]
    Under cross-examination Mrs Rajkovic was pressed about the impact of rainfall on the property but did not retreat, in any way, from her earlier evidence. 
71. [71]
    She challenged the respondent to produce another block with the same features as hers which was valued at the same figure but, save for what is in Mr Bomford’s report,^[24] that challenge was not taken up.
72. [72]
    She rejected the proposition put to her^[25] that her land was generally representative of “Granite Belt Country”. 
73. [73]
    Under cross-examination Mrs Rajkovic confirmed that she had not attempted to inspect any of the blocks of land referred to by Mr Bomford in his report.^[26]
74. [74]
    During cross-examination Mrs Rajkovic was emphatic that photographs contained in the report of Mr Bomford^[27] gave misleading descriptions.  With further cross-examination it became clear that it was not the accuracy of the pictures which was being challenged by Mrs Rajkovic but the conclusions or descriptions which accompanied the photographs. 
75. [75]
    In particular photograph #(6) was said to illustrate a second building site on the subject land located at the rear of the subject parcel in the south-western corner. 
76. [76]
    While Mrs Rajkovic’s evidence was somewhat disjointed, fairly listened to, it became clear that at some point she and her husband had contemplated placing a removal house on the subject land.  Consequently they had both asked a person who previously worked for the council and attended at the council chambers to make enquiry about placing a second house on the property, but were apparently informed that that was not possible.  Accordingly she rejected the proposition that a better building site than the one currently occupied by the existing house was available.

The Evidence of Mr Bomford

77. [77]
    Mr Bomford is a registered valuer in the employ of the Valuer-General. 
78. [78]
    He prepared a report subsequent to having conducted an inspection of the subject property.
79. [79]
    Mr Bomford’s report concluded that the valuation of 1 October 2011 at a figure of $110,000 was supportable.
80. [80]
    In coming to that view he informed the Court, as was reflected in his report, that he had inspected and analysed sales of vacant land to confirm the valuation placed on the subject land on a direct comparison approach. 
81. [81]
    In his report Mr Bomford provided a description of the nature of the land which is apt:^[28]

“The property is set below the road and is located near the top of the watershed.  It comprises of [sic] an elevated, regular shaped corner allotment with a slight slope across the block from the north east down to the south west and from the rear of the block down in an easterly direction into the creek.  It is typical to the New England Table Lands comprising of mostly cleared granite country with no floating boulders and was originally timbered with stringy bark and gum species.

The subject land at its north east and south west corners is set at 895 metres above sea level.  Both these locations on the subject land are considered suitable for a house site.  The existing house is in the north east corner of the land.

There is a seasonal spring fed creek that cuts the property in half approximately two thirds of the way from the front boundary.  As illustrated on the inspection map (page 25) the creek flows from the north west and drains off the subject through the south west.  It is seasonal in nature and provides a stock and domestic dam that is self-fed.

In general the subject land originally consisted of an old orchard that has been removed and reconfigured into lifestyle parcels.  Country within the Granite Belt is not considered fertile in comparison to your better alluvium based soils that occur on the plain country north of Warwick.  The granite soils throughout the Stanthorpe horticulture / viniculture regions are generally considered as a holding agent only relying on qualities of fertiliser that are added through the irrigation process.  This is mainly due to waster being readily available throughout this locality to registered irrigation dams that are filled by free flowing springs and overland flow.”

82. [82]
    So far as the setting of the subject land is concerned, Mr Bomford described the surrounding locality as being “comprised of primary producers of horticultural, viniculture and grazing interspersed with rural home sites.”^[29]
83. [83]
    In his observations which underlie his valuation exercise, Mr Bomford acknowledges that at the date of his inspection on 16 October 2012 there was ponding apparent on approximately 0.4 ha of the land located on the eastern side of the seasonal creek which runs across the property.  However Mr Bomford says:

“Observations suggest that it is reasonable to conceive that this could be easily corrected by local government with a grader to deepen the existing drain.  This drainage issue has no effect on the existing housesite and would be a suitable location for a stock and domestic dam.  On the western side of the seasonal creek approximately 0.9 hectares consists of undulating granite grazing country with the remaining 0.7 hectares comprising the creek area.”^[30]

84. [84]
    Those observations are contrary to the evidence of Mrs Rajkovic and are not supported by what I observed in the course of the inspection.
85. [85]
    As to the comparison with adjoining lands to the north of the subject site, Mr Bomford expresses the opinion that there is no discernible difference between the subject and the adjoining lands to the north, other than that the land to the north had been ploughed and developed to improve pastures while the subject has been left to regenerate to native grasses.
86. [86]
    This approach ignores the cost of ploughing and developing the subject land (if indeed it is possible) to bring it up to the standard of the adjoining property. 
87. [87]
    As to the evidence given by Mrs Rajkovic about the mounding which was previously, in her opinion, placed for the purpose of elevating the tree roots, Mr Bomford confirms that and says that:

“The hillocks on the subject land is [sic] a standard agricultural practise [sic] within the Granite Belt used to form elevated rows that are separated by 10 metres between each tree and each road creating a square pattern allowing access for machinery and better penetration by the sunlight that is a major requirement for ripening fruit.  The fruit trees are planted into these elevated rows making it easier to irrigate and better for drainage purposes.”^[31]

88. [88]
    Those observations seem to confirm the presence of a drainage problem on the subject land. 
89. [89]
    Again with respect to the adjoining property to the north Mr Bomford says:

“Property inspection shows the land adjoining the northern boundary of the subject has been improved by ploughing, fertilising and planting improved pastures as illustrated in photo 3.  In general there was no difference in the quality of granite country from the subject to its adjoining land to the north.”^[32]

90. [90]
    It ought be noted that ploughing, fertilising and planting improved pastures are all subject to monetary expenditure in order to bring the land up to a better standard.
91. [91]
    As to the creek which Mr Bomford describes as seasonal and spring fed he notes that it cuts the land from the north-west and drains off the land through the south-western boundary flowing in a south-westerly direction away from the property. 
92. [92]
    One important area of conflict between the evidence of Mrs Rajkovic and Mr Bomford was the direction of waterflow across the subject land.  Mrs Rajkovic contended that it flowed from the south to the north.  Mr Bomford, for his part, contended that it flowed in a southerly direction from the Chapman land to the north.
93. [93]
    That evidence from Mr Bomford appeared to be contradicted first by what was pointed out on the inspection and second by what was contended by Mrs Rajkovic.^[33]
94. [94]
    Mr Bomford’s evidence also seems to be contradicted by the contour map appended to his report^[34] which shows contours at the 890 metre level to the north of the subject land and a contour for 900 metres touching the south-eastern corner of the subject land and rising to 930 metres south and west of the subject land — all of which is strongly suggestive that the water flows from the south to the north, as Mrs Rajkovic contends. 
95. [95]
    At the end of the day, nothing much may turn upon the actual direction of waterflow because the real issue contended for by Mrs Rajkovic as affecting the value of her land is its tendency to become waterlogged.
96. [96]
    Mr Bomford did concede that the contour map appended to his report seemed to contradict his contentions.^[35]
97. [97]
    In my view Mr Bomford underestimates the impact of the self-fed springwater creek which, as clarified again by the evidence from Mrs Rajkovic and supported by the inspection, creates a very large waterlogged area on the subject land.
98. [98]
    Ultimately Mr Bomford contended that the water runs down into the centre of the property from both directions and that seemed to contradict his earlier oral evidence.^[36]
99. [99]
    Mr Bomford addressed the sale of the land to the immediate north of the subject land which can be conveniently referred to as the “Norman” land since they were the vendors. 
100. [100]
     The land was purchased by an adjoining owner Mr Chapman and no additional title was created because the land purchased was resurveyed into the Chapman’s existing parcel. 
101. [101]
     That sale was for an area of 17.6 acres or 7.121 ha at a rate of $1,875 per acre or $4,634 per ha.^[37]  Applying that value to Mr and Mrs Rajkovic’s land would produce a valuation of only $18,763.
102. [102]
     Mr Bomford dismisses that sale out of hand asserting, amongst other things, that it was transacted on the basis of private negotiation for additional land, was not listed on the market with a real estate agent, and was not the sale of a registered title.^[38] 
103. [103]
     Mr Bomford makes the point that in his professional opinion the sale was not considered to be a bona fide sale as that term is defined in s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010.
104. [104]
     In my opinion, while it may be correct to say that it would not qualify as a bona fide sale, some attention must be paid to that sale because:

     1. (a)
        it is adjoining land which is described by Mr Bomford as identical in characteristics to the subject land;
     2. (b)
        it occurred at a time prior to but close to the valuation date (sold in July with a valuation date at 1 October 2011);
     3. (c)
        might be thought to have had some special value for the purchasers who wish to incorporate it into their land;
     4. (d)
        was not a transaction between related parties;
     5. (e)
        even thought it was an “off market” transaction there is no suggestion that the price did not reflect an arm’s length price achieved between the vendor and the purchaser.
105. [105]
     That “Norman” land is of course very nearly twice the size of the subject. 
106. [106]
     Mrs Rajkovic had also drawn the Court’s attention to a newspaper article in the local newspaper relating to the sale of the former Applethorpe TAFE to Red Hill Berries Pty Ltd for $810,000.^[39]
107. [107]
     That sale was at a price of $810,000 in February 2014 in circumstances where the State Government had sold it in 2008 for $1,150,000 thereby suggesting a reduction from 2008 to 2014 of $340,000 or 29.6%. 
108. [108]
     In respect of that sale, Mr Bomford points out that the sale occurred some two-and-a-half years after the date of valuation of the subject land and says that the peculiar circumstances of that sale including a leaseback agreement, a subdivision arrangement to retain water licences and the preservation of a large dam for public purposes, make it an inappropriate sale for comparison to the subject land.^[40]
109. [109]
     I accept that proposition with respect to the specifics of that sale and accordingly give it little weight.
110. [110]
     In paragraph 10 of her affidavit Mrs Rajkovic referred to Property ID 3129794 with an area of 12.5 ha and contended it had a value of $16,200.^[41]
111. [111]
     In his report Mr Bomford clarifies that and points out that in fact the valuation of Property ID:  3129794 was at $145,000.^[42]
112. [112]
     Accordingly detailed examination of that particular sale does not assist the case advanced by the appellants. 
113. [113]
     In support of his position Mr Bomford identified six sales of land at prices between $72,000 and $165,000.
114. [114]
     Mr Bomford said:

“In comparison to the subject property, the analysed sales evidence demonstrates that the subject property must be worth more than $98,000, (Sale 6) but less than $130,000 (Sale 3).  Taking into consideration that sale 6 (Cottonvale Road, Dalveen) has a similar location to the subject, but has a higher exposure to the highway and is less than half the size, makes it inferior to the subject land.”^[43]

115. [115]
     Mr Bomford in his report acknowledges a lack of volume of suitable vacant rural residential sales in the rural locality of the subject land.^[44]  In his report he says:

“Overall emphasis on these sales has being [sic] relied upon as it is the valuer’s expert opinion that the market has stabilised since the global financial crises of 2007 – 2008.”^[45]

116. [116]
     The first sale relied upon by Mr Bomford was land located at Amiens Road Thulimbah.  It is described as Lot 7 on RP 163893 and had an area of 1,619 m². 
117. [117]
     That land (Sale 1) was sold on 17 June 2010 for a price of $72,000.  It was vacant land described by Mr Bomford as being:

“A regular shaped internal allotment, set at road level with a slight slope across the parcel from the south-east corner down to the north-west.  The parcel is basically level and elevated in nature providing nice countryside views.”

118. [118]
     It had a power and telephone services available as does the subject land but does not front onto a main highway as the subject does.^[46]
119. [119]
     Mr Bomford assessed that land as vastly inferior in size but similar in shape, similar countryside views with an elevation of 910 m above sea level.  It has what Mr Bomford describes as “superior Township Zoning”.  Reading Mr Bomford’s report it is only the smaller size which is inferior to the subject land and there is no mention of it suffering any inundation from water.^[47] 
120. [120]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 2 was of land located at 102 Taggart Road, The Summit.  This land, described as Lot 2 on RP 31687, had an area of 1.214 ha and sold on 17 March 2010 for $85,000.  Mr Bomford analysed that sale to an unimproved value of $81,500 but does not provide any explanation of the basis for that analysed unimproved value. 
121. [121]
     The land is 11 kms to the south of the subject land but has the same rural zoning.  Mr Bomford describes it as having a direct frontage to the New England Highway and 33 KV high voltage transmission lines with no buffer.  He does not advert to that transmission line cutting across Sale 2 as it does with the subject.
122. [122]
     Curiously, he describes it as having an inferior location fronting the New England Highway and burdened by the presence of the 33 KV high voltage transmission line.  It is difficult to understand how those two factors make that land inferior when the subject land has a frontage to Granite Belt Drive, has transmission lines cutting across it and suffers from the presence across its frontage and over the road of a railway line.
123. [123]
     In common with the subject land Sale 2, like the subject land, does have some very wet areas towards its rear but is elevated in nature. 
124. [124]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 3 is of land located at Border Road, Applethorpe, about 13 km south of the subject land.  It is otherwise described as Lot 1 on RP 199259 and sold on 26 March 2011 for $130,000 which Mr Bomford analyses to a value of $128,000^[48].
125. [125]
     Although Mr Bomford does not mention this in his report, it seems that that land is thereby located about 5 or 6 km outside of Stanthorpe and thus much closer than the subject site to all the facilities of a township.  Like the subject site, it has electricity and telephone but no town water or sewerage. 
126. [126]
     That land had an area of 4.047 ha and is thus, in my view, comparable to the subject with an area of 4.049 ha. 
127. [127]
     Mr Bomford describes it as being irregular in shape but with similar country views and an elevation of 870 m above sea level and similar bitumen access and rural zoning and a superior location.  In Mr Bomford’s view that property was superior to the subject land due to its location away from the highway. 
128. [128]
     Mr Bomford says that that site has a slight slope across the parcel from the western boundary up to the eastern boundary and thus one might conclude is somewhat better drained than the subject site as well although it does have a small seasonal creek at its south-western tip. 
129. [129]
     Finally it ought be noted that that sale occurred six months prior to the date of valuation. 
130. [130]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 4 was of land located at Donnellys Castle Road, Thulimbah and otherwise described as Lot 1 on RP 88936.
131. [131]
     That land with an area of 6.965 ha sold on 17 August 2011 for $147,500 which Mr Bomford analysed down (in an unexplained way) to $137,500.  Mr Bomford describes the Donnellys Castle Road property as a “vacant unimproved timbered rural homesite with a stock and domestic dam and some part rural boundary fencing.^[49]  It is located 8 km south-west of the subject land and enjoys the same rural zoning.
132. [132]
     Mr Bomford describes it as an irregularly shaped internal allotment “which is cut by a water course, set above the road level with a medium slope to a good building platform which provides nice countryside views”.^[50]  About four hectares of the site contains steep unattainable timbered granite boulders.
133. [133]
     Overall Mr Bomford regards his Sale 4 as superior to the subject due to the larger size and a location away from the highway.  I note that it also seems to be somewhat closer to Stanthorpe. 
134. [134]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 5 was of land located 56 Hutchinsons Lane at Cottonvale and otherwise described as Lot 140 on BNT 1298. 
135. [135]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 5 has an area of 13.962 ha and was sold on 12 July 2010 (more than a year prior to the relevant date of valuation) for $180,000 which Mr Bomford analyses down to $165,000 and applies an unimproved value of $158,000.
136. [136]
     The Hutchinsons Lane property is about 3.5 kms south-west of the subject land, has electricity and telephone but no town water or sewerage.  He describes the sale as consisting “of a regular shaped internal allotment, set at road level with a slight slope down to the rear of the parcel.  The parcel is basically level and elevated in nature providing nice countryside views”.^[51]  Mr Bomford says that overall that sale is superior to the subject due to its larger size and its location away from the highway. 
137. [137]
     Mr Bomford’s Sale 6 is of land located at Cottonvale Road Dalveen described as Lot 3 on RP 892538 with an area of 1.952 ha.^[52]
138. [138]
     That sale is accordingly less than half the size of the subject at 1.952 ha and sold, some four years prior to the relevant valuation date, on 26 October 2007 for a sale price of $102,500 which Mr Bomford analyses to $98,000 and applies an unimproved value of $88,000.
139. [139]
     Like the subject land the Cottonvale Road land has electricity and telephone but no town water or sewerage.  It was a vacant rural homesite that had been totally cleared and had rural boundary fencing.  Cottonvale Road is a dual lane bitumen sealed road. 
140. [140]
     The land itself was described by Mr Bomford as being a regularly shaped internal allotment set above road level, with a slight slope to the middle where it falls gradually away to the rear.  Its elevated nature, he says, provides average countryside views.

Overview and Conclusion

141. [141]
     The hearing in this case was characterised by a feature which is not uncommon, namely, a lay appellant appearing in person, in an appeal against a valuation set by the Valuer-General, without the benefit of an expert report prepared by a valuer.
142. [142]
     It is an occurrence which is encountered regularly in this jurisdiction and I have commented on previous occasions and earlier in this decision about the difficulty that a lay person faces in such circumstances.
143. [143]
     In the present case, I have on the one hand the heartfelt and sincere evidence and expressions of opinion provided by Mrs Rajkovic on behalf of herself and her husband, and on the other I have the expert evidence of Mr Bomford.
144. [144]
     The position of a lay person in the assessment of the unimproved value of land has been considered in a number of cases, recently in the decision of His Honour Member Smith in Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General.^[53]
145. [145]
     In that case His Honour referred the parties to the decision of the Land Court in Nimmo v Department of Natural Resources and Mines^[54] where the following appears:

“Assessment of the unimproved value of land is an enterprise considered to be within the province of a recognised area of expertise. Accordingly, in appeals such as these, a valuer’s evidence on matters of opinion relating to his field of expertise would ordinarily be preferred to differing opinions of a lay person. However, it is quite another thing to say that, because the valuation of land is the issue, the valuer’s evidence should automatically be preferred to that of a lay person.

It may be that the valuer’s opinion is expressed in a manner or upon bases which are unable to be scrutinised, or otherwise lacks rational explanation. It may also be shown that in reaching his opinion the valuer has relied on information shown to be wrong or has failed to take into account relevant and material facts.

Accordingly, it is clear, in my view, that the opinions of value expressed by Mr Van Hees are not immune from challenge by the appellant. That said, in the absence of any demonstrated error of approach or reasoning on the part of Mr Van Hees, his opinions on matters within his field of expertise ought to be preferred to the opinions of the appellant on the same matters.”

146. [146]
     The consequence of those observations and of the view which I have taken of the evidence of Mr Bomford, an expert and registered valuer, is that while his evidence is to be accorded considerable weight, it is susceptible to challenge even by a lay person if evidence can be found which casts doubt upon some of the views expressed by Mr Bomford.
147. [147]
     One particular difficulty with the evidence given by Mr Bomford was the paucity of relevant sales at or about the date of the valuation carried out by the Valuer-General. 
148. [148]
     As a consequence of that Mr Bomford necessarily had to look further afield for comparable sales than might otherwise have been expected and to consider sales which are somewhat distant in time from the valuation date.
149. [149]
     With respect to matters of fact regarding the nature of the subject land I accept the evidence of Mrs Rajkovic.  She lives on the lot and has done so for some time.  I found her oral evidence to be sincere and entirely consistent with what I had observed on the subject site. 
150. [150]
     In particular, I accept her observations about the impact of water on and the drainage characteristics of the subject land. 
151. [151]
     I accept Mrs Rajkovic’s evidence about the Norman land on the northern boundary of the subject property and its sale for $33,000.  Indeed Mr Bomford for the respondent also accepted that that transaction had occurred. 
152. [152]
     Mrs Rajkovic said that the land retained by Norman on the north-eastern part of their previous aggration was less wet, had an area of 6.72 ha and was valued by the Valuer-General at $120,000.^[55]
153. [153]
     When that valuation is taken into account it yields a per ha rate of $17,857 per Ha.  Applying that rate to the subject land with an area of 4.049 ha produces a valuation of $72,303.  Of course the valuation exercise is not as simplistic as that might suggest.  It does however, to my mind provide one element to be taken into account in the valuation exercise which I must carry out. 
154. [154]
     Mrs Rajkovic’s evidence that the retained Norman land was the less wet area of the parent parcel was not contradicted. 
155. [155]
     In my view Mr Bomford has failed to give sufficient weight to those matters and has been influenced by his own assessment that the waterlogged nature of the land, at the time he inspected it and at the time the Court had the benefit of an inspection, was a transitory and temporary phenomenon.  I find that should the land be regarded as a block suitable for rural residential use, that use would be constrained by the drainage problems occasioned by the presence of spoon drains, the intermittent spring across part of the land and its general slope.
156. [156]
     Further, as I expressed earlier in this decision, Mr Bomford has wrongly equated the subject land with the adjoining lands to the north.  I accept that Mr Bomford’s task has been made more difficult by the paucity of comparable sales to which he could have regard.  I was also concerned to hear (a matter not contradicted by Mr Bomford) that in the ten years since their block was valued at $18,800 the value has increased by more than 480% to $110,000.^[56]
157. [157]
     The matter of that very substantial apparent increase in value is over a short period of time was ventilated by Mrs Rajkovic in her grounds of appeal but not commented upon by Mr Bomford.  There seems to be no explanation for such a large increase.  There is no development proposed nearby which would be thought likely to have such an impact upon the values in the area and I was left uninformed as to whether that reflected the general changes of values in the whole of the Stanthorpe area. 
158. [158]
     Overall I am satisfied that the approach adopted by Mr Bomford has overstated the value of land but not by the amount or extent contended for by Mrs Rajkovic.  In my view an appropriate allowance for the value of the subject land having regard to all of the detriments attributable to it is to value the subject land at $90,000. 
159. [159]
     Accordingly I allow the appeal and find that the unimproved value of the subject property ought be fixed in the sum of $90,000 (Ninety Thousand Dollars) as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012.

Orders

1. The appeal is allowed and the unimproved value of the subject property is fixed in the sum of $90,000 (Ninety Thousand Dollars) as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012.

WL COCHRANE

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT