Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1995] QLC 126
•12 October 1995
|
BRISBANE
12 OCTOBER 1995
Re: AV94-526 -
An Appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act
Local Government: Whitsunday
Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd and Others
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Proserpine)
D E C I S I O N
As at 30th June, 1993, the unimproved value of land described as Lot 108 on Plan HR307, Parish of Dryander, County of Herbert, containing 48.26 hectares, was assessed by the Department of Lands in the amount of $150,000.
The land is situated at the northern end of Riordanvale Road, about 13 kilometres from Airlie Beach. It is zoned "Rural A". No services are available. Riordanvale Road is bitumen sealed to within about 1.2 kilometres of the subject land. There is then a partly gravelled section before a partly graded access track.
Mr B. Conroy, registered valuer, appeared on behalf of the appellant companies. In his opinion the unimproved value of the land at the relevant date was $120,000 - a valuation which he described as being generous.
Mr S.J. Whitfield, registered valuer, made the valuation for the Department. He described the land as comprising "about 10 hectares of easy sloping to steep forest ridges with the remainder of the land being steep scrubby mountain. Excellent rural views are available to the south".
Mr Conroy's description of the land was similar to that of Mr Whitfield's. There is also no dispute that the highest and best use of the land, at the relevant date, was as a large rural home site.
In establishing a valuation basis, Mr Conroy referred to five sales of large, unserviced, rural home sites, in the general locality. The sites ranged from about 25 hectares up to 72 hectares and the sale prices (unrelated to size) from $55,000 to $80,000. While he specifically valued the subject land on a rural site basis rather than on a unit of area, Mr Conroy observed that his valuation equated about $2,500 per hectare. The unit of area values shown by three of his sales were in the $2,200 to $2,400 per hectare range (and very close to the values applied to those lands by the Department); the 72 hectare site showed $893 per hectare (Department's valuation equating about $1,100 per hectare); and one 24.6 hectare site showed $3,250 per hectare (Department's valuation $2,800 per hectare).
Mr Whitfield also provided a schedule containing five sales, which were said to have provided his basis of valuation. Two of the sales were common to those included in Mr Conroy's basis. Of the others, was a 25.79 hectare site which sold, lightly improved, for $79,000 (applied valuation $69,000); a 9.438 hectare site (subsequently subdivided into three lots) for $60,000 (applied valuation $58,000); and a 64.45 hectare site for $145,000 (applied valuation $127,500).
It can be seen that of seven sales used between the valuers, the sale prices ranged up to a maximum of $80,000. The comparison process which was adopted in arriving at valuations of $120,000 and $150,000 respectively, from such a low base, was not obvious. That situation no doubt, prompted the submission on behalf of the Department that the appeal should be dismissed as the appellant had not carried the burden of proving the Department's valuation wrong. There was, however, some conflicting opinion regarding the proper comparison of the tenth sale - Mr Whitfield's 64.45 hectare site for $145,000 - with the subject property. Mr Whitfield's evidence was that when the sale first came to his attention, the first reaction was that it represented a "high" sale. However, he interviewed the purchaser and in fact arranged an inspection of the site with him. Although from interstate, the purchaser impressed him as a person who had acquired a detailed knowledge of the local rural site market, through a somewhat painstaking search for land with the perceived qualities of the sale land. The sale site enjoyed "superb" 180° views (superior to those available from the subject) and about 6 hectares suitable for home site selection. In comparison with the subject land Mr Whitfield saw the isolated location of the sale land "at the end of a narrow gravel track winding through State Forest", as a somewhat significant negative influence on value. Although he saw the access construction as being superior to the sale land, Mr Whitfield described it as more dangerous, being used at times by timber trucks.
Mr Conroy had knowledge of that sale land. He said that he had not used the sale as a valuation basis because, in his opinion, it represented a significantly more valuable rural site. In his opinion, the very isolation which Mr Whitfield considered to be a negative feature, was one sought after by a particular category of purchaser (which seemed to be the circumstances of this transaction). He agreed that the narrow winding access was superior physically to that available to the subject land. He also agreed with Mr Whitfield in his description of superior views being available from the sale land. He felt the environment of the sale land, offering creek frontage and State Forest adjacency on three sides (rather than one side as with the subject land) as having an enhancing effect on the value of the sale land.
As in a number of other appeals against valuations in Whitsunday Shire, in which both Mr Conroy and Mr Whitfield have been the valuers involved, and whose expert opinion should be expected to assist in the decision-making process, the Court is faced with opposite subjective opinions on factual market orientated matters. I find no assistance from the previously mentioned seven sales offered as some sort of valuation basis and while I am not convinced by Mr Conroy's criticism of the use of the tenth sale by Mr Whitfield, his evidence has given another dimension to what was left as, in my opinion, the only evidence capable of cogent consideration.
As it was Mr Whitfield's basis, I will accept his preference between the subject land and the sale land but not to the degree expressed in his valuations of each site.
I will determine the unimproved value of the subject land in the amount of $135,000. The appeal is allowed and the valuation of the chief executive set aside accordingly.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0