Flagstone Creek Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands; Spring Mountain Park Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1996] QLC 108

[1996] QLC 108

 

LAND COURT BRISBANE

16 AUGUST 1996

Re:Appeals against Valuations Valuation of Land Act 1944

Shireof Beaudesert (V95-72 & Others)

Flagstone Creek Pty Ltd v.

Chief Executive, Department of Lands

AND

Spring Mountain Park Pty Ltd v.

Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Beaudesert) D E C I S I O N

These are 18 appeals against the respondent’s valuations of certain lands, held by associated development companies situated in the Shire of Beaudesert. The land, the subject of the valuations, comprises two estates of mixed in globo and developed land. The land held by Flagstone Creek Pty Ltd (“the Flagstone Creek estate”) consists of an aggregation of parcels of land in the Parishes of Maclean and Undullah, while the land held by Spring Mountain Park Pty Ltd (“the Spring Mountain Park estate”) consists of an aggregation of parcels of land in the Parish of Staplyton.

The valuations of those lands were unimproved valuations made by the respondent under the provisions of Valuation of Land Act 1944 (“The Act”). The reason that there are so many appeals against the valuations of the same two aggregations results from interim valuations being issued by the respondent each time some developed lots were sold from each estate.

It was agreed that I deal with the 18 appeals by determining the valuations of the subject lands as they were at the dates of valuation of 30 June 1993 and 1 January 1995.

The reports submitted by the respondent show that as at 30 June 1993, 1,400.8868 ha of the Flagstone Creek estate was valued at $8,800,000, and as at the same date 638.433 ha of the Spring Mountain Park estate was valued at $4,700,000. However, the parties have provided me with a schedule of agreed areas of the two estates and categories of land therein, which differ from these areas.

At the hearing the appellants were represented by Mr P Robinson, Solicitor, of Carter Newell, Lawyers, while the respondent was represented by Mr R Paterson, Principal Legal Officer, Department of Lands.  For the appellants, engineering evidence was given by Mr GJ

Millwood, Director of the firm Lyndsay Smith Engineering, Consulting Engineers; town planning evidence was given by Mr JA Coyle, Manager Town Planning, of the firm Kinhill Cameron McNamara, and valuation evidence was given by Mr WR Wiemann, a registered valuer with the firm McGees Property Consultants. For the respondent, valuation evidence was given by Mr WJ Crothers, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands.

It seems that the subject lands were purchased by their present owners from Associated Forest Holdings Pty Ltd in 1991. Spring Mountain Park estate was purchased in January 1991 with other land totalling 2,280.7 ha for $2,650,000. Flagstone Creek estate was purchased with other land totalling 3,957.57 ha in October 1991 for $5,625,000. Although at the respective dates of sale the lands were zoned “Rural” under the town planning scheme for the Shire of Beaudesert, significant areas of each were designated “Rural Residential” under that Shire’s Strategic Plan which was gazetted in February 1985.

According to Mr Wiemann, the sales were apportioned at the time “by an independent valuation” in each case to show $2,014 per ha for the Flagstone Creek estate and $1,316 per ha for the Spring Mountain Park estate. As a result of his own investigations, he considered that the apportionments were realistic.

It seems that the properties were part of a large area of land submitted for sale by international tender by Associated Forest Holdings. That land included an aggregation of parcels of land totalling 908.1 ha known as “Teviot Downs”, which was to become the principal basis for the valuation of the subject lands. Teviot Downs was sold by Associated Forest Holdings to Kurts Development Ltd in October 1992 for $8,200,000, or $9,030 per  ha. Although that land was zoned “Rural”, it was designated as “Rural Residential” by the Strategic Plan.

THE FLAGSTONE CREEK ESTATE

The Flagstone Creek estate is located approximately 38 km south of the Brisbane GPO, approximately 18 km north-north-west of Beaudesert and approximately 6 km west of Jimboomba. The estate fronts the two-lane bitumen sealed Teviot Road for approximately 3.5 km and is severed by the Sydney to Brisbane interstate railway line. The eastern part, which during the hearing was referred to as Parcel A, comprises approximately one-third of the total area and consists of easy undulating sandy forest cut by two branches of Sandy Creek. The western part, which became known as Parcel B, comprises approximately two- thirds of the total area and is mostly easy sloping sandy forest, similar to Parcel A, with an area of moderate to steep country running into ridges, also cut by Sandy Creek.

As at 30  June 1993  Flagstone Creek estate was zoned “Part Rural”, “Part Rural Residential A” and “Part Rural Residential B”, being Stage 5 and Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Estate respectively, which were rezoned from “Rural” zoning during 1992. On 15 October 1993 a further 1,145 ha was rezoned from “Rural” to “Residential Low Density” and that zoning was still in place as at 1 January 1995.

The Town Planning Evidence

Mr Coyle gave evidence that the Flagstone Creek estate is designated “Rural” and “Rural Residential” in the Strategic Plan for the Shire of Beaudesert, which sets out the preferred dominant land use designation for all land within the Shire. Development of areas designated “Rural Residential” PDLU can occur provided that the infrastructure (roads and services) appropriate to the area is provided.  Council will approve development only where it is satisfied that such approval will support the orderly growth of community centres in rural residential areas. No development is envisaged of land with steep or unstable slopes, which is subject to flooding or land of scientific, historical or scenic value.

Mr Coyle went on to say that the broad planning intent for the Flagstone Creek locality is that rural residential development will be approved if appropriate service infrastructure is provided and such development is to be predominantly focused on one local centre in each locality, which is preferably within 5 minutes’ driving time distance.

Mr Coyle stated that a concept plan for the development of the estate was approved as part of the rezoning process.  That plan proposed the development of a fully integrated estate, both east and west of the Sydney-Brisbane railway line, by means of a planned local road network to operate as one comprehensively planned community, serviced by a network of roads, parks and trails, and focused on a proposed community centre located in the centre of Parcel A. All parts of Flagstone Creek estate would be within five minutes’ drive of that centre.

Mr Coyle was of the opinion that the Council would be unlikely to approve the development of Parcel B of the Flagstone Creek estate independent of Parcel A. It had approved an integrated development of the areas both east and west of the railway line, incorporating road and service infrastructure and rail crossings. The services, roads, etc., are to be provided in a staged way east to west. Services from the north to Parcel B in any alternative plan would be more costly and likely to be prohibitive. Furthermore, the Strategic Plan objectives and those of DCP No. 2 regarding accessibility of community centres, would be unlikely to be met.

Mr Coyle concluded that it would not be practical or feasible to develop Parcel B independent of Parcel A. The development of Parcel B must await the development of Parcel A to enable efficient and sequential extension of services and road access from east to west.

Mr Coyle considered that Flagstone Creek estate had a number of constraints on development that may affect its marketability and lot yield. The interstate railway line would impact detrimentally on the residential amenity of the land close to the line.

In addition, parkland contribution of 420 ha, or 21% of the total area, was required because of the steeply sloping and wooded nature of the north-west corner. That meant that the development yield from the estate would be lower than from a more homogenous parcel with fewer uncertainties.

Engineering Evidence

Mr Millwood, an engineer with considerable experience with rural and residential subdivisional development in South-East Queensland, had been directly associated with the Flagstone Creek development as a consultant since mid-1994. He explained that the developer had already paid substantial amounts to cover water supply and external road contributions in respect of the development which had already been undertaken on Parcel A. Water supply to Parcel B would require further upgrading of the mains from Cusack Lane to the east of Parcel A, by either a larger size main or duplication of the existing main to a point approximately 2½ km past the railway line on Parcel B to an elevated storage reservoir.

Road access to Parcel A is by Teviot Road, but to Parcel B is limited to two unmade road reserves which must be upgraded to Council standards if Parcel B was to be developed independently of Parcel A. Development of Parcel B in conjunction with Parcel A would be less expensive but would require the co-operation of the developer of Parcel A, restricting design flexibility of Parcel A and requiring a bridge crossing of the railway line

The provision of services to Parcel B would require the extension of Homestead Drive through Parcel A, which would be unnecessary for the development of Parcel A alone. Without the co-operation of Parcel A, services would have to be down New Beith Road for approximately 7 km at the developer’s cost.

Mr Millwood had prepared comparative costings for the development of Parcel B as an independent project, and development of that parcel as an extension of the development of Parcel A. From these comparative costings, Mr Millwood concluded that separate residential low density development of Parcel B is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, a sound commercial proposition.

Valuation Approaches

Mr Wiemann was uncertain of the exact area to be valued as at 30 June 1993, as he described the land area of the Flagstone Creek estate as being “approximately 1,339.7 ha in globo plus developed lots.”

In arriving at his valuation of the Flagstone Creek estate, Mr Wiemann had regard to the purchase price of that estate together with other land and the apportionment discussed previously. However, because the original purchase of the subject land included other land about which few details were provided, I place no weight on that evidence.

He also had regard to several sales, commenting that “due to the large area of the property and its unique attributes, directly comparable sales evidence is non-existent.”

His first sale is that of Teviot Downs in October 1992, when Kurts Development Ltd purchased 908.1 ha from Australian Forest Holdings Pty Ltd for $8,200,000 ($9,030 per ha). Mr Wiemann described the property as an undulating in globo parcel, located several kilometres to the north of the Flagstone Creek estate, abutting the interstate railway line. Although zoned “Rural”, it was designated “Rural Residential” in the Strategic Plan. The proposed development of that land includes 185 lots “Rural Residential B” and 989 lots “Residential Low Density”, a total of 1,174 lots.

Teviot Downs sold following the international tender by AFH Pty Ltd. Mr Wiemann reasoned that as the sale of the property settled only five months after the sale of the land which included the Flagstone Creek estate, the higher rate per ha showed that“Teviot Downs was considered to be markedly superior to Flagstone Creek. He regarded it as being better located, not only in relation to the City of Brisbane, but also closer to amenities, shopping facilities and schools. It is also adjacent to the Council’s preferred location for a community centre.

Mr Wiemann regarded the access to Teviot Downs as superior to that of Flagstone Creek, considered as a whole. He was of the opinion that development of Parcel B of Flagstone Creek would involve three bridges, which he estimated to cost about $900,000. Apparently, the Pub Lane bridge crossing at Teviot Downs had been funded from standard roadworks contributions from the developer.

The whole of Teviot Downs is designated “Rural Residential” in the Strategic Plan and more intensive development is proposed. The park contribution requirement for the development of the Teviot Downs Estate is proportionally less than for the Flagstone Creek.

Mr Wiemann thought that development of Teviot Downs could commence relatively quickly, as services were available and all lots were within 2 km of water supply, whereas Parcel B of the Flagstone Creek estate has lots over 5 km away from water supply, necessitating substantial capital expenditure.

In Mr Wiemann’s opinion, the purchase price of the two estates reflected the superiority of the sale, but that based on other sales evidence, the sale price for Teviot Downs appeared excessive and out of line.

Mr Wiemann’s Sales 2 to 5 are of parcels ranging in area from 247.3 ha to 2,845 ha, situated in the former Moreton Shire to the north of the Beaudesert Shire. Those properties sold at prices ranging from $1,524 per ha to $9,705 per ha between June 1992 and January 1995. Mr Wiemann made detailed comparisons of each sale with the Flagstone Creek estate, taking into account the differences between the sales and the subject land. It is clear, however, that he placed more weight on some sales than others. For example, his Sale No. 5, the Springfield estate, was to be mainly residential allotments. He said that he placed less weight on it because of the size and the date of the sale.

I place little weight on the sales in Moreton Shire as they may well be subject to different town planning constraints and development requirements. It is significant that the town planner, Mr Coyle, did not give evidence of  the similarities  or differences in the development requirements of the two Councils.

Mr Wiemann also referred to four other sales in the Shire of Beaudesert:

·Sale No 6, a 40.37 ha former grazing property, zoned “Rural”, which sold for

$8,050 per ha in February 1994;

·Sale No. 7, a 153.8 ha property, zoned “Rural Residential B”, which sold in January 1993 for $18,010 per ha;

·Sale No. 8, a 80.76 ha property, zoned “Rural”, which sold in August 1994 for

$19,812 per ha; and

·Sale No. 9, a 318.67 ha property, zoned “Rural”, which sold in August 1993 for

$6,904 per ha.

It is clear that he placed little reliance upon those four sales. Sale No. 6 had a residence on it but he did not measure it. There is doubt about the details of the sale and he had included it only because of its proximity to the Flagstone Creek land. He admitted that Sale No. 7, which showed over $18,000 per ha, was of little assistance and that Sale No. 8 was not relied upon. He got some assistance from Sale No. 9, an old dairy farm purchased for subdivision, which he thought was superior to Parcel B of the Flagstone Creek estate, being only 5 km from Beaudesert. It has since been rezoned to “Rural Residential A”.

In addition to those sales, Mr Wiemann had regard to four rural sales to arrive at a value of $1,800 per ha for the land zoned “Rural” in the subject estate. Those sales ranged in area from 116.1 ha to 372.3 ha and sold between February 1993 and December 1994 at prices ranging from $371 per ha to $3,323 per ha.

From that sales evidence, Mr Wiemann valued the Flagstone Creek estate in the following manner:

In globo land Parcel A

392.5 ha @ $7,500 per ha  $2,943,750

In globo land Parcel B

819.9 ha @ $3,750 per ha  $3,074,625

“Rural” zoned land Parcel B

127.3 ha @ $1,800 per ha	$229,140
$6,247,515
Plus area in subdivisional development	$300,000
$6,547,515

Mr Wiemann considered that the land in Parcel B should be valued at half the rate of that in Parcel A to allow for its larger area, access problems, cost of and delay in development and its land quality.

Mr Wiemann valued the land in subdivision by taking five times what he considered to be the average lot value of $60,000 to arrive at the figure of $300,000. He explained that he felt that he was obliged to do so by the provisions of s.25 of the Act.

Mr Crothers’ Valuation

Mr Crothers stated that because the estate is severed by the interstate railway line, he adopted a piecemeal approach and valued the land as two parcels. However, it emerged that he valued the land as four separate parcels, and then added those valuations to arrive at a total valuation.

His valuation proceeded as follows:

Parcel A

431.348 ha @ $10,000 per ha  $4,313,480

Areain subdivision on Parcel A 25.4793 ha @ $11,111

($100,000 ¸ 0.9)  $283,100

Parcel B

717.021 ha @ $5,000 per ha  $3,585,105

“Rural” zoned land on Parcel B, 205.2958 ha @ $2,000 per ha  $410,592

$8,592,277

In addition Mr Crothers added the cost of water headworks as levied by the Beaudesert Shire Council

51 lots @ $3,338 per lot  $170,238

Total rounded to  $8,800,000

As a basis for his valuation, Mr Crothers referred to only four sales. His Sale No. 1 is the Teviot Downs sale at $9,000 per ha.  Mr Crothers considered that it was a good example of what developers were prepared to pay for land close to major centres, with access to most services.

He considered the sale to be superior in location, similar in zoning, services and country type to Flagstone Creek. However, he regarded its access as inferior as it required the construction of a bridge over the railway line, whereas he reasoned that Flagstone Creek fronted Teviot Road. Although Flagstone Creek is further from major centres, it is designated “Rural Residential” and situated only 6 km from Jimboomba. Therefore, Mr Crothers regarded it as slightly inferior to the sale. However, it is clear that in making those comparisons he was referring to Parcel A only, and not the whole of Flagstone Creek.

Mr Crothers’ Sale No. 2 is Mr Wiemann’s Sale No. 7, a property known as “Huntingdale Heights”, which had an area of 153.9 ha and sold in January 1993 for $18,000 per ha. Although zoned “Rural”, it was designated “Rural Residential” and was rezoned “Rural Residential B” in December 1993. Both valuers agreed that it is better located, had lower development costs as no water or sewerage was to be provided to the estate.

However, the sale of such a small area compared to the Flagstone Creek estate, showing

$18,000 per ha, and envisaging a different type of development, would seem very difficult to compare with the subject land. Indeed, Mr Crothers admitted that he had not relied upon it to any degree. He had included it because it was an in globo sale and regarded it as a support sale only.

Mr Crothers’ Sale No. 3 is Mr Wiemann’s Sale No. 9, situated in Veresdale Scrub Road. He stated that the property had an area of 447.96 ha and a sale price of $3,200,000, whereas Mr Wiemann’s report showed an area of 318.67 ha and a sale price of $2,200,000. The differences were never satisfactorily resolved. The property was zoned “Rural” at the time

of sale but was rezoned to “Rural Residential A” in October 1994.

In analysing that sale, the valuers adopted different approaches to the added value of the improvements, Mr Crothers analysed it to show $6,800 per ha, while Mr Wiemann analysed it to show $5,904 per ha. Mr Crothers was not cross-examined as to the accuracy of his adopted sale price and area and I accept that they are the more likely to be correct. In addition, I prefer his reasoning as to the analysis of the sale.

The sale property is situated only 5 km from Beaudesert, but Mr Crothers considered that the sale was a good example of what developers were prepared to pay for land further removed from what he regarded as the major centres. He said it is good land but rises rather steeply.

Comparing the sale with Parcel A of the subject land, Mr Crothers reasoned that since the “Rural Residential” zoning is inferior to that of Parcel A and that town water will not be provided to the estate, Parcel A was superior to the sale. However, apart from their relative sizes, he regarded the land as comparable and thought that it set the lower limit for the valuation of Parcel A.

As a basis for his valuation of the “Rural” zoned land in Flagstone Creek estate, Mr Crothers relied upon Sale No. 4 of 372.3 ha, which sold in December 1993 for $710,000 and which he analysed to show an unimproved value of $1,880 per ha. The sale is situated about 6 km west of Parcel B, with access by means of 5 km of narrow formed earth road. Mr Crothers considered that the “Rural” zoned area of the subject land was superior because of its country type and services.

The Piecemeal Approach

The evidence of Mr Coyle and Mr Millwood demonstrates that the development of Flagstone Creek estate must be an integrated one, with development proceeding in an orderly manner from east to west, with the development of Parcel B being dependent upon and following the development of Parcel A. This was not an issue as both valuers approached their valuations on that basis.

They have agreed that Parcel B (excluding the rural area) should be valued at half the rate per ha applied to Parcel A. It is clear that the rate per ha applied to Parcel B must recognise that development of that parcel will be delayed for some years, will be dependent upon the provision of access and services from Parcel A and will depend upon the bridging of the interstate railway line in two or three places.

I accept the valuers’ reasoning that the valuation of Parcel B should be at half the rate per ha applied to Parcel A.

Both valuers have adopted the same piecemeal approach to the valuation of the Flagstone Creek estate by valuing various parts of the estate as separate parcels. In addition to notionally dividing the land into Parcel A and Parcel B, they have separately assessed the rural area of Parcel B and the area already in subdivision in Parcel A.

In the absence of directly comparable sales of the size of the whole area of Flagstone

Creek estate, the piecemeal approach is appropriate provided that allowance is made for the fact that each of the hypothetical parcels is but part of the larger whole. I agree with the submissions by Mr Robinson, that the valuation of the whole of the Flagstone Creek estate should not be merely the sum of the individual parts without appropriate discounting for the size of the property as a whole.

The two valuers have taken different approaches to the valuation of Parcels A and B and although each of them has referred to other sales, they placed considerable reliance upon the Teviot Downs sale as a basis of valuation for Parcel A, the other sales being at best, support sales.

The Value of Parcel A

In making his comparison between the sale of Teviot Downs and the subject land, Mr Wiemann endeavoured to compare the sale with the whole of the Flagstone Creek estate. He regarded Teviot Downs as considerably superior in location, access, saleability, topography and zoning, as well as having a proportionally smaller park contribution requirement. However, he commented that the sale price appeared excessive and out of line with the majority of the remaining sales evidence. He stated that it should be used and treated with caution and not solely relied upon.

This goes some way to explaining why the sale showed $9,000 per ha and he applied

$7,500 per ha to Parcel A. However, I cannot accept his reasoning for regarding the sale of Teviot Downs as excessive. He relies, at least in part, for that conclusion on the sales mentioned earlier, to which I have given little or no weight.

On the other hand, Mr Crothers directly compared Parcel A with the sale, considering it to be slightly inferior. He reasoned that the sale is larger, closer to the major centres, similar in zoning, services and country type and, considered as a separate parcel, has superior access as it did not require the construction of a bridge over the interstate railway line. He therefore applied $10,000 per ha to Parcel A.

However, Mr Crothers made a number of admissions. He admitted that he had valued the subdivided lands, the rural land and the balance of Parcels A and B as separate parcels. He also conceded that his valuation did not take into account the need to specially design Parcel A to accommodate the development of Parcel B and the cost of building the road to do so. He also conceded that he did not take into account the delay in development of the whole of the estate, or that the development of Parcel B depended upon the co-operative development of Parcel A, or the amount of parkland contribution, or the cost of supplying water and electricity to Parcel B.

Having regard to those admissions and concessions by Mr Crothers, it is clear that the valuation should be discounted from the amount which is the sum of four smaller parts. However, the evidence does not indicate the extent to which the valuation should be discounted, nor do the sales give any assistance in this regard except perhaps to illustrate the well-accepted principle that smaller properties sell for a higher rate per ha.  It seems that Mr

Wiemann’s approach was to discount the rate per ha applied to the individual parts of the valuation.

In the absence of any evidence of an appropriate discounting factor, I intend to discount the rates per ha for each part of the categories of the estate. Therefore, taking into account the fact that Parcel A is merely part of a larger whole, and making allowance for the differences outlined above between Flagstone Creek and Teviot Downs, Parcel A should in my view be valued at the same rate as shown by the Teviot Downs sale at $9,000 per ha.

Therefore, I propose to adopt $9,000 per ha for Parcel A. That means that Parcel B will be valued at $4,500 per ha, except for the “Rural” zoned land..

The Rural Land

There is little between the valuers with regard to the value of the land zoned “Rural” on the western side of the railway line. Mr Wiemann has adopted $1,800 per ha, while Mr Crothers has adopted $2,000 per ha.

After considering the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Wiemann’s assessment is to be preferred to that of Mr Crothers. Although Mr Wiemann purported to rely on four rural sales, there is some doubt about the details, inspection and analyses of three of them. That leaves the sale also relied on by Mr Crothers for his valuation of the rural land. It was purchased for the purposes of grazing, and seems to be somewhat superior to the “Rural” zoned Flagstone Creek land. However, it is an indication of the value of land which had no subdivisional potential.

The Subdivided Area

It is necessary now to consider the value to be attributed to the area in subdivision.

Mr Wiemann explained that he felt that the provisions of s.25 of the Act required him to value the lands in subdivision at five times the average unimproved value of the allotments.

On the other hand, Mr Crothers valued the land in subdivision as 25.4793 ha at $11,111 per ha. His approach was to value the subdivided area at the same rate per ha that he applied to Parcel A ($10,000 per ha) divided by a factor of 0.9 which he said took into account the area lost to road.

It is necessary to consider the provisions of s.25 of the Act to ascertain which, if either, of these approaches is appropriate. Section 25 provides as follows:

“(1)     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except subsection (3),

where an owner subdivides land into 6 or more parts the parts that continue to be owned by the owner (being not less than 6) shall be deemed to form a single parcel and shall be valued as such pursuant to this Act (notwithstanding that the same may not adjoin) and in valuing that parcel any enhancement in the value thereof by reason of works carried out by that owner on the land so subdivided shall be disregarded.

(2) However, the unimproved value of that parcel shall be not less than 5 times the average unimproved value of the parts continuing to be so owned and for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of each such part it shall be

taken to be a part to which this section does not apply.

(3)Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the operation of section 17.”

I do not think the approach of either valuer is correct.  Mr Wiemann is clearly wrong in his approach. Mr Crothers is more correct in endeavouring to value the subdivided lands as if they were still in globo, but has felt compelled to take into account the area lost to roads. There is nothing to justify such approach.

The section requires that land which is in subdivision (or partially in subdivision) and which continues to be owned by the owner who has subdivided the land, must be valued as if it was a single parcel, rather than the sum of the valuations of each subdivided lot.  Once a plan of subdivision is registered, then the area dedicated to roads is lost to the original subdivider. There is no reason for Mr Crothers to adopt the factor approach that he has.  It must be valued as part of the in globo land and the fact that it consists of a number of surveyed lots ignored.

Mr Crothers also added the amount of headworks contribution by the appellant to the Beaudesert Shire Council, which he assessed at 51 lots at $3,338 per lot, a total of $170,238.

It is clear that s.25 requires that any enhancement in the value of the land by reason of works carried out by that owner on the subdivided land must be disregarded. However, in Riverside Drive Estate Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1988) 12 QLCR 165, Mr Carter, Member of the Land Court, held that headworks charges and approvals add to the value of land and can be distinguished from works carried out by the owner of the land which cause enhancement in the value of subdivided land.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept that the area of 25.4793 ha is the area of the land in subdivision, excluding the area dedicated to roads. The subdivided area should be valued as if it was part of the in globo area of Parcel A, but including the added value of the headworks charges as calculated by Mr Crothers.

The Valuation of the Flagstone Creek estate as at 30 June 1993

Applying my findings in respect of the value of each of the categories of land to the areas agreed to by the parties, the valuation of the Flagstone Creek estate as at 30 June 1993 is as follows:

Parcel A:

Subdivided Land 25.4793 ha @ $9,000 per ha	$229,314
Plus headworks charges - 51 lots @ $3,338 per lot	$170,238
Balance of Parcel A 431.358 ha @ $9,000 per ha Total Value of Parcel A	$3,882,222	$4,281,774

Parcel B:

Rural land 329.767 ha @ $1,800 per ha  $593,580 Balance Parcel B 592.550 ha @ $4,500 per ha  $2,666,475

Total Value of Parcel B  $3,260,055

Value of Flagstone Creek estate 1,379.1543 ha  $7,541,829

(Rounded) $7,500,000

SPRING MOUNTAIN PARK ESTATE

The parties agreed that as at 30 June 1993 Spring Mountain Park estate had an area of

638.452 ha. The estate is located approximately 30 km south of the Brisbane GPO, approximately 26 km north-north-west of Beaudesert, approximately 15 km north-west of Jimboomba and approximately 16.5 km west of Browns Plains. Access was by means of Lyndale Road, which was bitumen sealed in part and partly unformed. However, Pub Lane is the Council’s preferred access, but at the relevant date it was gravel with earth gutters.

The land in the estate was described as gently undulating coastal forest and creek flats at its southern end, rising to moderately sloping lands towards the centre and north, with more steeply sloping lands to the west.

As at 30 June 1993 the estate was zoned partly “Residential Low Density”, (18.6543 ha of which was in subdivision and 491.560 ha was in globo); and partly “Rural Residential A”, (23.573 ha of which was in subdivision and 14.055 ha was not). However, included in that latter area, Lot 986 of 1.505 ha, appears to have been set aside as park or road.

In addition, 14.61 ha was zoned “Rural” and 76 ha zoned “Public Open Space”.

Mr Wiemann’s Valuation

Mr Wiemann used the same sales to value Spring Mountain Park as he used to value Flagstone Creek. He considered the Teviot Downs sale to be considerably superior as it was better located, closer to amenities with easier and quicker access to shops, schools and the City of Brisbane.

Mr Wiemann also considered that Teviot Downs was more gently undulating land than Spring Mountain Park, which resulted in lower development costs. In addition, he reasoned that Spring Mountain Park had a large proportion of moderately to steeply sloping land, as well as creek flats which were subject to flooding.

Mr Wiemann also drew attention to the percentage of park contribution in Teviot Downs (16.04%) compared with the 44% requirement in Spring Mountain Park. However, Mr Coyle’s evidence shows that 44%, or 619 ha, of the area of 1405.7 ha that comprised Spring Mountain Park estate at the time of approval of the concept plan was to be dedicated to parkland. (See Figures 9 and 10 of Exhibit 5). That is quite different to the area of the estate to be valued as at 30 June 1993 (see Zoning Map attached to Mr Crothers’ report, Exhibit 10). Mr Wiemann was possibly referring to the requirement prior to the development of the estate, but that is not the same area to be valued as at 30 June 1993.

Mr Wiemann also considered that Teviot Downs was in a better position for development than the subject land. He said that all services were available to Teviot Downs and development could commence relatively quickly, while Spring Mountain Park had to bring the services, particularly water, to the estate. Again, he seemed to be comparing the two estates

as they were at the time of sale, rather than Spring Mountain Park as it was at the date of valuation.

Mr Wiemann summarised the comparative position by saying that the initial purchase prices for each development reflected the relativity between the lands and should be taken into account, considering that the major factor was the extraordinarily large park contribution required in Spring Mountain Park. However, as explained above, this does not appear to be correct. Whatever the relativity may have been at that time, Spring Mountain Park estate was quite different by 30 June 1993.

I do not propose to comment further on Mr Wiemann’s Sales 2 to 5. They are situated in what was then Moreton Shire, with possibly different town planning and subdivisional requirements.

His Sales 6, 7 and 8 have been discussed sufficiently in the Flagstone Creek decision.

Mr Wiemann considered his Sale No. 9, the Veresdale Scrub Road property, to be superior to Spring Mountain Park because:

·the existing bitumen road access through the centre of the holding allows lots to be

subdivided directly from it without incurring major road construction costs;

·electricity was nearby;

·its proximity to Beaudesert and its amenities;

·its superior topography and aspect;

·it was fully cleared, thus reducing development costs; and

·its fertile soils.

However, as indicated earlier, I prefer Mr Crothers’ analysis of that sale.

Mr Wiemann thought that although the future parkland was of no financial value to the developers, it did add some nominal value to the overall estate. He recognised that as at the relevant dates of valuation, a considerable area of parkland had been transferred to the Council and considered the remaining 104.665 ha to be a financial liability. He thought that, at best, it was equivalent in value to the poor rural land.

In relation to the land zoned “Rural” and “Open Space”, Mr Wiemann had regard to the same four rural sales used in the Flagstone Creek valuation. He considered three of them to be superior to the subject land.

From these sales, Mr Wiemann valued the 104.665 ha of land which he considered to be future parkland at $750 per ha. That area is shown at page 39 of his Report (Exhibit 7) as comprising Lot 986 of 1.505 ha (zoned “Rural Residential”), Lot 989 of 14.61 ha (zoned “Rural”) and Lot 801 of 88.55 ha (zoned “Open Space”).

Mr Wiemann valued the balance in globo land of 469.672 ha zoned “Residential Low Density”, at $5,000 per ha, taking into account its zoning, location and size, compared with the sales.

He applied the same reasoning to the valuation of the land in subdivision that he had in his valuation of Flagstone Creek, arriving at $300,000.

His valuation of Spring Mountain Park was as follows:

Future park -     104.665 ha @ $750 per ha	$78,499
In globo land -  469.672 ha @ $5,000 per ha	$2,348,360
$2,426,859
Plus the value of unsold subdivided lands	$300,000
$2,726,859
Adopt	$2,725,000

Mr Crothers’ Valuation

Mr Crothers also valued Spring Mountain Park by direct comparison with the Teviot Downs sale. He saw the two properties as similar in country type, use, zoning and services, but thought that the subject land was inferior in location and access. He said he referred to Sale No. 2 because it adjoins the subject land to the north. However, since it showed $18,000 per ha, it can have been of little assistance. His Sale No. 3 in Veresdale Scrub Road, further removed from major centres, with inferior country, access and zoning, reflected $7,000 per ha, which he considered supported his applied value of $8,000 per ha to the “Residential Low Density” zoned land in Spring Mountain Park.

To value the land zoned rural and open space, Mr Crothers relied upon his Sale No. 4. He considered that area of the subject land to be slightly inferior in country, smaller, but superior in access and location, and therefore thought that the $1,900 per ha it showed supported a value of $2,500 per ha.

From the sales Mr Crothers adopted $6,000 per ha for the land zoned “Rural Residential A”, $8,000 per ha for the land zoned “Residential Low Density” and $2,500 per ha for the land zoned rural and open space. He adopted the same reasoning that he applied in the Flagstone Creek valuation to the land in subdivision to make allowance for the areas lost to roads. As explained previously, that approach is incorrect.

Having regard to the sales discussed in some detail in considering the Flagstone Creek valuation, I do not think they provide sufficient evidence to enable a distinction to be drawn between land zoned “Rural Residential A” and that zoned “Residential Low Density”, in the particular circumstances of this case.

I conclude from the sales evidence that the “Residential Low Density” and “Rural Residential A” land in the subject estate is inferior to the Teviot Downs sale, but superior to the Veresdale Scrub Road sale. Mr Crothers commented that although the subject estate is in the far north-western corner of the Beaudesert Shire in close proximity to other subdivisions and major centres, most of the “Residential Low Density” zoned land is in a more isolated area. Therefore, I think that a value of $7,000 per ha is appropriate for that land.

Having regard to the submissions made by Mr Robinson, the type of country and situation of the land zoned rural and open space, I have formed the opinion that it is of limited value. The same can be said of Lot 986 with an area of 1.505 ha, which although zoned “Rural

Residential A”, appears to have been set aside for park or perhaps for road.  I will include all those lands together at $1,000 per ha.

Therefore, the valuation of the subject land should be adjusted in accordance with the areas agreed upon by the parties for the various categories of land in the Spring Mountain Park estate as at 30 June 1993, and my findings in respect of the value of each category will be applied accordingly:

Area in subdivision:-

42.2273 ha @ $7,000 per ha	$295,591
Plus headworks charges - 44 lots @ $3,336 per lot	$146,784
Balanceland:
491.560 ha zoned “Residential Low Density”, plus 12.550 ha zoned “Rural Residential A” (ie 14.055 ha less Lot 986 1.505 ha)	) 504.11 ha ) @ $7,000/ha )	$3,528,770

14.61 ha zoned “Rural”	) 92.115 ha
76 ha zoned “Open Space”	) @ $1,000/ha
1.505 ha (Lot 986)	)	$92,115

Total - 638.452 ha  $4,063,260

Adopt  $4,000,000

The Valuations as at 1 January 1995

Mr Wiemann formed the opinion that the valuations of the in globo lands had increased by 10% between 30 June 1993 and 1 January 1995. He said he formed this opinion on the basis of anecdotal evidence from agents and developers and also from statistical evidence relating to the number of sales of developed lands within each of the estates, sales from the developed blocks within the estates, from rural residential sales in the Beaudesert Shire and from quarterly lot approvals within the Shire. He said that his conclusion was supported by, what he considered to be, the reduction by the Department of Lands of the Spring Mountain Park valuation between the two relevant dates.

The only part of his valuations that remained constant was the $300,000 attributed to the lands in subdivision.

On the other hand, between the two dates of valuation Mr Crothers had increased the valuation of in globo land in both estates. However, he provided no basis for the increase and under cross- examination he said that he formed the opinion because of the increases in sale prices of the developed allotments within the estates. He offered no firm evidence for his opinion.

In my view, neither valuer has provided satisfactory evidence for their opinions as to the change in valuations between 1993 and 1995. The basis for Mr Wiemann’s opinion is tenuous, to say the least. It is wrong in respect of the conclusion he drew about the Department’s decrease in the valuation of Spring Mountain Park estate. If anything, Mr Crothers’ opinion was even less soundly based. It would be inequitable, in my view, to form an opinion about the movement in the value of large areas of in globo land by having regard to the movement in sale prices of small developed lots. If there is any correlation between the two, then cogent evidence would be required to prove it.

I have no satisfactory evidence before me of any movement in the value of the in globo land between 1993 and 1995. Therefore, the valuations as at 1 January 1995 will  be determined at the same level as those for 30 June 1993 in each case.

Orders

In respect of Appeal No. V95-72, the valuation of the Flagstone Creek Estate as at 30 June 1993, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the respondent is set aside and the unimproved value is determined at Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000).

In respect of Appeal AV95-151, the valuation of the Spring Mountain Park Estate as at 1 January 1995, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the respondent is set aside and the unimproved value is determined at Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000).

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT