Harrold v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 130
•18 December 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Harrold v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0130 PARTIES: Brenda M and Rex A Harrold
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2006/0549 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944. DELIVERED ON: 18 December 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Mackay MEMBER Mr RP Scott ORDER: The appeal is dismissed CATCHWORDS: Valuation of Land Act – s.31(1)(b) – unimproved value – comparison with sales APPEARANCES: Mr R A Harrold for the appellants.
Mr G Smith, Senior Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Water for the respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 the Chief Executive respondent placed a valuation on the appellants land in the amount of $840,000 as at a relevant date of 1 October 2005. Following an objection by the appellants the Chief Executive altered the valuation to $805,000 and it is that valuation against which the landowners have appealed.
Rex Arthur Harrold appeared and gave evidence for the appellants whilst David John Doyle, registered valuer, provided valuation evidence in support of the Chief Executive's altered valuation figure. The subject property has an area of 4,740 m² and is located at 26 Ian Wood Drive Dolphin Heads, a northern beaches suburb of Mackay. The land is approximately 9km as the crow flies north east of the CBD or 12 km via road. The property has access from Ian Wood Drive which is a bitumen sealed roadway with earth verges. Access to the property is obtained from a service lane off Ian Wood Drive. The land has a narrow rectangular shape and is elevated with excellent views over the ocean. It also has an aspect towards the hinterland though views in that direction are largely blocked by a substantial planting of palms initiated by Mrs Harrold. Parts of the property are steeply sloping, particularly towards the eastern boundary which comprises a steep cliff leading down to the beach. Practical access to the beach and ocean is not available from the subject land.
A substantial house with swimming pool has been established on an elevated part of the subject land, that house being occupied by the appellants. Whilst the zoning of the land is "Special Activities (Tourism)" the property has been valued as a Residential Allotment pursuant to s.17 of the Act as it is used for residential purposes and s.17 prohibits potential for other uses being taken into account. Mr Doyle said that whilst the subject land has a substantial area, only about 2,000 m² of it is practicably usable – a factor that is taken into account in his valuation.
In evidence Mr Harrold stressed the lack of direct access to the beach pointing out that the subject land is inferior to properties which are on the sea front and where access to the beach is directly available. He mentioned also that Ian Wood Drive does not have curbing and guttering. He said that he has to take the rubbish bin down to Ian Wood Drive and that task is a difficult one given the relative steepness of the driveway. He acknowledged that the subject land is a very attractive block has good views and is well elevated.
Mr Doyle referred to three sales properties in his valuation report and compared the subject land to those properties on the basis that the subject land were unimproved. I have perused that valuation report and those comparisons in detail and find that Mr Doyle has taken into account each of the disabilities mentioned by Mr Harrold as well as the attractive attributes of the site. In particular, I should mention that his sale number 1 comprised a sale of a lot having an area of 1,271 m² sold with nominal improvements only at a price of $1,200,000. The sale land has been considered by me in detail in other decisions relating to hearings in Mackay during the same period as the subject matter and I find it to be suitable sales evidence. Mr Doyle has made a substantial allowance in his comparison between that sale property and the subject land for the fact that the sale has absolute beach frontage.
Overall Mr Doyle's comparisons between the subject land and his sales properties appear valid and indicate that he employed a considered and professional approach to his task. There is no sound basis upon which his valuation figure should be disturbed. The appeal is dismissed.
RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0