Hindley v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1997] QLC 162

[1997] QLC 162

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

15 October 1997

Re:     Determination of Unimproved Value -
  Local Authority:  Douglas
  AV96-307.

Ernest F Hindley
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

(Hearing at Mossman)

This is an appeal against the determination by the Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $91,000 for a "Residential" zoned site situated in Daintree Road at Rocky Point about 10 kms north of the Mossman Township.  The land is more particularly described as Lot 2 on RP 733852, Parish of Whyanbeel, County of Solander, and contains an area of 1,008 square metres.  The relevant date for the valuation assessment is 1 January 1996.  The appellant contends within his Notice of Appeal for an unrealistically low valuation of $7,731. 
           Evidence in support of the grounds of appeal was furnished by Ernest Frederick Hindley who informed the Court that the main thrust of his appeal is that his land has been valued as at a rate of $90.27 per square metre, compared with a value placed on the adjoining Lot 1 on RP 733852 (containing 15,770 square metres) of $121,000 - or $7.67 per square metre.  Mr Hindley told us that his block was subdivided from Lot 1 on RP 733852 in June 1979.  He says that his land and Lot 1 on RP 733852 differ only in size.
           Mr Hindley also compared his valuation with that of $133,000 for an adjacent parcel to the north (Lot 162 on SR 180) with an area of 21,750 square metres, representing $6.11 per square metre, and suggests this comparison further highlights the lack of unimproved value relativity with his land.
           Mr Hindley points to certain advantages with the comparison blocks.  They are dense rainforest compared with his less favourable attribute of having been cleared.  Further, should residential subdivision be granted, both comparable blocks are of sufficient size to have potential to be subdivided at a large profit, whereas the subject land is only a small lot with no such potential.
Further, Mr Hindley described what he calls "difficult and dangerous access" from his land to the busy Daintree-Mossman Road due to restricted visibility with the road design. But no reference was made in the grounds of appeal to this problem, and as a result I cannot give weight to it as appellants are limited in appeals of this nature to the grounds of appeal (vide section 45(4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944).
           In support of his ground of appeal that property prices have fallen, Mr Hindley referred in evidence to a 4,000 square metre block at Port Douglas Views (2.5km south from the subject land) which is on the market for $65,000, and to advertised lots for sale at Wonga Beach (2.5 km north of the subject land) listed at $33,000.  He says that five years ago the lot prices at Wonga Beach were $50,000 to $80,000.  But this evidence is not of assistance, as what has to be determined is the unimproved value of the subject land at the relevant date for valuation (1 January 1996), and further it is well established that offers for sale do not constitute a reliable basis for valuation.
           Further matters raised by Mr Hindley (powerlines in front of his property, poor television reception) are also matters which cannot be taken into account as again there is no reference to them in the grounds of appeal.
           Valuation evidence for the respondent Chief Executive was called from Departmental Registered Valuer Ian Spencer Quirk-Anderson who describes the nature of the subject land as being above road level, regular in shape and forms the front of a moderately sloping ridge, the entire area forms a level cleared and benched homesite.  There is a cutting for an access track from the road to the housesite.  In describing the access to the land, Mr Quirk-Anderson recognises that a blind driveway from the Mossman-Daintree Road makes ingress and egress to the property difficult.
           Mr Quirk-Anderson values the subject land as a rural residential homesite on the basis of five sales of such site situated at Wonga Beach, Oak Beach, Garioch and Rocky Point.  I do not propose to include details of this sales evidence here as it is in the hands of the parties for reference.  Suffice it to say that it is the only vacant sales evidence before the Court, and it is a basic principle of valuation that when unimproved values are to be determined, the use of such type of sales evidence is to be preferred.  It is to be observed, however, that one of Mr Quick-Anderson's sales is of the subject land on 2 September 1991 to Mr Hindley, and this discloses an analysed unimproved value of $92,500.  There is no suggestion in the evidence that the price paid by Mr Hindley was exorbitant, although he did say that the market has dropped since 1991. 
           I will now consider the principal thrust to the appellant's case.  Comparisons of valuations of rural residential sites are best made on a site-to-site basis, and not on a unit area basis.  This has been endorsed by the Land Appeal Court in Re: H and E Grahn v. Valuer-General (Ref AV89-246,247 - 13 December 1990) where the Court said:

"For the purpose of valuing residential sites, the preferable method of comparison is on a site-to-site basis and not on the basis of a unit area comparison.  Site-for-site comparison should take into comparison such matters as the size of the lots, the situation of and access to the lots, the shape and topography of the lots etc. and comparisons on a unit area basis do not necessarily reflect valuation considerations for the above features.  "

Now, in addition to this, Mr Quirk-Anderson told us that both the adjoining comparison sites referred to in evidence by Mr Hindley have been valued as single unit rural residential sites under the provisions of section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, so that no valuation potential for possible future residential subdivision has been considered or included in the valuations.
           Now in all the circumstances of this case, I cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellant has been discharged, especially as he did not rely upon any completed sales evidence in the case.  The appeal is dismissed, and the determination of the unimproved value of $91,000 as made by the respondent Chief Executive for Lot 2 on RP 733852, Parish of Whyanbeel, is affirmed.

(CH Carter)      
  Member of the Land Court