Maspra Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1995] QLC 125
•12 October 1995
|
BRISBANE
12 OCTOBER 1995
Re: AV94-511 -
An Appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act
Local Government: Whitsunday
Maspra Pty Ltd & Analji Pty Ltd
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Proserpine)
D E C I S I O N
This appeal was heard at the same time as Appeal AV94-509, the valuers involved being Mr B. Conroy for the appellant company and Mr S.J. Whitfield for the Department of Lands. The separate decision in that matter will be delivered today and it may be helpful to the parties, for that decision to be read in conjunction.
In this matter the land is also valued as "a large rural site" but here because that is adopted as its highest and best use at the date of valuation - 30th June, 1993. The land is zoned "Rural", and situated at Mandalay Road, Jubilee Pocket, about 5.5 kilometres east of Airlie Beach. Electricity and telephone services are available. Reticulated water and sewerage are not.
The real property description is Lot 16 on Registered Plan 731431, Parish of Conway, County of Herbert, and the land contains an area of 9.617 hectares.
The Department of Lands' valuation is in the amount of $115,000 while Mr Conroy's valuation is $100,000. There is general agreement that the land is elevated above the street, rising gradually to a depth of about 120 metres then steeply to the rear boundary. Mr Conroy said that very good sea views were available to the west over Pioneer Bay but then only from the higher ground. Mr Whitfield described the land as having a high quality rural site available with excellent water views across Pioneer Bay.
Mr Conroy relied on the same sales evidence as he did in the appeal AV94-509, suggesting that of the seven sales scheduled, his Sales 4 and 7 were those of land which he found to be the most comparable, yet still inferior to the subject site. However, it was those sales which, due to the circumstances of the vendor, I found in the above-mentioned appeal to provide an unreliable basis.
Mr Whitfield in this appeal relied again on the sale of the 5,360m2 site in Cedar Court, to which land he had applied a valuation of $125,000, then two other sales which had not been offered as a basis for the other appeal. One of the sales was of a 2.035 hectare site in Pringle Road, some 8 to 10 kilometres by road westerly of Airlie Beach, which sold to show an analysed unimproved value of $84,000 on 26th April, 1993. That land had "excellent sea views" and was considered overall to be inferior to the subject land. The other sale was of a 809m2 site, in Mandalay Road, northerly of the subject land, also with no reticulated water or sewerage, which sold on 17th October, 1992, for $49,000. Mr Whitfield stated that it was "not contended that this sale is comparable other than the quality of view".
As in the other appeal, the available evidence is hardly convincing on the basis of comparability. Similarly however, the question of relativity of valuations between the various appeals against valuations of lands with potentiality capable of comparison, has become worthy of consideration. In this case, I see the valuation appealed against as bearing reasonable relativity between the valuations on both the sale properties and the decisions reached in other matters.
This appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0