Newson & Perkins v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Newson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2001] QLC 20
•12 April 2001
|
BRISBANE
12 APRIL 2001
Re: Appeals against Annual Valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll Nos: 606; 590; 689; 288/9 and 286/2
Local Government: Murgon Shire
Karen S Newson and NC & EM Perkins
(AV99-1172); (AV99-1173 & AV99-1174)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
Karen S Newson
(AV99-1175 & AV99-1176)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(Hearing at Nanango)
D E C I S I O N
Background:
The five matters were heard concurrently and refer to residential properties in Murgon, and described as follows:
(AV99-1172) Lot 1 on RP 100902 (1,115 m²);
(AV99-1173) Lot 40 on RP 28462 (1,012 m²);
(AV99-1174) Lots 1 and 2 on RP 103197 (2,013 m²);
(AV99-1175) Lot 4 on RP 891040 (651 m²);
(AV99-1176) Lot 5 on RP 891040 (934 m²).
The subject lands all have town water, electricity, telephone, sewerage and a refuse collection service available. Three parcels (AV99-1172 to AV99-1174) are zoned "Residential A", while AV99-1175 is zoned "Special Purposes" and AV99-1176 is zoned "Central Business" under the Murgon Shire Council Transitional Planning Scheme of 12 August 1999. The date of valuation was 1 October 1998. While there was no specific reference to the effect of the planning regime at the relevant date, it is agreed that all five parcels were used for residential purposes at that date. Each has been valued under Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act1944 (the Act) for the purpose of a single dwelling house. The key issues are the nature of the lands, comparison of sales and relativity in Murgon.
On 22 March 1999 the Chief Executive issued the following valuations:AV99-1172 - $5,300;
AV99-1173 - $5,300;
AV99-1174 - $10,800;
AV99-1175 - $5,400;
AV99-1176 - $6,500.
Following objections, the Chief Executive on 19 August 1999 confirmed the unimproved values on AV99-1172 and AV99-1173, and the Chief Executive amended the following valuations:
AV99-1174 - $10,000;
AV99-1175 - $4,600;
AV99-1176 - $5,500.
Following a further Court supervised preliminary conference on 21 March 2000, the Chief Executive issued the following further amended valuations on 24 May 2000:
AV99-1173 - $5,000;
AV99-1175 - $4,400;
AV99-1176 - $5,100.
The appellants have now appealed those figures claiming the unimproved values should more properly be:
AV99-1172 - $2,300;
AV99-1173 - $2,100;
AV99-1174 - $4,600;
AV99-1175 - $1,200;
AV99-1176 - $2,000.
Ian Anthony Newson, a registered valuer, appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr R Vize, Counsel of Crown Law appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Peter George Mariner, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuations.
The Evidence:(1) Nature of the Lands -
Each of the subject lands has vehicular access from bitumen sealed roadways, with concrete kerbing and channelling, except AV99-1176, which has no kerbing or channelling, and each is gently sloping lands. AV99-1172 and AV99-1174 are both corner lots below road level, and the remaining three parcels are inside lots.·AV99-1172 (Lot 1).
Located on the corner of Stephen's and Watt Streets, about 400 metres east of the CBD. There are adjoining Queensland Housing Commission (QHC) duplexes and also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation (ATSIC) dwellings in the immediate area. There are problems with access off Watt Street in wet weather, and the locality is low with little views.
·AV99-1173 (Lot 40) -
Located in McLucas Street about 1 km south of the CBD, and nearby to an old butter factory being refurbished as a future winery. The subject land is slightly below road level, and has some drainage problems.
·AV99-1174 (Lots 1 and 2) -
Located at the corner of Krebs and Fryar Streets about 400 metres north of the CBD. There are QHC properties to the west and north. The subject land is below road level and surface waters pass across the parcel in heavy rains, towards a gully to the west. This land is near a level crossing on the railway line to the sale yards and abattoir.
·V99-1175 (Lot 4) -
Located in Macalister Street, about 150 metres south of the CBD, on the eastern side of the Kingaroy-Gympie railway line, and just north of Queensland Rail's Qlink Depot. The subject land is close to the light service industry area to the south-west. The local CWA Hall adjoins to the north. There are drainage problems in wet weather, and there is an RSL Club in Gore Street to the West.
·AV99-1176 (Lot 5) -
Located in Macalister Street less than 300 metres south of the CBD, the subject land adjoins the railway line to the west, and also an Ergon Energy service depot to the south. The subject land is opposite car yards in Macalister Street.
(2) Relativities -
Mr Newson argues that the demographics of Murgon reveal patches of less than desirable areas for residences, mainly associated with lower-income, and more disadvantaged groups in the community. Mr Mariner does not disagree with that observation, but argues that relativities have developed across the town over a period of years, which allows for marketplace recognition of such demography. Mr Mariner notes that the current five matters were the only appeals in Murgon Town.
It is Mr Newson's case that the subject lands all fall within those lesser attractive areas, and as such the determined unimproved values should allow not only for the physical nature of the lands, but also make provision for the impact of the changing demography in the town.
To support his estimates of the unimproved values Mr Newson draws comparisons with surrounding parcels in the specific locality of each subject land as follows:·AV99-1172 (Lot 1) -
Mr Newson seeks relativity to the east of the CBD and argues that a corner parcel across Stephens Street at the north-western corner in Watt Street (Lot 109) is superior, and has been applied at $3,500. That parcel is now developed with new QHC brick duplexes. Mr Mariner rejects that comparison arguing that Lot 109 has the disability of an old gully and also a registered easement across the middle of that parcel which would restrict development actions, and increase development costs. By comparison Mr Mariner argues that the subject land has only an easement along the western boundary, and the location of the easement across Lot 109 would be more restrictive, making Lot 109 inferior to the subject land.
Mr Newson seeks relativity also with parcels in Chataway Street to the north-west of the subject land, particularly Lots 114 ($4,000) and Lot 115 ($3,500). However, similar comparisons were noted by Mr Mariner as for Lot 109 with respect to the gully and registered easements across those parcels. Comparisons were also made with the lot at the south-east corner of Watt and Stephens Streets (Lot 49 - $4,000), and also at the corner of Coronation Drive and Armstrong Street (Lot 5 - $4,000). Both of those parcels also suffered from similar gully and easement disabilities, although Lot 5 was agreed to be in a superior residential area of Murgon.
A further relativity was also made with a parcel at the corner of Lamb and Watt Street, fronting the Bunya Highway (Lot 69 - $4,600). Mr Newson saw the exposure of Lot 69 as superior, but Mr Mariner argues that the adjoining auto-trimming business would detract from that value, as would also the noise of traffic and pedestrians along the highway, making Lot 69 inferior.
·AV99-1173 (Lot 40) -
Mr Newson seeks relativity in an area to the south of the CBD with two parcels in McLucas Street, Lot 24 ($4,700) and Lot 50 ($4,600), to the east of the subject land. However, Mr Mariner notes that those parcels really support the subject land at $5,000, being further removed from the CBD. Mr Mariner sees Lots 25 and 50 as slightly inferior. Mr Newson agrees those figures are in sympathy, but argues that the sales in that area do not support the applied unimproved values of those parcels. A similar argument is also applied to Lot 32 in Palmer Street to the north of the subject land. Lot 40 was reduced on objection from $5,300 to $5,000 to allow for the additional impact of noise from an adjoining enterprise, and proximity to an electric repeater station.
In respect of comparisons with Lot 282 in Macalister Street to the south-east, Lot 266 in Macalister Street to the east, and Lot 1 on the corner of Macalister and McLucas Streets to the east, Mr Newson argues those parcels are larger, with superior exposure, and greater development potential, yet are only applied at $5,300 (Lot 282), $16,800 (Lot 266) and $12,000 (Lot 1). Mr Mariner notes, however, that Lot 266 has recently been developed as a child-care centre, having formerly been an office complex for the South Burnett Co-operative Association.
Mr Mariner also questions the relevance of comparing vacant parcels which have superior zoning to residential, as he argues that represents a different market in Murgon. However, where such higher uses are in fact occupied by a residential dwelling, Mr Mariner agrees that under s.17 those lands are valued for that current use. Mr Newson argues that the higher use potential of Lots 266, 282 and Lot 1 all demonstrate that the applied unimproved values of those parcels are not in line with the current application of the subject land.
Similar comparisons to AV99-1172 were also drawn with the parcel to the east of the CBD; and also with a parcel in Thorn Street (Lot 79), which has an unimproved value of $4,000. However, Lot 79 is seen as inferior due to having a less desirable triangular shape, and adjoining a creek along its rear boundary.
·AV99-1174 (Lots 1 and 2) -
Mr Newson seeks relativity with parcels to the north-west of the CBD, and in particular land at the corner of Lamb and Douglas Streets (Lots 111 and 112) applied at $10,800. That parcel is zoned "Light Service Industry" and is the site of Jax Tyre Services, has higher development potential and exposure, and the applied value is only comparable to the subject land. Other comparisons with lands at the corner of Thorn and Thompson Streets (Lot 95 - $7,800); North Douglas Street (Lot 2 - $5,400) and (Lot 4 - $8,000); Lamb and South Cobb Street (Lot 6 - $12,000); and West Dutton Street (Lots 61 and 86 - $9,400) are all seen by Mr Newson as superior.
Mr Mariner rejects comparisons with Lots 111 and 112 as a commercial site, and also Lot 2 in North Douglas Street, which is a transport depot. It is also noted that Murgon Creek touches the north-eastern corner of Lot 86. Mr Mariner sees Lot 95 as slightly superior, and Lot 4 in Douglas Street North as inferior to the subject land, and Lot 6 in Lamb and Cobb Streets as superior to the subject land due to its larger size.
Mr Mariner sees Lots 61 and 86 as overall slightly inferior to the subject land due to its smaller frontage and potential impact from Murgon Creek at its north-eastern corner. Mr Mariner also draws similar comparisons as for AV99-1172 and AV99-1173 in respect to the selected parcels for relativity in both the eastern and southern areas from the CBD. The applied value of $9,300 for the adjoining Lots 40 and 41 in Kreb Street are seen by Mr Mariner as in line with the subject lands.
·AV99-1175 (Lot 4) -
Mr Newson draws comparisons with various parcels in Taylor Street to the east which have larger areas (1,012 m²) and have been applied at $6,700, and which both valuers agree are superior to the subject land. It is agreed that the subject land is impacted by noise from the adjoining railway line. However, Mr Mariner sees the subject land as superior to the lots to the east of the CBD (Lots 109, 114 and 115 etc) due to the impact of the gully and easements on those parcels. He sees it only slightly superior to Lot 69 on the Bunya Highway, as he feels the drier lot with occasional railway noise on Lot 4 would be better than the more constant noise of the auto upholsterer and highway noise at Lot 69. He sees Lot 79 in Thorn Street as inferior.
AV99-1176 (Lot 5) -
Mr Mariner has previously reduced the unimproved value from $5,500 to $5,100 to allow for the impact of the Council workshop adjoining to the south (Reserve R579). He sees the subject land as superior to Lots 109, 114, 70, 69 and 79 to the east. Mr Newson sees Lots 282, 266 and Lot 1 (Macalister and McLucas Streets) to the south as superior, while Mr Mariner draws similar conclusions as outlined for AV99-1175 (Lot 4).
It is agreed by both valuers that there are probably two preferred areas for housing in Murgon Town. A more recent Council subdivision to the east at Stuart Heights near Goodchild Drive and Tiernan Terrace, and an area near the golf club to the west near Heading, Lamb, Douglas Street North and Dutton Street. It is Mr Newson's argument that while values may have declined by 20% in the better areas, in the less attractive areas, such as the subject lands, the fall in value was likely to have been greater. Much of the recent falls in value reflect the downturn in the market since the closure of the local meatworks, which was a major employer.
Mr Mariner agrees in part with the nature of the declining market, which he argues is also reflected elsewhere in the South Burnett area. However, he argues that without adequate sales evidence it is difficult to quantify whether the decline in the market is area specific, or more of a general nature across the town. Because of lack of sales to support a change in the existing relativities, the respondent has maintained a consistent decline across all areas while maintaining the former relativities.
(3) Comparison of Sales -
To support his estimate of the unimproved values Mr Newson provides the following sales, all with comparable services available. Mr Newson argues those were the only sales of vacant lands in the relevant period:·Sale 1 - (Cnr Lamb and Watt Streets - Lot 69 on M55110). This is a 1,126 m² corner parcel below street level, and about 400 metres east of the CBD. The sale has excellent exposure to the Bunya Highway, and is seen as a superior location and exposure, but slightly inferior elevation to AV99-1172 and AV99-1173; smaller than AV99-1174; but larger than AV99-1175 and AV99-1176.
The sale sold in September 1998 for $3,300, which was analysed at $2,300, and has been applied at $4,600.
·Sale 2 - (22 East Stephens Street - Lot 2 on RP 152271). This is a 811 m² parcel located about 500 metres north-east of the CBD, near a new subdivision near Hanley Lane which is developed with superior lowset brick veneer houses. It was an adjoining owner sale, and is in a better area than all five subject lands; and is seen overall as superior to each of the subject lands.
The sale sold in August 1997 for $3,590, which was analysed at $2,790, and has been applied at $5,000.
·Sale 3 - (44 North Cobb Street - Lot 6 on RP 188799). This is a 837 m² parcel located 800 metres north-west of the CBD, with rural and golf course views. The sale is seen as in a superior, very attractive housing area, and whilst slightly smaller, is seen as greatly superior to all subject lands.
The sale sold in August 1998 for $14,000, which was analysed at $11,000 and has been applied at $8,400. The relativity map supplied (Exhibit 7) shows the unimproved value at $6,700.
·Sale 4 - (41 Garrick Street - Lot 7 on RP 28462). This is a 1,012 m² parcel located 800 metres south of the CBD, and is an inside parcel in a better elevated residential area with views across the sports ground. The sale is a better location than AV99-1172; most comparable to AV99-1173 but in a slightly better location; a superior elevation to AV99-1174 but an inferior location; vastly superior to AV99-1175 and superior to AV99-1176.
The sale sold in May 1998 for $6,000, which was analysed at $4,200 and has been applied at $5,400.
·Sale 5 - (3 Fryar Street - Lot 2 on RP 103197). This is a 809 m² parcel located 400 metres north-west of the CBD, in a more sought-after area of Murgon. The sale was an adjoining owner sale, and now forms part of the subject land (AV99-1174), which has been applied overall at $10,000.
The sale sold in December 1997 for $1,500, which was analysed at $700.
·Sale 6 - (Armstrong Street - Lot 6 on RP 167231). This is a 1,062 m² parcel located 800 metres north-east of the CBD, in a good residential area, but substantially below road level. This is an older sale, and is used to support the level of value argued by the appellant, and in particular Sale 5.
The sale sold in September 1996 for $1,900, and was analysed at $1,100, and has been applied at $5,400. Mr Newson concedes that was a low sale, but notes that property has again resold in 1999 for $4,000 (Shooter to Watson), supporting his interpretation of the market in that area. A dwelling has since been relocated to the site.
·Sale 7 - (Hanley Lane - Lot 3 on RP 95842). This is a 918 m² parcel located 700 metres north-east of the CBD, and near Sale 2. This sale is used, together with Sale 6, to support the appellants' level of value, and is an old sale.
The sale sold in September 1996 for $1,500, was analysed at $900, and has been applied at $5,400.
Mr Newson confirms that his Sale 1 (Vann to Stimpson) was part of a group of properties sold at about the same time by Mr Vann, who was an elderly bachelor, and who has subsequently deceased. Mr Newson was able to speak to Mr Vann by telephone after the sale and believes it was an arm's length arrangement. He agrees that the sale adjoins an auto upholsterer business, but argues that is offset by the good exposure to the Bunya Highway. However, Mr Newson concedes that exposure to both the highway and the auto upholsterer business would not be attractive features for residential purposes. Mr Mariner sees Sale 1 as inferior to AV99-1172. He also advises that Mr Stimpson has placed that parcel back on the market at an asking price of $4,000 at the current time.
Mr Newson also confirms that while he provides a basis for easy comparison of the sales on a rate per m², he does not adopt that approach, using instead a site comparison basis.
In his analysis of his sales Mr Newson was guided by evidence of improvements as accepted by this Court in a previous matter in Murgon in NC and EM Perkins v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (AV96-211), 10 September 1997, unreported. In that matter the learned Member had accepted analysed improvements for clearing and fencing at between $500 and $800 for residential lots. Mr Newson also spoke to the agent in respect of the background to his Sale 2.
In respect of his Sale 2 Mr Newson notes that Mr Mariner has rejected that sale as being outside the relevant period for comparison, but notes that sale now has an applied value of $5,000, after it was sold prior to a 20% reduction being applied. Mr Mariner understands the adjoining owner influence may have impacted the reliability of that sale.
In respect of his Sale 3 (Waldock to Garside) Mr Newson made allowance for clearing, fencing and landscaping at $3,000, including $2,000 for the added value of a boundary fence, $200 for landscaping and $800 for clearing. Mr Newson bases those figures upon his experience in the marketplace, and accepted the sales as arm's length after discussions with the agent, who advised that the sale represented an over-anxious purchaser who paid too much. Mr Mariner sees that sale as a fair sale on the advice of an agent. However, he believes a fair allowance for improvements would be about $800 to $1,000 for clearing and $500 for fencing.
Mr Newson advises that his Sale 4 formerly sold in December 1997 for $6,000 (Hall to Partington), and then resold in August 1998 for $6,000 (Partington to Stimpson). The reason for the earlier sale in 1997 was apparently as an arrangement by Mr Stimpson to readjust a personal matrimonial settlement. Mr Partington is apparently a business colleague of Mr Stimpson, and Mr Stimpson had arranged for Mr Partington to act on his behalf in the 1997 sale from Hall. Mr Mariner had also interviewed Mr Stimpson, who told him that he saw the purchase price of $6,000 as a fair sale. Subsequently a new dwelling has been relocated to that site.
In analysing Sale 4 Mr Mariner concedes that the application of $5,400 from the sale price of $6,000 would indicate that only clearing at about $600 had been allowed for. As there were also three boundary fences and a small garden shed on that parcel, it would appear that some further allowance in the application could be appropriate. Mr Mariner adopts the added value of district standard fencing for the area, which is maintained in a cost book by the respondent.
In respect of Mr Newson's Sale 5 (Groth to Newson), Mr Mariner rejects that sale as an anxious sale in view of the circumstances as an adjoining owner sale. Mr Mariner advises that parcel sold after the dwelling had been burnt down, and the Groths had purchased another established house and saw the sale parcel as an encumbrance with rates due to Council. Mr Mariner also rejected the sale price of $1,500 as out of line with the market, noting also that vacant lots at Moffatdale, some 10 to 15 minutes' drive out of Murgon, were sold for $2,500 to $3,000, with few roads developed and only a school available. However, those parcels did get distant views of Bjelke-Petersen Dam.
There is also some difference between Mr Newson and Mr Mariner in respect of the added value to be deducted for improvements, such as clearing. Mr Newson argues that clearing costs are similar throughout Murgon, varying only according to the size of the lot. Mr Mariner argues that the added value of clearing on less desirable and cheaper lots is less than the added value to be applied to the more desirable areas.
While Mr Mariner's understanding is logical that clearing can also be depreciated over time similar to fencing, the principle of clearing for purposes of assessing an analysed value for comparison purposes in the urban environment could be seen as more understandable if consistent rates are applied. However, with the relatively low sale prices for land in Murgon, the relative costs of clearing assume a different perspective. In the context of such low values, I believe the added value of clearing must be adopted.
That principle was followed in O'Brien Nominee Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 280, where the Land Appeal Court considered the matter of added value, and said at p.284:"In such circumstances it is unrealistic to conclude that land, the commodity basic to the enterprise, has a minus or nominal value. It is logical to assume that in times of adversity and depression, when purchasers pay less for properties as a going concern, that the lesser price attaches not only to the land component but also to the improvements. The question facing valuers in analysing improved sales in these circumstances is what value is fairly to be attributed to the improvements?
It appears to us that the only tenable approach is to abandon the traditional method of replacement cost as at the sale date less depreciation and to adopt an 'added value' concept. "
In comparing the available few sales of vacant lands Mr Mariner advises that he only rejected certain sales where he saw the particular circumstances of those sales as causing them to be treated with caution. Mr Mariner tends to place more weight upon sales where a dwelling is subsequently located, rather than where vacant land is sold again, which he sees as more speculative in nature.
Mr Mariner confirms that the Murgon property market had been declining over recent years with falls of 20% between 1995 and 1996; a further reduction of 10% in 1997; and a further 20% in the current 1998 revaluation. Mr Newson notes those falls, and also that his Sale 1 (Vann to Stimpson) at $3,300 followed the earlier purchase by Mr Vann of that parcel in March 1996 for $3,000. On the basis of the recognised fall between 1996 and 1998 (30%), Mr Newson argues that his Sale 1 reveals an astute vendor, and not an over-anxious sale.
In support of his valuations Mr Mariner provides the following sales:·Sale 1 - (41 Garrick Street - Lot 7 on RP 28462). This is a common sale with Mr Newson's Sale 4, and was seen as an average lot. The sale sold for $6,000, and was analysed at $5,500 after allowing for clearing, and applied at $5,400.
·Sale 2 - (44 North Cobb Street - Lot 6 on RP 188799). This is a common sale with Mr Newson's Sale 3, and was accepted as located in a quality area. The sale sold for $14,000, and was applied at $6,700. Mr Mariner concedes that the purchaser may have had to pay more as this lot was the last vacant lot in the street. He notes that impact may explain the large difference between the analysed and applied values.
Decision
(i) Comparison of Sales -
I note first that both valuers accept the principle that the preferred method for determining unimproved value is by comparison with sales of vacant or lightly improved properties if they are available (PH Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, at 76).
I turn then to the sales evidence and note the paucity of sales of vacant lands in Murgon in the relevant period. I note also that Mr Mariner argues that in the absence of reliable sales in various sectors of the town, the current sales support the determined unimproved values, and that there are no reliable sales in the less desirable areas, which, in his opinion, would support any change in the former relativities.
If I then consider Mr Newson's Sales 2, 5, 6 and 7, they are all adjoining owner sales, and are conceded to be low sales. For those reasons, I get little assistance from those sales, as I accept Mr Mariner's advice that the sales do not represent the normal market trend. The resale of Sale 6 at $6,000 also supports that conclusion.
If I turn then to Mr Newson's Sale 1, I find there is nothing to discredit that sale as an arm's length transaction, in spite of what might appear to be a type of fire sale of several properties by the vendor (Vann). Mr Vann had apparently sold that parcel at a profit of $300, after holding it for two years, and during a recognised declining market of some 30%. I would agree that does not represent a less than astute vendor, irrespective of Mr Vann's advanced years. However, because of the impact of noise from traffic on the Bunya Highway and an adjoining auto trimmer, I would agree that sale is inferior to the relevant subject lands as a residential site.
For the reasons explained previously, I agree with Mr Mariner that the added value of clearing and improvement costs are likely to be relatively less on cheaper parcels than on dearer parcels. Based on guidance from this Court in (AV96-211) at $500 (840 m²) to $800 (1,012 m²), and Mr Mariner's own opinion that parcels of area 837 m² would have added value of improvements at about $1,300, I will allow $800 for Sale 1, or an analysed value of $2,500 for that sale.
That then leaves the common Sale 3 (Waldock to Garside) and Sale 4 (Hall to Partington). The evidence supports Sale 3 as a high sale at $14,000 with improvements varying between $3,000 (Mr Newson) and $1,500 (Mr Mariner). On any comparison the analysed figure of $11,000 or $12,500 more than supports the applied value of Sale 3 at $6,700. If I then compare Sale 4, I find that $6,000 would appear to be a fair market price for that parcel. Allowing that there was both clearing and shared fencing on three boundaries, I will allow an added value of improvements of $800, giving an analysed value of Sale 4 at $5,000, which has been applied at $5,400. The most useful sale therefore appears to be Sale 4.
I find that comparisons with Sale 4 (1,012 m² - applied at $5,400) reveals:
Subject Land
Area
Applied Value
Comparison to Sale 4
AV99-1172 1,115 m² $5,300 Inferior AV99-1173 1,112 m² $5,000 Inferior AV99-1174 2,030 m² $10,000 Inferior AV99-1175 651 m² $4,400 Vastly Inferior AV99-1176 934 m² $5,100 Inferior
The only inconsistent comparison is with AV99-1174.
(ii) Relativity -
If I turn then to relativity, I note the following comparison:
Subject Land Parcel Compared (Applied) Comparison to Parcel
AV99-1172 Lot 109 ($3,500) Superior Lot 114 ($4,000) Superior Lot 70 ($4,000) Superior Lot 5 ($4,000) Superior
AV99-1173 Lot 25 ($4,700) Slightly Superior Lot 50 ($4,600) Slightly Superior Lot 79 ($4,000) Superior
AV99-1174 Lot 95 ($7,800) Slightly Superior Lots 61 and 86 ($9,400) Superior (Newson) Lots 61 and 86 ($9,400) Slightly Inferior (Mariner) Lots 40 and 41 ($9,300) Comparable
AV99-1174 &
AV99-1176Lot 109 ($3,500)
Superior
Lot 69 ($4,600) Slightly Superior Lot 79 ($4,000) Inferior
If I then combine the comparisons with sales and relativities, I find the following range of unimproved values.
Subject Land Range Current Unimproved Value
AV99-1172 $4,000 to $5,400 $5,200 AV99-1173 $4,000 to $5,400 $5,000 AV99-1174 $7,800 to $9,400 $10,000 AV99-1175 $4,000 to $5,400 $4,400 AV99-1176 $3,500 to $5,400 $5,100
On those comparisons I see no reason to upset the applied values for AV99-1172, AV99-1173, AV99-1175 and AV99-1176. I believe some adjustment should be applied to the remaining parcel, however, I have diverging opinions in respect of AV99-1174.
The question to be addressed is whether the high Sale 3 has unduly influenced relativities in the north-western sector of Murgon. However, the application of Sale 3 at $6,700 supports that Mr Mariner has applied a very conservative application of that sale. I am also advised that previous relativities have been maintained, and that the area near the golf course is a more upmarket area. On the evidence, the relativities would suggest a value of about $9,300 for AV99-1174, and I will adopt that figure.
Conclusion:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am not persuaded that the appellants have proved their cases in respect of AV99-1172, AV99-1173, AV99-1175 and AV99-1176, and the unimproved values as determined by the Chief Executive respectively at $5,300, $5,000, $4,400 and $5,100 are affirmed. In respect of the matter of AV99-1174 the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value is determined at $9,300.
NG DIVETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0