Ninth Calmanay Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 148
•12 September 1997
|
BRISBANE
12 SEPTEMBER 1997
Re: V96-119
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Local Government: Whitsunday Shire Council
Ninth Calmanay Nominees Pty Ltd
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Proserpine)
D E C I S I O N
This appeal is against an unimproved valuation of $1,000,000 as at 30 June 1993 for land described as Lot 5 on Registered Plan 835206, Parish of Conway, County of Herbert, containing an area of 3.33 ha. The land is situated on the eastern corner of Shute Harbour Road and Island Drive, Cannonvale, and is zoned “Commercial”. At the relevant date it was partially developed as a shopping centre.
The appellant company was represented at the hearing by Mr B. Conroy, a registered valuer in private practice at Airlie Beach. His valuation was in the amount of $750,000. He described the land as having frontage of 246 metres to Shute Harbour Road and 149 metres to Island Drive, sloping gently to the south-eastern boundary where it became low lying and subject to water ponding. He said that at the relevant date, approximately half of the site had been developed with the balance vacant area having potential for future commercial development. With the benefit of hindsight it was known that such development actually occurred some three years subsequent to the valuation date.
In support of his valuation Mr Conroy tendered a “Sales Basis - Commercial Sales” being a schedule containing 11 sales. Each of the sale lands was described as inferior to the subject land with sale prices ranging from $38,000 up to $192,000. The size of the lots however range from 597 m² up to 9,846 m². The latter larger site sold in March 1994 for $175,000 equating $17.75 per m² but the respondent questioned whether that land was in fact zoned “Commercial” for it was subsequently subdivided and developed for multi-unit residential purposes. A site of 3,061 m² in Island Drive opposite the subject land had sold for $40.50 per m² in January 1994 then resold in February 1994 for $62.70 per m². Adjoining that sale land a corner site of 2,291 m² on Shute Harbour Road and Island Drive, sold for $51.70 per m² in May 1994. A small corner site of 640 m² at the corner of Shute Harbour Road and Stewart Drive had sold in April 1993 for $98.40 per m² and the adjacent lot of 597 m² in Stewart Drive for $83.75 per m² in May 1993.
Mr R.M. Bein, Senior Valuer with the Department in Mackay had taken over the responsibility of defending the valuation appealed against. He had not been the original valuer. However, he said that all property sales of a “Commercial” zoning within the period relevant to the valuation had been investigated and analysed in establishing a basis of valuation for commercial land in the overall shire. Due to the lack of sales of larger sites, he had taken into consideration not only sales of small commercial sites in the more valuable Airlie Beach area but also a site of 4,105 m² in the township of Proserpine. That site in Proserpine had been acquired as part of a supermarket development. It had sold in July 1994 for $375,000 equating $91 per m². Mr Bein had then analysed the sale in April 1994 of an improved shopping centre development on a 3,511 m² site nearby to the subject land in Shute Harbour Road. That analysis showed a land content of $850,000 or $242 per m² when the unimproved value applied had been only $270,000 or about $77 per m². The valuation of the much larger subject site equated $30 per m².
It is clear that there was no directly comparable sales evidence to assist the valuers in their task. However it also became clear during the hearing that the main thrust of the appeal was the allegation that at the relevant date valuation, commercial land generally in the Airlie Beach/Cannonvale area had been reduced 25% below the level of value which had applied at the previous valuation. It was submitted that an equivalent reduction had not been applied to the previous valuation of the subject land. Mr Conroy’s valuation of $750,000 reflected such reduction.
The obtaining of correct relativity of valuations is recognised as an important aspect of valuations used for revenue gathering purposes. However, merely because the subject land did not receive a reduction equivalent to other lands, does not prove that the valuation appealed against was wrong at the relevant date or even out of relativity with the valuation of other commercial lands. It is possible, for example, that a previously incorrect relativity had been corrected.
The burden of proving the chief executive’s valuation to be wrong rests with the appellant. The evidence provided to the Court by Mr Conroy did not achieve that result in my opinion. To the contrary, the evidence could be interpreted to suggest that the valuation still remained conservative at that relevant date.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0