Thomsen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 141
•12 September 1997
|
BRISBANE
12 SEPTEMBER 1997
Re: AV96-75
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Local Government: Whitsunday Shire Council
D. And D. Thomsen
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Proserpine)
D E C I S I O N
As at 1 January 1995 the unimproved value of land described as Lots 1 and 2 on HR1496 and Lot 2 on RP 734292, Parish of Conway, County of Herbert, containing 5.18 ha and situated at Proserpine - Shute Harbour Road, Cannonvale, was assessed by the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $700,000 (reduced on objection from $775,000).
The land was zoned “Special Facilities, Caravan Park" at the date of valuation and about one-third of its area was developed as the Whitsunday Caravan Park.
Mr B. Conroy, a registered valuer in private practice at Airlie Beach, represented the appellants and gave evidence in support of the appeal the grounds of which were extensive. He valued the land unimproved in the amount of $520,000. Mr Conroy described the land as being of irregular shape with frontage of 136.234 metres to Shute Harbour Road on its north-western boundary, frontage to “a deep creek” on its north-eastern boundary, falling with a gentle slope to the creek and to the rear south-eastern boundary. The rear area was described as being low lying and affected by ponded water “for a fair part of the year”.
In his valuation report, Mr Conroy provided details of four “comparable” sales, each of “Residential B” zoned land. Three of the sales were of sites with areas ranging from 1451 m² to 3960 m², each of which were described as “inferior” to the subject because of the size differential. The fourth sale which Mr Conroy advised was the most comparable, although still inferior, was of a 2.099 ha site with long Shute Harbour Road frontage, shallow depth, and inclined to be low lying in parts but in his opinion capable of development as zoned for residential units. That land sold in May 1995 for $300,000 equivalent to $14.30 per m².
His valuation of the subject land was equivalent to $10 per m² and he saw the sale supporting that level of value. He had also investigated the Department’s valuations of other caravan park sites in the general locality. Most of them were about half the size of the subject and had generally been valued in the range of $11 to $15 per m² although one was valued as low as $5.80 per m². Mr Conroy felt that a valuation of $10 per m² for the subject land with its larger size reflected reasonable relativity with the valuations of those other caravan parks.
Mr R.M. Bein, Senior Valuer with the Department in Mackay, had taken over responsibility for the Department’s assessment. He had not been the original valuer but had carried out his own investigations and inspections. In his opinion, the subject site had higher and better use than “as zoned” with potential enhanced by its location and excellent exposure to the main road. In his opinion, the potential of the site, with rezoning, embraced either some form of commercial use or use for a large “Residential B” type development. He had investigated all sales in the locality of sites in excess of 1 ha in the period considered relevant to the valuation. One sale only was considered to be comparable. The details of that transaction are as follows:
1.2156 ha, zoned “Residential B”, Shute Harbour Road location and a short distance to the north-west of the subject land, sold in September 1994 for $380,000, showing an analysed unimproved value of about $30 per m². In comparison with the subject land the zoning was superior, the land superior topographically, the main road exposure comparable but with lesser frontage and at a location where access was physically difficult. Overall the subject land, although requiring rezoning to allow comparable development, with the associated costs and delays, was seen by Mr Bein to be superior due primarily to its much larger size although inferior on a unit of area basis. The valuation applied to the subject land equated $13.50 per m² in comparison with a valuation of about $30 per m² applied to the sale land.
Mr Bein knew the land the sale of which Mr Conroy had considered to provide the most comparable evidence. However Mr Bein could not agree that the sale supported a value of only $10 per m² for the subject land. He thought in the first place that the sale had represented a very high level of value ($14.30 per m²) when the Department’s valuation of that land had been only about $7.40 per m². Although zoned “Residential B”, Mr Bein considered the land to have inferior market and development appeal as zoned due to location, traffic noise, shape and topographic disabilities. Furthermore the sale had taken place some months after the relevant date in this matter.
Mr Bein held the opinion that the valuations applied to the other caravan parks in the locality and as quoted by Mr Conroy were better support for his valuation of the subject land than that of Mr Conroy’s. In Mr Bein’s opinion the redevelopment potential of the subject land was significantly superior to most, if not all of the sites used as comparisons by Mr Conroy.
Mr Conroy submitted that as the valuation appealed against was an annual valuation it would be wrong for the redevelopment potential to become a dominant valuation consideration when regular opportunity was available to the Department to better consider the ripening of such potential. While there is some merit in such an argument if potential is not immediate, it would also be against valuation principle for clear potential for higher and better use than as zoned, to be ignored.
Mr Conroy’s supporting sales evidence is found to be of no real support to his valuation. I am persuaded that Mr Bein’s valuation is to the contrary well supported by the limited sales evidence available and that the Department’s valuation does not take too optimistic an approach to the potential of the land, on the totality of the valuation evidence including the relativity of the valuation with those of other caravan parks.
In my opinion the appellants have not carried the burden of proving the Department’s valuation to be wrong. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0