Tin Can Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2007] QLC 57
•6 August 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Tin Can Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 0057 PARTIES: Tin Can Bay Marina Pty Ltd
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2005/1658 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 6 August 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Gympie MEMBER Mrs CAC MacDonald ORDER: 1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of Lot 87 on MCH 4382, Lot 99 on MCH 4877 and Lot 100 on MCH 4878 in the County of March, Parish of Toolara is determined at Seven Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($755,000) as at 1 October 2004.
CATCHWORDS: Valuation of land – marina – land part above, part below high water – developed with fill – need to value unimproved – land above water classified into use types – evidence to support classified values – sales not acceptable – relativity – presumption of correctness.
Valuation of land – Crown leasehold – need to value as freehold – but consider restrictions on use in lease – Valuation of Land Act s.14(5).
Valuation of land – use of sales – sales in areas removed from subject or with different permitted uses – no evidence to show markets similar – sales not accepted.
Valuation of land – cost of improvements (fill, dredging) - unsubstantiated estimate by respondent's valuer – some costing evidence from appellant – appellant accepted respondent's higher estimate – later accepted by Court.APPEARANCES: Mr K Miller for the appellant
Ms C Liu, Senior Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Water for the respondent
This is an appeal under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) against the determination by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (the respondent) of the unimproved value of certain land at $910,000, as at 1 October 2004. The appellant, Tin Can Bay Marina Pty Ltd, estimated in its notice of appeal that the unimproved value of the land as at that date was $365,000.
The subject land is situated at Tin Can Bay within the Cooloola Shire Town Planning Scheme, and is zoned Special Facilities (MRF) with a Harbourside precinct over part of the area (RMU). This zoning allows marine facilities, restaurant and single storey multi-unit usage.
The land is sub-leased by the Department of Transport to the appellant under the provisions of the Land Act 1994 for a term of thirty-five years which commenced on 1 July 2003. The sub-lease provides that the property is to be used for marina berthing, minor maintenance and refuelling facilities for commercial and recreation ships and to operate limited short term accommodation, restaurant, and associated offices, management and administration.
The property is used as a marina and for various associated purposes. It comprises three allotments, Lot 87 on MCH 4382, Lot 99 on MCH 4877 and Lot 100 on MCH 4878 in the County of March, Parish of Toolara which the respondent has valued together as one property. The total area to be valued is 4.223 ha which is made up of 1.960 ha above high water mark (AHWM) and 2.263 ha below high water mark (BHWM). The area AHWM has multiple uses – a hard stand security area, industrial sheds, manager's office, restaurant, car parking, and amenities block. In addition, 15 single storey accommodation units have been constructed which have absolute water frontage and overlook the marina and Snapper Creek. The area BHWM is submerged and used for mooring boats - about 87 berths were in place at the relevant date.
The valuation under appeal was made by Ms PA Quinlan, a registered valuer employed by the respondent. Ms Quinlan notionally classified the land into separate areas and valued each area as follows -
4000 m² Accommodation land @ $200/m² = $800,000
600 m² Commercial @ $300/m² = $180,000
2500 m² Industrial @ $150/m² = $375,000
12500 m² Balance @ $20/m² = $250,000
19,600 m² AHWM = $1,605,000
22,630 m² BHWM @ $10/m² = $226,300
42,230 m²= $1,831,300
Less 50% - Fill, walls, dredging = $915,650
$915,650
Adopt$910,000
Mr K Miller, a director of the appellant company, conducted the case and gave evidence on behalf of the appellant. Mr Miller is a fellow of the Australian Property Institute and the managing director of the Property Solutions Group. He has been involved in industrial, commercial and retail property for 30 years.
Mr Miller accepted the classification methodology adopted by Ms Quinlan and some components of the valuation -
· the size of each area classified by Ms Quinlan other than the balance land;
· the value of certain improvements (fill, walls and dredging) at $915,650;
· the valuation of the 22,630 m² BHWM at $10/m² ($226,300); and
· the value of part of the balance land at $20/m².
Although the appellant estimated the unimproved value of the subject to be $365,000 in its Notice of Appeal, the following figures were contended for at the hearing -
4000 m² accommodation land @ $50/m² $200,000
600 m² restaurant land (based on returns) $40,000
2500 m² industrial land @ $50/m² $125,000
12,500 m² balance land – ancillary to marina but
say 6000 m² @$20/m² $120,000
22,630 m² BHWM @ $10/m² $226,300
$711,300
Less 50% allowance for lease restriction $355,650
$355,650
Less reasonable costs of dredging, fills and
revetment walls, agreed at $915,650
This exercise values the land at a negative figure which Mr Miller recognized was not a reasonable result. He said that the appellant was content to accept $365,000 (the 2002 value) as the unimproved value of the subject property as at 1 October 2004.
Unimproved value
Section 13 of the Act requires the chief executive to determine the unimproved value of the land to be valued for the Acts under which local authorities are established. Section 3(1)(b) provides that "unimproved value of land" means -
"(b) in relation to improved land—the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist."
The subject land has been extensively improved to accommodate the marina and associated facilities. The effect of s.3(1)(b) is that the valuation is to be made on the assumption that those improvements did not exist as at the date of valuation.
There was limited evidence describing the unimproved property. It appears from Mr Miller's report (Exhibit 1) that the current combination of dry and submerged land was created from inundated swamp land. A letter from the previous owner, Mr Bob McKay (appended to Ms Quinlan's report), said that when the development commenced in 1984 the raw site had a roughly excavated shallow basin which dried out at low tide. The basin had to be dredged to a minimum depth of 2.25 metres and a rock faced revetment wall constructed to make it into a harbour. Mr Miller said that the area AHWM was filled and the areas used for car parking were compacted.
Ms Quinlan relied on comparative sales and, because of the scarcity of appropriate sales, evidence of the unimproved values of similar properties in Tin Can Bay in making her valuation. She analysed the sales and applied a value to each part of the subject having made allowances for the differences between the subject and the sales. Similarly she relied on the unimproved values of properties in Tin Can Bay to strike a value where there were no comparative sales.
Application of this process lead initially to a valuation of $1,831,300 for the subject in a partially improved state that is with the dredging, revetment walls and fill in place. Ms Quinlan deducted $915,650 for the value of the fill, walls and dredging to reach an unimproved value for the subject of $915,650 which she rounded to $910,000. As noted above, Mr Miller accepted $915,650 as the value of those improvements.
Valuation of leasehold land
The appellant submitted that a discount of 50% should be applied to Ms Quinlan's valuation to allow for the subject's leasehold tenure, which was inferior to freehold tenure, and for the restrictions on the use of the subject land imposed by the lease conditions.
The effect of s.14(1) of the Valuation of Land Act is that for the purpose of deciding the unimproved value of land that is not granted in fee simple, the land is taken to be granted in fee simple. Further, s.14(2) says that where the land is held under a lease from the State, the chief executive is not to take into account restrictions, limitations, covenants or conditions in the lease. However s.14(5)(b) provides that where the lease is granted under the Land Act 1994 (as was the case here) the chief executive is to make proper allowance for any restrictions in use imposed by the lease.
Ms Quinlan said that she had valued the subject land as though it were granted in fee simple but had taken into account the restrictions on use imposed by the lease. I consider that in principle that methodology is correct.
Accommodation land
Ms Quinlan valued the 4000 m² of land used for residential accommodation at $200/m² giving a value of $800,000 for that area. The respondent contended that that area should be valued at $200,000 or $50/m².
Ms Quinlan described the accommodation land as sloping gently from Oyster Parade down to the surrounding revetment wall, with absolute water frontage. She valued this part of the subject by direct comparison with unit land sales and taking into account the lease conditions. Ms Quinlan relied on two sales of land in Tin Can Bay which were zoned Housing-Harbourside and which had been redeveloped or were proposed for redevelopment for multi-unit development.
Sale No. 1 sold in August 2004 for $925,000 which Ms Quinlan analysed to $900,000 or $484/m². She applied an unimproved value of $390/m² ($725,000). The property had previously sold in July 2003 for $650,000 which Ms Quinlan analysed to $625,000 or $336/m². The dwelling was removed after the second sale to make way for a two-storey development of eight units. The property is 1,859 m² in area and is located about 650 m north east of the residential units on the subject property.
Sale No. 2 sold in October 2004 for $1,250,000 which Ms Quinlan analysed to $1,225,000 or $463/m². The applied unimproved value of the sale area is $1,000,000 or $375/m². That property previously sold in August 2003 for $1,050,000 which Ms Quinlan analysed to $1,025,000 or $387/m². The property had an area of $2,646 m² at the time of sale and is located about 200 m east of the accommodation land on the subject. Exclusive apartment style residences designed for luxury living are proposed for the site.
Ms Quinlan described both sale properties as superior to the subject in topography, zoning and potential for development. She said that the sales were similar in services to the subject but inferior in size and absolute water frontage. Overall she considered that the sales were superior to the accommodation land within the subject property and she therefore applied a much lower rate to the accommodation land.
Mr Quinlan also included in her report details of the unimproved value, as determined by the respondent, of two motel properties in Tin Can Bay -
1. Mitchell Street, 12 single storey units, very limited tidal views – 4,567 m² - $760,000 or $165/m².
2.Tin Can Bay Road, 24 single storey units, no water views, commercial site on a busy main road – 3,756 m² - $455,000 or $120/m².
Mr Miller said that the history of this part of the subject land was that the previous lessee was required to build accommodation as part of the lease conditions. He delayed for a considerable time in fulfilling this obligation but finally, with Council approval, constructed 15 re-locatable small motel modules. The reason for the delay, Mr Miller said, was that a motel of 15 units is not economically viable, although he did concede that there was some value in the units when run in conjunction with the marina.
Mr Miller submitted that the accommodation area should be valued at $50/m². He was not able to point to any sales evidence to support this figure and said that he had adopted it as a nominal value because of the restrictions on the use of this area.
Special Condition 16 in the lease between the Department of Transport and the appellant provides as follows -
"For unimproved land valuation purposes, the unimproved value of the limited short term accommodation component of the leased Property should be based on a motel type style of accommodation constructed on leasehold land with a similar tenure to that available to the Tenant and limited to the number of accommodation places approved by council for the area concerned, e.g. if there is only 15 one storey accommodation places approved by council to be constructed on the area concerned then the unimproved land valuation would be based on a motel type style of accommodation limited to 15 one storey accommodation places available for short term accommodation purposes."
While the clause cannot override the requirements of the Valuation of Land Act as to the determination of the unimproved value of the subject land under the Act, Ms Quinlan and Mr Miller interpreted the clause as establishing the use of this part of the subject to be 15 one storey motel type units and valued the area accordingly. I accept that approach and therefore, consider that the effect of Special Condition 16 in conjunction with s.14 of the Act is that this part of the subject land is to be valued as if it were freehold land where the use is restricted to 15 one storey motel units.
Given the restrictions on the use of this area, I do not consider that the sales properties relied on by Ms Quinlan are sufficiently comparable with the subject to provide a valid basis for valuing this part of the subject. The sales properties are zoned Housing – Harbourside and can be developed with strata titled multi unit accommodation. I acknowledge that Ms Quinlan was faced with the difficulty that there were no sales of land with comparable use to the accommodation part of the subject in the area at the relevant time. Nevertheless, the sales she used do not, I consider, provide reliable evidence of the value of this area.
The only other evidence was the evidence concerning the unimproved value attributed by the respondent to two motel sites in Tin Can Bay. Ms Quinlan considered the location of the subject land to be superior to those sites and to the sales because the residential area overlooked water and had absolute water frontage. However she conceded at the hearing that this area of the subject did not have frontage to natural water in its unimproved state. Because the subject land has been valued as one property, the whole of the land is to be assumed to be unimproved so that the amenity which the individual lots currently enjoy because they adjoin the other similarly improved subject lots is to be ignored. The evidence was somewhat sparse but it appears that unimproved, the accommodation area was part of a swamp and that the adjoining area was dredged to create the marina. It does appear, however, (from Exhibit 5) that the accommodation area may have had views to Snapper Creek in its unimproved state.
I consider therefore that there are two errors in the valuation of this part of the land – reliance on sales evidence of properties which are not comparable with this part of the subject, and failure to take into account the nature of the property in its unimproved state. The presumption that the valuation is correct (s.33) has therefore been rebutted (Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41 at 56, 57) and the valuation must be adjusted.
It is acknowledged that the best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels of land (Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327 at 328). However, since I have rejected the sales evidence as irrelevant, I am left with the situation where there is no evidence as to value other than the relativity evidence. There was no evidence to suggest that the unimproved values of the motel sites as determined by the respondent were incorrect and, therefore, because s.33 of the Act deems valuations made under the Act to be correct until proved otherwise, I consider that I am entitled to proceed on the basis that those valuations are correct.
Of the two motel sites, the residential area of the subject appears to be more comparable with the property in Mitchell Street which has an unimproved value of $165/m². Because the subject does not, unimproved, have absolute water frontage, I consider that the valuation at $200/m² is excessive. Nevertheless, I consider that this part of the subject is in a superior location to the Mitchell Street property and that, although it is assumed to be unimproved, it had the potential for a marina development. In the circumstances, I consider that a value of $180/m² or $720,000 is appropriate for this part of the subject land.
Commercial land
The commercial area of the subject land has an area of 600 m² which is developed with a restaurant and offices for the holiday village, marina and boat brokers. Ms Quinlan valued this area at $300/m² or $180,000. Mr Miller valued it at $40,000.
There were no sales of commercial property in the Tin Can Bay area so Ms Quinlan established a value for this part of the subject in relativity with the unimproved values of various commercial properties. Brief details of these properties are -
Dolphin Shopping Centre: 2201 m² @ $255/m² = $560,000
IGA site:1960 m² @ $270/m² = $530,000
CnrTin Can Bay and Toolara Roads: 1073 m² @ $315/m² = $340,000
Dolphin Avenue: 728 m² @ $300/m² = $220,000
Dolphin Avenue: 630 m² @ $310/m² = $195,000
Coffee shop on Tin Can Bay Road and Jew Street:
462 m² @ $485/m² = $225,000
Ms Quinlan appears to have relied mainly on the last three properties in making her valuation. She said that the properties on Dolphin Avenue were small retail properties where the shops would comprise 150 to 200 m². The coffee shop on Tin Can Bay Road was a relatively small property with views over Tin Can Bay and a park across the road. It was valued at a much higher rate than the commercial area of the subject, but given that that area is commercial and not retail she considered that $300/m² was a fair and reasonable rate.
Mr Miller submitted that it was inappropriate to compare this part of the subject with a Woolworths or IGA site. I accept this. He also said that the Town Plan allowed 2 or 3 storey commercial development in Tin Can Bay generally whereas the subject was restricted to one level. Ms Quinlan's evidence was that there are no commercial properties in Tin Can Bay developed to 2 or 3 storeys. It would appear therefore that there is no market demand in the area for that type of development and I am not prepared to infer, in the absence of evidence, that the capacity to develop to 2 to 3 storeys would lead to a higher value for such properties, as compared with the commercial area of the subject.
Mr Miller produced no sales evidence to support his estimate of the value of the commercial area but suggested that the value be determined by capitalisation of income. He said that if the annual rent for this area of $15,070 per annum in 2004 (rising to $15,432 in 2006) were capitalised and the costs of the building (about $300,000) deducted, the land had very little value.
The difficulties in determining an unimproved value by capitalisation of rent are well known (GE Cominos & Co Pty Ltd v Department of Lands (1996) 16 QLCR 311 at 323). In the absence of any evidence as to the appropriate capitalisation rate to be adopted or as to the value of the improvements, this part of the valuation cannot be carried out on that basis.
Ms Quinlan adopted a rate of $300/m² relying in part on what she described as the very good outlook from the commercial area. She said that this part of the property overlooked the marina and water which was a very pleasant and serene outlook, especially at night with the boats on the water and their lights.
As explained above, the surrounding subject land must be assumed to be unimproved for the purposes of this valuation and the outlook would be less salubrious than Ms Quinlan suggested. The value of this area should be reduced accordingly. Otherwise I have accepted Ms Quinlan's valuation methodology and evidence in relation to this area. Doing the best I can, I consider that a value of $270/m² or $162,000 is appropriate for this area.
Industrial land
Ms Quinlan valued the industrial land component of the subject, which has an area of 2500 m², at $150/m² or $375,000. The appellant assessed its value at $50/m² or $125,000, before the 50% allowance for lease restrictions.
Ms Quinlan described this land as a non waterfront, filled level site on which minor rectification work had been carried out. It comprises a hard stand security area and 3.4 m high aluminium sheds tenanted by a boat builder, marine engineer and a chandlery. Although the area was not a general industrial area, there are other marine related industrial sites in the vicinity of this part of the subject.
Ms Quinlan referred to one sale and two relativity properties to support her valuation. The sale has an area of 1292 m² and is located about 1.5 kms south west of the industrial sheds on the subject within a small industrial estate. The property sold in April 2005 for $198,000 which Ms Quinlan analysed to $195,000 or $151/m². The applied value is $187,000 or $145/m². Although the sale occurred after the date of valuation, Ms Quinlan said that it supported the unimproved value of the subject.
Brief descriptions of the relativity properties are -
1.Emperor Street industrial area: 1,400 m² @ $120/m² = $170,000
2.Emperor Street industrial area: 1,033 m² @ $160/m² = $165,000
The unimproved values were established from sales in Scullett Drive and at Rainbow Beach which, Ms Quinlan said, showed that there had been a 100% increase in the market value of industrial land in the general area. She had applied a similar increase in Emperor Street.
This part of the subject property is used to provide minor maintenance facilities as described in the Agreed Use clause in the particulars schedule to the lease. Mr Miller said that the area is restricted to one level development and non-invasive, non-manufacturing uses ancillary to the marina because of the zoning of the surrounding areas. There is no provision for access by heavy vehicles. He submitted that as such the land was not comparable with the unrestricted industrial use available in an industrial area. Given the restrictions in use of this area imposed by the lease conditions, Mr Miller considered that, as with other parts of the subject land, a 50% deduction should be applied to allow for those restrictions.
Mr L Devine, a registered valuer, also gave evidence on behalf of the appellant in relation to the value of the industrial area. Mr Devine valued that land at $50/m².
Mr Devine said that the sale referred to by Ms Quinlan in Emperor Drive did not represent the unimproved value of the land but rather the market value of a freehold serviced industrial block. He considered that there should be an allowance made to reach an unserviced value, that is to allow for the value added by the roads and services connected to the sale land. There should be further allowances made, he said, for the size of the sale block as compared with the subject and the restrictions on the use of this part of the subject land.
I do not accept that there should be any allowance for the effect on value of the services available to the sale land. The analysed value of the sale land shows the value of that land with the site improvements notionally removed, but with roads and services up to the boundary line in place. The subject land is to be valued on the same basis, that is as though it were unimproved but on the assumption that the surrounding lands (other than the balance subject land) were in their existing condition as at the date of valuation. In State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Valuer-General (1981) 7 QLCR 171 at 180, the Court said -
"It is relevant to keep in mind what has to be valued in the subject case. It is the subject land notionally stripped of its improvements and viewed in its natural state but in the environment (with all its inherent advantages and disadvantages, facilities, services, etc.) in which the subject land is actually situated at the relevant date of valuation."
Mr Devine relied on three sales at Scullett Drive (an area outside the central part of Tin Can Bay) to support his valuation. He had obtained details of the sales from the RP Data-Property System. Those sales showed values ranging from $9/m² to $13/m². I have accepted Ms Quinlan's evidence said that those figures did not reflect the full sale prices and that the properties were sold for twice those amounts. It appears that the properties were auctioned in August 2003, the initial 50% deposit being payable within two weeks and that the contracts were subject to building conditions which were to be complied with before final payment and transfer of title. In those circumstances, I do not consider that the sales reflect the unimproved market value of the land and they should not, therefore, be relied on for the valuation.
Mr Devine also relied on three sales of land at Queen Elizabeth Drive, Cooloola Cove, some 7 to 8 kms south of Tin Can Bay. The details are -
AreaD/Sale Sale Price $/m²
206 Queen Elizabeth Drive 2000 m² Feb/03 $50,000 $25
204 Queen Elizabeth Drive 2000 m² Aug/03 $55,000 $28
195 Queen Elizabeth Drive 2776 m² May/04 $105,000 $38
There was very little evidence as to the comparability of the industrial areas in Cooloola Cove and Tin Can Bay. Nor was there any information as to the description of the properties in Cooloola Cove. On the face of it, the substantial difference in the price achieved by the sale in Emperor Street as compared with the sales prices in Cooloola Cove indicates that the two areas are in different markets. In the absence of any evidence establishing that the two areas are comparable, I consider that the valuation of the industrial area of the subject should be made on the basis of the evidence as to values of industrial land in Tin Can Bay.
Both Mr Miller and Mr Devine provided information as to industrial land values in other parts of Queensland. Mr Miller said that his experience as managing director of an industrial development company was that Yatala, which was one of the prime industrial areas in Queensland, achieved only $150/m². He did not consider that the industrial part of the subject could be compared with such land because of the location of the subject and the restrictions on use. Mr Devine said that the Sunshine Coast market was slow throughout most of 2004 but gathered momentum towards the later stages of the year. Initially prices ranged from $105/m² to $130/m² but in the later part of the year were in the order of $145/m² - $160/m².
I do not consider that evidence of the values in Yatala and the Sunshine Coast is relevant to the subject valuation. There is no evidence to establish whether the properties and market in Yatala and the Sunshine Coast can be compared with those in Tin Can Bay.
The sale in the Emperor Street industrial land was analysed by Ms Quinlan to $151/m². The relativity evidence is consistent with that figure. I have accepted Mr Devine's evidence that some adjustments should be made in comparing the sale with the industrial area of the subject. The sale property is smaller than the subject and would be expected to show a higher rate per square metre. There was no evidence as to what allowance should be made for the size difference but I consider that there should be some adjustment. In comparison with the general market for industrial land the restricted uses permitted on the subject land also point to a lower value, but to be balanced against that is the suitability of the location of the subject for specialised marina industries. Weighing all these factors, and taking into account in particular the smaller area of the subject as compared with the sale, I have concluded that a value of $125/m² should be applied to this area of the subject, which leads to a value of $312,500. As explained above, no discount should be applied to allow for the leasehold tenure of the subject.
Balance land
The balance land AHWM, 12,500 m², is made up of landscaping, car parks, driveways etc. Ms Quinlan valued this area at $20/m² or $250,000.
Mr Miller accepted the value of $20/m² but submitted that because the access road and car parking were conditions of the development and retention of the marina they added no extra value to the site. There was no income generated from the areas. Although the landscaping was also required by the lease, Mr Miller conceded that that area (about 6000 m²) did add value to the marina. He contended therefore that the valuation for this area should be confined to valuing the landscaped area of 6000 m² at $20/m² or $120,000.
The effect of Mr Miller's submission is that 6,500 m² of the subject land is to be given no value. In principle, I do not accept that to be correct. Moreover, Mr Miller gave evidence that the property would be less effective and less rentable without the car parks and driveways. It follows that the marina is more valuable with the car park and driveways in place than it would be without them. They therefore have a value, which Ms Quinlan has assessed at $20/m². In the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, I have accepted Ms Quinlan's assessment. The value of this area is therefore 12,500 m² at $20/m² or $250,000.
Conclusions
The subject land is to be valued as follows -
4000 m² Accommodation land @ $180/m² = $720,000
600 m² Commercial land @ $270/m² = $162,000
2500 m² Industrial land @ $125/m² = $312,500
12,500 m² Balance @ $20/m² = $250,000
19,600 m² AHWM $1,444,500
22,630 m² BHWM @ $10/m² = $226,300
$1,670,800
Less $915,650 fill, walls, dredging $915,650
$755,150
Adopt$755,000
It is noted that Ms Quinlan's allowance for fill, walls and dredging appears to have been calculated by allowing a 50% reduction on the figure she had reached as the value of the land with those improvements in place. Ms Quinlan said that there was no information available as to quantities of these improvements and she had therefore made a generous allowance. Mr Miller had obtained an estimate from a firm of contractors familiar with the site, that the 2006 costs of the works would be $1,057,663. $153,068 is to be deducted for the costs of construction of the amenities block included in that estimate, leaving $904,595. Mr Miller was content to accept Ms Quinlan's estimate. In those circumstances, I consider that the allowance for the fill, walls and dredging should remain at $915,650 rather than adopting a 50% valuation of the new valuation figures.
Orders
1. The appeal is allowed.
2.The unimproved value of Lot 87 on MCH 4382, Lot 99 on MCH 4877 and Lot 100 on MCH 4878 in the County of March, Parish of Toolara is determined at Seven Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($755,000) as at 1 October 2004.
CAC MacDONALD
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
1
0