Williams v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Victor O and Nell M Williams appealed the valuation of their property at Wattle Avenue, Stephens, Gold Coast, contesting the valuations for the years 1995 and 1996. They argued that the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, underestimated the natural disadvantages of the site and failed to consider the high costs of development. The court had to determine whether the valuations accurately reflected the true unimproved value of the property, considering factors such as the percentage increase in valuations, the impact of flooding, and the natural disabilities of the site.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the sales of comparable properties and the percentage changes in improved sales. The appellants relied on sales of improved properties in the area to support their valuation, while the respondent provided sales of vacant land as the best evidence for unimproved value. The court noted that the sales of improved properties introduced complexities in determining unimproved value, as it involved calculating the contribution of the improvements. The court preferred the evidence of sales of vacant land, as they provide a clearer guide for arriving at unimproved value.

In considering the impact of the natural disadvantages of the site, including flooding and major drainage problems, the court found that the valuation had not considered the subject for major residential development purposes. The court acknowledged the appellants' concerns about the current "arms length" approach by the Council in respect of likely outcomes of an application to develop a single building site. However, the court noted that the onus of proof rested upon the appellants to provide evidence supporting their case. The court found that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Council would not agree to a single homesite for the subject without major onerous conditions.

The court concluded that the applied value for the subject of $134,000 was appropriate, considering the analysed unimproved value of comparable sales of vacant land. The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the unimproved values of the property as determined by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources.