Yeoman v Minister for Lands
[1996] QLC 30
•22 March 1996
|
BRISBANE
22 MARCH 1996
Re: Special Lease No. 44/50337 -
Application for Conversion of Tenure
Lessee: Kathleen T Yeoman
(Hearing at Townsville)
D E C I S I O N
Application was made by Mrs Yeoman for conversion of tenure of Special Lease 44/50337 on 25th May, 1993. That is the date at which the unimproved value of the land is to be determined. The offer of conversion was made by the Minister based on an unimproved valuation of $34,000. That valuation was not accepted and the Minister referred the matter to the Court for determination.
The land is described as Lot 110 on Plan B11301, Parish of Halifax, containing 1,004 m2, situated in the coastal village of Bluewater Beach. Gazetted access is by way of an esplanade, legal physical access being gained in part over private property "in the form of a Consent Caveat to the then Minister ...". This arrangement related to 1.2 km of formed gravel road which is maintained by the residents, being raised over low-lying land but still subject to inundation on occasions. There is then a bitumen strip sealed road for 5 km to the Bruce Highway, 30 km north of Townsville.
Mr M. Stephensen, valuer, employed by the Department of Lands, was responsible for the contested valuation. In his tendered report he described the allotment as "one of fifteen village properties" at Bluewater Beach "surrounded by Vacant Crown Land or unformed esplanade". It is further described as a near rectangular level allotment "with 270 degree views 180 degrees of which is ocean view". Electricity is available and reticulated water (at a cost to the owners of $5,000 per allotment) has been provided but subsequent to the relevant date. A dwelling has been erected on the site. Part of the site has been filled by the lessee at a cost of about $3,000 also subsequent to the purchase.
Mrs Yeoman purchased the leasehold land vacant except for some half-share fencing in October 1992 for $28,000. Her son, Mr G.J. Yeoman attended the hearing and gave evidence on his mother's behalf. He said his mother had been anxious to move to Bluewater Beach where he lived. When the subject lot which is next door to his property became available, they believed, based on other conversions about four years earlier, that the cost would be about $18,000. A statement was tendered in which were set out eight other matters which Mrs Yeoman believed supported her opinion that the Department's valuation was too high. The cost of connecting electricity and water, the cost of retaining and filling the land for protection from tidal water, the perceived potential for erosion based on Beach Protection Authority advice, lack of proper services and access were included in such matters.
Mr Stephensen's evidence was that had potential for beachfront erosion been considered high rather than a remote possibility, then freeholding would not have been recommended in the first place. He saw the retention and filling of the site which has occurred as being desirable development but not necessarily essential. He agreed there had been in Bluewater Beach freeholding and conversion applications in 1989 which resulted in valuations of $18,000. He was able to provide verbal evidence of the significant increase in values for land in Toolakea, a beachfront village further to the north and across Bluewater Creek in the period from 1990 through to 1994. While he had included Mrs Yeoman's leasehold purchase as part of the sales evidence, he had taken what he considered to be a conservative approach to that evidence when there was the possibility of some over-anxiousness for Mrs Yeoman to move closer to her son. He pointed out that even had it been expected to cost $18,000 to freehold the land the actual purchase of the leasehold for $28,000 might have been interpreted to indicate a freehold value of $46,000.
It is clear that Mrs Yeoman's leasehold purchase does not assist her case. Nor does the evidence provided by the earlier conversion applications which resulted in valuations of $18,000.
Mr Stephensen's primary evidence came from two sales of unimproved sites in the village of Cungulla to the south of Townsville. Both these sales were in March 1993 and both were for the price of $30,000. In his opinion these sales indicated a level of value above which would be commanded by the subject land due to its superior location and physical qualities including available view. Mr Yeoman had given evidence that he had also purchased a site at Cungulla (he thought at about the same time) but probably earlier, at an effective freehold price of $20,000. Even on his evidence however there had been a complication associated with the freeholding status of that land and the contractual detail.
Mr Stephensen had considered the sale of an esplanade frontage site of 607 m2 at Toolakea in April 1992 for $51,000. In his opinion land at Toolakea generally commanded higher value but in his opinion due primarily to the superior access and services which were available at the relevant date. Some discussion took place about the contested conversion valuation as at a date in late 1991 of another site at Toolakea which also had some specific access and service disabilities. It was clear that Mr Stephensen had considered the question of comparison of that matter with the subject conversion.
The conversion offer is at a much higher level of unimproved value than previous conversion and freeholding activities at Bluewater Beach, and obviously also significantly higher than Mrs Yeoman expected when she bought the leasehold interest. Nevertheless, the only acceptable evidence as to unimproved value at the relevant date under rising market conditions, has been provided by Mr Stephensen. He has taken a reasoned approach - was well aware of the access disability and lack of services at the time and the lack of prospects for improvement other than for electricity and water - then had considered the question of the desirable need for filling of part of the land.
I am satisfied that the Department's valuation is both fair and reasonable at the date of application. Accordingly, the unimproved value is determined at that valuation being in the amount of Thirty-four Thousand Dollars ($34,000).
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0