Chengody v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1995] QLC 122

LAND COURT BRISBANE 12 OCTOBER 1995 Re: AV94-506 - An Appeal against an unimproved valuation - Valuation of Land Act Local Government: Whitsunday Judith M Chengody v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing at Proserpine) D E C I S I O N As at 30th June, 1993, the Department of Lands valued land described as Lots 704-705 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, containing 1,214m2, and situated at Summit Avenue, Airlie Beach, in the amount of $129,000, unimproved. The valuation was made on the basis of the land being a single site under the provisions of s.17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act. Summit Avenue is bitumen sealed. Water, sewerage, electricity, telephone and cleansing services are available. The land is zoned "Residential A". The appellant estimated the unimproved value to be in the amount of $100,000, which was the valuation of Mr B. Conroy, registered valuer. He represented the appellant at the hearing. Mr Conroy described the land, in his written report, as "falling gently from Summit Avenue for approximately half its depth, then falls steeply to its western boundary. The site features very good water views over Pioneer Bay to the west." In his verbal evidence he made reference to very limited views to the east and partial obstruction of the westerly views due to the vegetation existing on vacant Crown land below the property. In connection with this appeal and Appeals AV94-507 and V95-11, all of which were heard together, Mr Conroy produced a schedule of 10 sales. For this particular appeal he relied on the following five sales from that schedule: (3)Lot 44 Kara Crescent, 989m2, 9.10.92, $98,000, Department of Lands' valuation $97,000. (5)Lot 32 Kara Crescent, 616m2, 4.11.92, $78,000, Department of Lands' valuation $77,500. (6)Lot 53 Kara Crescent, 616m2, 6.11.92, $84,000, Department of Lands' valuation $83,000. [1995] QLC 122 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 (7)Lots 13 and 54 Airlie Crescent and Kara Crescent, 1223m2, 16.11.92, $140,000, Department of Lands' valuation $137,000. (10)Lot 15 Airlie Crescent and Shute Harbour Road, 658m2, 5.11.93, $100,000, Department of Lands' valuation $110,000. Mr S.J. Whitfield, registered valuer, made the valuation for the Department. There was little difference between him and Mr Conroy as to the description of the topography of the land. The first significant difference between the valuers was in relation to the degree of available view. Mr Whitfield stated in his report - "Excellent water views are available to the west while limited water views are available across the road to the north-east." Photographs were tendered by both valuers highlighting their respective opinions. There are wide water views available, particularly to the west. Whether they should be regarded as "good" or "excellent" is a matter of subjective opinion. Those to the east are limited, the degree of limitation varying with aspect. Another significant difference of opinion between the valuers is the comparability between the subject property and the Kara Crescent locality, from where Mr Whitfield had also obtained his valuation basis. Mr Whitfield described the headland area in which the subject land was located as being the "dress circle" address of Airlie Beach, within a relatively short distance of the commercial area and, in his opinion, long recognised as carrying premium residential value. Mr Conroy referred to the Kara Crescent locality as enjoying land of the highest elevation in Airlie Beach, commanding superior views and attracting prestige modern development, encouraged by the Council resistance to other than single-unit residential development. The sales on which Mr Whitfield had relied were as follows: (1)Lot 11 Airlie Crescent, 700m2, 22.4.93, $70,000, Department of Lands' valuation $69,000. (2)Lot 12, Airlie Crescent, 607m2, 11.1.93, $75,000, Department of Lands' valuation $68,000. (3)Mr Conroy's Sale (6). (4)Mr Conroy's Sale (5). (5)Mr Conroy's Sale (3). Mr Whitfield described the views from the sale lands as ranging from "excellent" (Sales (1) and (2)) to "spectacular" (Sales (3) and (4)) and "superb" (Sale (5)). However, as I understood his verbal evidence, he was unable to distinguish between the views from the subject land and Sales (3) and (4), and conceded that the views -- 2 of 4 -- 3 from Sale (5) were superior. The sale lands were each of steeper topography and Sales (1) to (4) were of standard sized lots. Sale (5) was of a site larger even than the subject double lot, but due to its shape limitations, steeper nature, not adjacent to vacant Crown land, and not in the "dress circle" location, Mr Whitfield saw that land as inferior to the subject land - and on the respective valuations, significantly so. Mr Conroy on the other hand, disagreeing with the "dress circle" description of the subject land in comparison, held the opinion that the common Sale (3)/(5) was of near equal value when he weighed up the relative positive and negative features. The difficulty which Mr Whitfield faced is the lack of sales evidence available to support his opinion relative to the premium attaching to the "dress circle" location. However, Mr Conroy had included an "after date" Sale (10) in Airlie Crescent, closer to the subject land, although adjacent to and on the southern side of the busy Shute Harbour Road. This sale could be interpreted in two ways. First, although still not quite in Mr Whitfield's "dress circle" location it showed a higher level of value than the standard size lots in the Kara Crescent locality. Second, the sale price does not support the valuation applied to that land by the Department. Mr Whitfield, before the hearing, had no knowledge of the sale and while he was concerned that it did not support the valuation placed on that particular land, he felt that it was supportive of the subject valuation. From his knowledge of the location of the land, and with particular consideration to the effect of the adjacent Shute Harbour Road, he was firmly of the opinion that the subject land should be regarded as superior. Mr Conroy described the view from his Sale (10) as being "panoramic, from west through to east with relatively minor interruption to the north." During cross-examination he agreed that in comparison, the existence of the vacant Crown land adjacent to the subject property, regardless of its unkempt condition, was an advantage and then the adjacency of the sale site to Shute Harbour Road was a disadvantage. In his opinion however the superior views from the sale land significantly outweighed the location advantages of the subject land and then equalised the further advantage of the double lot size. I have not been convinced by Mr Conroy's opinion. It seems to me that even if the positive and negative features of the two positions equalised values on a standard lot size basis, which would be the best result for the appellant, the additional size of the subject land would logically be of some significance in the valuation considerations. I am inclined to agree with Mr Whitfield's opinion that Mr Conroy's Sale (10) goes further towards supporting the valuation appealed against than Mr Conroy's valuation. Other questions relating to improvement of the site, terracing and filling, are matters raised by Mr Conroy, but I am satisfied that Mr Whitfield has properly -- 3 of 4 -- 4 considered the nature of the land in its unimproved, rather than site improved, condition. In the absence of better evidence against the opinions of Mr Whitfield, I have not been convinced that the valuation appealed against has been shown to be wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed. RE WENCK MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 4 of 4 --