Cossins v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1994] QLC 208

t Re: Appeal under Valuation of Land Act (1944) Determination of unimproved value. V94-0086. Yvonne Marion Cossins V. Chief Executive, Department of Lands DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 20th May, 1994 This is an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, to value Lots 233, 306 and 307 on RP 91902, parish of Cedar, in the sum of $153,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1992. The appellant is contending for a value of $75,000. The subject lots are regular shaped lots situated in Coomera Gorge Road, Mt Tamborine. Lot 233 has a full frontage to Coomera Gorge Road whilst Lot 306 which sits behind Lot 233 is accessed by easement over Lot 233 and Lot 307 which is also a rear lot is accessed by easement over Lot 232. This last lot was at one time owned by the appellant and was improved with a single unit residential dwelling. At that time the aggregation of ownership comprising four lots (three of which were vacant) was valued correctly by the Chief Executive under s.11 (1 )(vii) of the Act (as it then was) as a single unit homesite without regard to the .fact that the lots were subdivided by survey and each capable of sale. Following the sale of Lot 232, the three remaining lots, being vacant lots, do not fall for consideration under that section. The relevance which the appellant, Mrs Cossins, placed on values applied to the lots when aggregated for valuation purposes under s. 11 (1)(vii) can therefore have no weight in considering the value of the three subject adjoining vacant lots. Mrs Cossins believes that a sale of the three lots separately would not fetch the sum of $153,000. Nor does she believe that if the lots were sold to the one purchaser, such a sum would be achieved as such purchaser would be [1994] QLC 208 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 looking for a discount for bulk. Sales she mentioned in evidence were known to Mr D.A. Routh, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, who gave evidence in support of the determined value. Subsequent to the relevant date (31st March, 1992), Mrs Cossins has sold Lot 307 for $47,000. The lot was listed for sale with an agent in May 1993 at $50,000 and sold in August 1993 for $47,000. Statistics she obtained from an agent on sales of land improved and unimproved within the area showed that selling prices rose in 1991/92 by about 20/25% and by about 10% for the year 1992/93. No firm conclusions, however, can be drawn from the exercise as no isolation can be effected. Following the "split" by sale of Lot 307, the remaining lots were valued· at $100,000. Sales which occurred prior to the relevant date and relied upon by Mr Routh as evidence of value were known to Mrs Cossins. Mr Routh compared the land directly with three sales. Sale 1 in Jenyns Road (to the north-west) of 1012m 2 sold for $65,000 in April 1991. Sale 2 in Ocean View Parade (to the west) sold for $55,000 in May 1991. Sale 3 which is in Coomera Gorge Road to the north of the subject Lot 233 sold for $52,500 in February 1991. Mrs Cossins is of the opinion that Sale 3 is superior as it possesses in her opinion better views than those obtainable from the subject lots. Mr Routh believes that Sale 3 is inferior to Lot 233 and 307 and slightly superior to Lot 306. He says that the sale lot is split by a gully which takes stormwater from Coomera Gorge Road and that such will give rise to problems in design and construction of a home on the site. These three sales occurred prior to the relevant date. The sale of the subject lot occurred well after the relevant date. Mr Routh was not the valuer involved in the first assessment of value. He was responsible for the valuation which followed the sale of Lot 307. He concedes that an allowance is usually made for bulk holding. He is of the opinion that an allowance was made in valuing the lots in the aggregate sum of $153,000. However, on my consideration of the evidence I am of the opinion that the lots if sold separately would not fetch an aggregate sum much in excess of the applied value. The discount for bulk seems to ·me to be somewhat light. Were the lots sold for -- 2 of 3 -- 3 around $55,000 (Lot 233), $52,500 (Lot 307) and $50,000 (Lot 306) over say a period of three months a purchaser would expect to obtain a discount for bulk geared to gilt-edged security over the period (about 9% per annum). Some risk would be involved as well as expenses such as commission and costs. Weighing these matters in the exercise, I have arrived at a value in the aggregate sum of $146,000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed , the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at $146,000. (D.M. White) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --