Appeals against determinations of the Valuer-General as at 31st March, 1990 [1992] QLC 312

·..:... , .• •' LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 15th September, 1992. Re: Appeals against determinations of the Valuer-General as at 31st March, 1990 - Shire of Whitsunday. DECISION In October, 1991, my learned colleague Mr C.H. Carter heard a number of appeals against determinations by the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of various lands in the Shire of Whitsunday, as at 31st March, 1990. A composite decision was delivered by Mr Carter on 11th December, 1991 (Coniston Pty Ltd and Others v. The Valuer-General). There remained 118 appeals filed by Mr BJ Conroy, AVLE, the registered valuer in private practice at Airlie Beach, who had appeared before Mr Carter in the matters dealt with in the above decision. The remaining appeals were set down for hearing at Airlie Beach commencing 27th April, 1992, the sittings continuing for five days then recommencing on 12th May, and continuing for a further nine sitting days. The result of the sittings was that 13 appeals were withdrawn; decisions by consent given in 32 matters; 72 decisions were reserved and 1 matter adjourned. Broadly, the evidence relating to the state of the market as given by Mr Conroy and the various valuers who had either carried out or taken responsibility for the Valuer-General's valuations was not inconsistent with that referred to by Mr [1992] QLC 312 -- 1 of 177 -- rter. The general thrust of Mr Conroy's evidence with regard to the residential, rural residential and commercial orientated lands, was that it was difficult to obtain reliable sales evidence as to the real state of the market at the relevant date. There was no doubt in his mind, from his "hands-on" local involvement, that the market for the urban lands had declined significantly since the previous relevant date of valuation (31st March, 1989). In his opinion this had resulted firstly from an over- heated market during 1988, fired by southern buyers, then the loss of tourist visitation due to the Brisbane Expo 88, the pilot's dispute which commenced in August, 1989 continuing through until early 1990 and an abnormal wet season in early 1990 before finally the wider effects of the national economic recession. He felt that the recorded sales did not always demonstrate the true picture of poor sales activity and a general lack of confidence in the local market. In his opinion, the subsequent well recognised declining market was capable of prediction as at the relevant date being 31st March, 1990. The Valuer-General's valuations were based on a comprehensive schedule of sales covering the wide range of real estate involved in the appeals. Where a decline in value had been perceived as possible, rather than proved by any market evidence, then (and this applied specifically to the commercial lands) an attempt was made at the time of consideration of objections, to provide the benefit of doubt, by causing some valuations to be reduced. It will be observed that a significant number of appeals have been allowed, not due to any persuasion that the general levels of value had been eventually misinterpreted by the Valuer-General as at the specific date, but more due to the circumstances surrounding individual cases. 2 -- 2 of 177 -- ' It became evident that the number of appeals brought to the Court placed some pressure on the work-load of individual Departmental valuers and this was exacerbated in some instances where the original valuer was unavailable to support the valuation or the basis of that . valuation. There were specific instances of unsatisfactory inspections which left the Court with no option other than to accept the alternative evidence. It is well recognised that inspections of each property in a local authority area are not physically possible since the advent of annual valuations. There can be however, no acceptable reason, for lack of reasonable inspection of any property the valuation of which is contested in the Court. Otherwise, under the somewhat tedious conditions which exist with bulk appeals a professional valuation approach resulted in a number of matters being resolved between the parties. The reserved decisions are now dealt with in a composite manner, generally in the order in which the matters were heard and grouped for convenience in four sections, as relevant to the respective Departmental valuers who were responsible for supporting the Valuer-General's valuations. These officers, each of whom are registered valuers, and now employed by the Department of Lands appeared in the following order: 1. Mr OL Eisemenger 2. Mrs RJ Merritt 3. Mr R Muller 4. Mr SJ Whitfield An Index to the individual matters in aphabetical order of the appellants is provided as follows:- 3 -- 3 of 177 -- r · Page Appellant/s File Ref. No. Decision Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd and Ors AV91-810 74 Dismissed - $130,000 Baiocchi, F and D AV91-809 80 Allowed - $57,500 Barry, WN AV91-619 45 Allowed - $24,000 Biggs, N AV91-574 155 Dismissed - $138,000 Cannonvale Developments Pty Ltd AV91-600 173 Allowed - $1,000,000 Chengody, JM AV91-568 142 Allowed - $700,000 Chengody, JM AV91-579 160 Dismissed - $138,000 Collingvale Pty Ltd AV91-487 17 Dismissed - $46,500 Cridland, LC AV91-592 165 Allowed - $110,000 Damis Nominees Pty Ltd AV91-811 98 Allowed - $79,000 Davies, CR and WJ AV91-652 22 Allowed - $75,000 Davies, AE AV91-622 43 Allowed - $19,500 Deicke Enterprises Pty Ltd AV91-493 49 Allowed - $111,000 Deicke Enterprises Pty Ltd AV91-492 55 Dismissed - $80,000 Deicke, WA AV91-653 8 Allowed - $41,500 Deicke, WA AV91-489 14 Dismissed - $46,000 Deicke, WA and EP AV91-495 46 Dismissed - $40,500 Deicke, MW, MJ, WA and Ors AV91-488 11 Allowed - $320,000 Deicke, WA AV91-496 48 Dismissed - $26,000 Donadelli & Co Pty Ltd AV91-582 147 Dismissed - $540,000 Donadelli, LE AV91-643 32 Dismissed - $145,000 4 -- 4 of 177 -- ,,... Page Appellant/s File Ref. No. Decision Dyson, JK and JE AV91-564 138 Dismissed - $510,000 Eastwood, Wand J AV91-633 69 Allowed - $36,000 Eggers, B AV91-569 144 Allowed - $340,000 Faust, P, LA and ME AV91-491 18 Allowed - $9,400 Faust, P and ME AV91-650 20 Dismissed - $600,000 Henson, LM AV91-575 155 Dismissed - $138,000 Hickox, EJ AV91-567 140 Dismissed - $370,000 Hill, KE and MJ AV91-576 156 Dismissed - $125,000 Hope, G and S AV91-635 72 Allowed - $46,000 Jalam Pty Ltd AV91-534 124 Dismissed - $385,000 Jalam Pty Ltd AV91-547 126 Allowed - $140,000 Johnston, IM and MM and Ors AV91-594 167 Dismissed - $270,000 Jones, AJ AV91-597 171 Allowed - $305,000 Little, GWP and SE AV91-581 157 Dismissed - $110,000 Lott, BF AV91-573 154 Dismissed - $138,000 - McFarlane, VJ and RE AV91-638 87 Allowed - $85,000 Motel Woolamai Pty Ltd AV91-545 129 Allowed - $120,000 Mott, T and M AV91-632 65 Dismissed - $65,000 Muller and Ors (Intro) 133 Muller, HC and LR AV91-561 136 Allowed - $550,000 Muller, HC and LR AV91-562 137 Dismissed - $510,000 5 -- 5 of 177 -- ( Page Appellant/s File Ref. No. Decision O'Neill, JC AV91-572 151 Dismissed - $140,000 Pepper, WA (Jnr) and MC AV91-640 25 Allowed - $114,000 Perrin, S and H & D Kelly AV91-637 85 Allowed - $50,000 Powder Blue Pty Ltd AV91-538 120 Dismissed - $200,000 Quinnimont Pty Ltd AV91-644 104 Dismissed - $300,000 Quinnimont Pty Ltd AV91-808 107 Allowed - $294,000 Raiteri, RF and CA AV91-646 96 Dismissed - $45,000 Roach Investments Pty Ltd AV91-621 115 Allowed - $20,000 Roach Investments Pty Ltd AV91-631 56 Allowed - $685,000 Roach Investments Pty Ltd AV91-617 111 Dismissed - $21,400 Roach Investments Pty Ltd AV91-620 42 Allowed - $17,500 Roach Investments Pty Ltd AV91-625 117 Allowed - $115,000 Rudd, GR and PE AV91-570 145 Dismissed - $365,000 Russell, P and V AV91-642 82 Dismissed - $55,500 Russell, A AV91-812 93 Dismissed - $65,000 Sawtell, G and M AV91-813 63 Dismissed - $64,000 Schwind, W AV91-807 77 Dismissed - $90,000 Silklock Pty Ltd AV91-584 149 Allowed - $490,000 Smith, WP AV91-636 78 Dismissed - $65,000 Spilman, A and PJ Tully AV91-583 148 Dismissed - $560,000 Stellaburn Pty Ltd AV91-578 159 Dismissed - $103,000 6 -- 6 of 177 -- ( I Page Appellant/s File Ref. No. Decision Stevenson, NH AV91-580 161 Dismissed - $103,000 Sutherland, AM and JD AV91-639 92 Dismissed - $90,000 The Proprietors "Montipora" Building Units AV91-565 138 Allowed - $580,000 The Proprietors "PRD House" Building Units AV91-571 146 Dismissed - $365,000 The Proprietors "Airlie Professional Centre" Building Units AV91-566 139 Allowed - $690,000 Traynor, PF and LC AV91-591 161 Allowed - $180,000 Walsh, H AV91-647 35 Dismissed - $41,000 Walsh, HD and GP AV91-623 39 Dismissed - $24,000 Walsh, GP . AV91-645 99 Allowed - $99,000 Walsh, HD and GP AV91-648 t02 Dismissed - $195,000 7 -- 7 of 177 -- GROUP 1 - MR O.L. EISEMENGER'S VALUATIONS Appeal AV91-653 - W.A. Deicke - Lot 1 R.P.747708; Lot 2 R.P.747709; Lot 3 R.P.747710; Lot 4 R.P.748014, Parish of Gloucester - 2069 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation - $62,000; Appellants estimate $58,000. This grazing property being part of Collingvale Station is located about 40 kilometres north of Proserpine via Dingo Beach Road and Hydeaway Bay Drive, with bitumen and gravel access. It is described by the Valuer-General as being in a low rainfall area, and as being a rough poorly watered grazing block, comprising a high steep ridge and mountain in the west and rough slopes and gullies in the east. Mr Conroy says that of the total area only about 400 hectares is useable with balance being unavailable mountain country comprising the Gloucester Ranges and foothills, bounded on three sides by the Pacific Ocean. He assesses the carrying capacity as being limited to 40 breeders (1 beast to 52 hectares). He led evidence to an amended valuation of $24,000, calculated as the rounded result of 400 hectares at $40 per hectare and the balance at $5 per hectare. Mr Conroy refers to three sales in his report. The first, an 1860 hectare property was analysed by him to show an unimproved value of $43.45 per hectare as at February, 1988. The second was a sale (which also formed part of the Valuer-General's basis) being the 2587 hectares Dittmer Holding which Mr Conroy analysed to show an unimproved value of $23.19 per hectare ($27 .38 per hectare by the Valuer-General) as at February, 1989. While in this matter, he places no reliance on it, the third sale he included in his report was of a 195 hectare property sold to show on his analysis, an unimproved value of $537.60 per hectare. In Mr Conroy's opinion the first two sales supported his application of $40 8 [1992] QLC 321 -- 8 of 177 -- t, ., hectare on the small area of available grazing land on the subject property. He had been aware of the Valuer-General's valuation of $5 per hectare on an area of 1,01 O hectares of mountainous land adjoining Collingvale which was reserved for Mining purposes. Mr Eisenmenger had not attempted to classify the land, or to assess a carrying capacity for it. He agreed that a large proportion would be unavailable for grazing. His valuation has been based on two sales - the Dittmer Holding property and a second property of 1546 hectares which sold in October 1989 to show an unimproved value of $74.80 per hectare. This latter property was located at Toons Road St Helens, in Pioneer Shire and comprised about 1100 hectares of very rough mountain with the balance being easy to moderately sloping ridges - not in his opinion as comparable as Dittmer Holding to the subject because it was within a higher rainfall area with a section of country suited to improved pasture. The only common sale is that of Dittmer Holding. Mr Eisenmenger describes that land as being predominantly steeply sloping to unavailable mountains with about 300 hectares of flats to easy ridges. Mr Conroy classified the property as having approximately 1000 hectares of creek frontage country of undulating flats with the balance comprising undulating to rough forest country rising to steep inaccessible ranges with about 400 to 500 hectares unavailable. There were some significant disparities between the values applied to the component parts of the sale. There was, on the figures put to the Court, no evidence of any attempt by the valuers to influence either a higher or lower end result, Mr Conroy being higher in his valuation of some items than was Mr Eisenmenger, then lower in others. I gained the impression that Mr Eisenmenger's 9 -- 9 of 177 -- proach to the analysis was thorough, yet he may have been somewhat harsh on his valuation of structural improvements. Mr Conroy had not inspected the property until sometime after the sale took place and was forced to rely on the purchaser's description of some items. One valuer says the sale shows $27.38 per hectare unimproved, the other $23.19 per hectare. It seems to me that adoption of $25 per hectare as being indicated by the sale, would be a fair interpretation of the evidence before the Court. It is difficult when the remaining sales bases are not common to the valuers. The matter is not assisted by the differing comparisons between the one common sale and the nature of the subject property. Mr Eisenmenger says that relativity has not been altered between the subject property and comparable grazing properties, based on the overall sales evidence. That may be so, but the evidence before me leads me to the conclusion that, based purely on its grazing potential, which Mr Eisenmenger agrees it should be, the subject property should be found, on a pro rata basis, to be inferior to the common sale. It is noted that Mr Conroy has said that the Valuer-General's valuation of that sale property was $74,000 (approximately $28.60 per hectare) and in excess of the Valuer-General's analysis of the sale. It could well be that Mr Eisenmengers' second sale was of assistance to him, but unless there is some attempt to compare the grazing potential (the carrying capacity) between the two properties, then the direct comparison process is not in itself convincing evidence, particularly when the nature of the country has differing qualities. While there appears to be some merit in Mr Conroy's attempt to isolate the 10 -- 10 of 177 -- 1 3able country and to find a relatively nominal value for the unavailable land, he provides no real basis for adopting $40 per hectare for the relatively small area of 400 hectares of available grazing land. His analysis of the sales of 1860 hectares and 2587 hectares of varying country is of little assistance in applying value to the 400 hectare classification. There appears to be no conflict as to the poor quality of the subject land for the primary production grazing use. I have concluded on the evidence before me that, regardless of previous relativity, the extent of unavailable country on the property reduces its potential below that of Dittmer Holding and its valuation should be reduced accordingly. There is insufficient evidence as to a reasonable classification of values. I will determine the unimproved value overall at $20 per hectare. The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General set aside and the unimproved value of the land as at 31st March, 1990, determined in the rounded amount of $41,500. Appeal AV91-488 - M.W., M.J., W.A. Deicke & Ors - Lot 13 R.P.748524, Parish of Gloucester - 7168 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation - $370,000 - Appellants' estimate $280,000. This property comprises the bulk of the Collingvale Station aggregation, running from about 15 kilometres north-west of Proserpine at its southerly point, on either side of Dingo Beach Road to near Dingo Beach township in the north. Mr Conroy describes the property as being bounded by the Gregory River and then the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Mount Dryander Ranges to the east. He says the land to the west of the Dingo Beach Road comprises undulating 11 -- 11 of 177 -- iee forest with better pockets of cocky apple flats along the creeks, narrow leafed ironbark ridges throughout and scattered dark soil poplar gum flats. In the northern section are large areas of mangrove and salt pan. Then to the east of the road the land comprises undulating ti-tree and narrow-leafed ironbark forest rising to the foothills of the Mount Dryander Ranges, with area of totally unavailable scrub. He says there is a total area of 1690 hectares unavailable, comprising 130 hectares cork hills, 630 hectares of mangroves and 930 hectares of thick impenetrable scrub. Disabilities listed by Mr Conroy include the Dingo Beach Road (trespassers, shooters and vandals, Main Roads instruction to fence both sides); Dingo Beach township (necessarily fenced out); poor natural water with saline underground water; noxious weeds; pests (dingoes); regrowth and cost of treatment; erosion; phosphate deficiency; salt intrusion. He relies on the two sales referred to in the previous appeal (AV91-653). The first, that of an 1860 hectare property (Gillies/Hughes) .may be of more relevance in this matter. It is located directly opposite, running south-westerly of the Gregory River to the Bruce Highway and then beyond to the railway. Mr Conroy says that the river frontage country comprises rough broken gullies and stony hills, while the balance is undulating forest heavily timbered with narrow- leafed ironbark, poplar gum with thick pockets of ti-tree and bull-oak. He analysed the sale which took place in February 1988, for the stated sale price .of $302,372, to show an unimproved value of $80,800. His analysis was not challenged and the sale was not used as a basis by the Valuer-General. The property is significantly smaller in area than the subject property. In Mr Conroy's opinion the sale land was 12 -- 12 of 177 -- nerally inferior to the subject land but he saw the price to have been potentially high due to the existence of sand and gravel deposits which would have influenced the purchaser. He states that the Valuer-General's valuation of the sale land was $107,000. As in the previous matter Mr Conroy sees this sale (showing, on his analysis, $43.45 per hectare) and that of Dittmer Holding ($23.19 per hectare) supporting a valuation of $40 per hectare on the available country of the subject land. As before he valued the unavailable area at $5 per hectare. His valuation was: 54 78 hectares forest @ $40 per hectare = 1690 hectares unavailable @ $5 per hectare = Total = Adopt $230,000 $219,120 8,450 $227,570 Mr Eisenmenger does not have any dispute with Mr Conroy's description or classification of the country. He agrees that the property is not well watered, having limited permanent natural water; poor quality underground water and generally unsuitable country for dam construction. He says that the property is rather unique in the Shire of Whitsunday as to size and the variable rainfall from one geographical extremity to the other. He again relies on the two sales basic to the previous matter - the 2560 hectare Dittmer Holding (his analysis $27 .38 per hectare) and the 1546 hectare St Helens property ($74.80 per hectare). Again his valuation ($51.50 per hectare) reflects maintenance of previous relativity with increase said to be 15% above the previous valuation. It seems to me that the subject land has a significantly greater area of useable country than does the common sale and this would indicate that Mr 13 -- 13 of 177 -- mroy's valuation which equates $32 per hectare overall is unrealistic. Both valuers agree that there is no sales evidence of a directly comparable nature to the subject land which is somewhat unique in the locality in terms of size. It is difficult to ignore the sale put forward by Mr Conroy, because of its adjacent location. It is, on the evidence, inferior country to the greater proportion of the subject property, but then there is a significant area on the subject property which is unavailable for grazing while the available area is much larger than the sale property. Mr Conroy's analysis is unchallenged and although the sale took place two years prior to the relevant date, the analysis indicates an unimproved value 24% lower than that applied by the Valuer-General. There is no evidence that the Valuer-General's valuation at the relevant date on the sale property is under challenge. With consideration to the lack of comparable sales evidence, the somewhat unique features of the subject property with regard to size and shape, the problem of having a public road intrusion through its inordinate length, then its poor natural and suspect artificial watering potential, there is considered to be sufficient reason for an overall result influenced more by the additional sales evidence provided by Mr Conroy. I will determine the unimproved value in the amount of $320,000 being a rounded result of a calculation at $45 per hectare overall. The appeal is allowed and the Valuer~General's valuation set aside accordingly. Appeal AV91-489 - W.A. Deicke - Lot 1 R.P. 730014, Parish of Ben Lomond - 83.33 hectares - Valuer-General's Valuation $46,000 - Appellant's estimate $40,000. This property also forms part of the Collingvale Station aggregation. It is 14 -- 14 of 177 -- Jated on the Bruce Highway about 15 kilometres north-west of Proserpine, on the south-western frontage of the Gregory River. Mr Conroy described the land as being the best country in the aggregation, predominantly level to gently sloping dark grey soil forest country. He says that in heavy wet seasons much of the block floods but water in the Gregory River is not permanent. Soils are described as nutrient deficient and improved pasture requires heavy fertilisation for success. Due to the flood susceptibility Mr Conroy does not consider this land to be suited to cane growing. He values the land at $400 per hectare rounded to a total amount of $33,000. Mr Conroy provides the same sales evidence as for the two preceding matters with an additional schedule containing two sales, the first showing an analysed unimproved value of $1,419 per hectare for a 51.77 hectare property and the second an analysed unimproved value of $1,615 per hectare for a 30.98 hectare property. He does not rely on the additional sales, but provided them for overall completeness. His primary basis is the third sale used in the other matters. This was the 195 hectare property (Leet/Lorraway) which sold in March 1990 for $150,000 showing an analysed unimproved value of $537.60 per hectare. He classifies the sale as comprising 56 hectares of potential arable land, 91.3 hectares of undulating forest and 48 hectares of hard forest ridges. In his opinion the arable land on this parcel is superior to the subject land because it was used for cane- growing in the past and is suitable for such use while, due to the flooding, he says the subject land is not. It is noted that in his analysis of the sale he apportions values as follows: 15 -- 15 of 177 -- 56 hectares potential arable@ $1,200 per hectare 91.3 hectares undulating forest @ $350 per hectare 48 hectares hard forest ridges at $120 per hectare Mr Eisenmenger does see the land as having some potential for cane- growing and provides one sale as his basis of valuation. This was a property of 142 hectares in Spoor Road, Kelsey, which was purchased by a local cane-farmer (Valmadre) for expansion, in August 1989, for $180,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $141,638 or $997 per hectare. For revaluation purposes the land was included within an aggregation and was not separately valued, but Mr Eisenmenger felt ·that as an individual parcel it would have been valued in the range of $700 to $750 per hectare. The land is not irrigated and is not subject to flooding and most of the area is suited to cultivation. He said that a conservative approach had been taken in the use of the sale because of its purchase for expansion by a nearby cane-farmer but felt that it more than supported the level of values which had been applied to arable lands or lands with considered arable potential. The subject land had poorer soil type and was located in an area less desirable for the growing of sugar-cane. The valuation of $550 per hectare reflected this inferiority. He agreed that the flooding susceptibility of the subject land would be seen as a disability but other properties in the locality with river frontage suffered in a similar manner and were used for the growing of cane. Mr Eisenmenger's evidence provides a poor basis for the valuation of the subject land. It is evident that the valuation has resulted from the maintenance of previously existing relativity of valuations. Mr Conroy is adamant that the property should be valued as having no arable potential and in any case as being of marginal location for cane-growing expansion. Regardless of the flooding disability 16 -- 16 of 177 -- ave not been convinced that the market would not place some premium in value on this property over pure grazing value. The apportionment of the Leet/Lorraway sale reflects, in Mr Conroy's opinion, a value of $1200 per hectare for the arable component on that land and on that basis alone but then in conjunction with the stated basis of the Valuer-General, the Valuer-General's valuation of $550 per hectare for the subject land does not indicate harsh treatment. The appellant's case has not proved the Valuer-General's valuation to be wrong, regardless of the weakness of the supporting evidence. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-487 - Collingvale Pty Ltd - Lot 102 on Plan HR293 and Lots 4 and 5 on R.P. 739897, Parish of Dryander - 156 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $46,500 - Appellant's estimate - $37,000. This land is the remaining part of the Collingvale Station aggregation, situated on the opposite (eastern) frontage of the Gregory River, to the land involved in the previous appeal (AV91-489), about 19 kilometres .north-west of Proserpine via the Dingo Beach Road. Mr Conroy described the land as undulating, "falling from the creek frontage to the eastern half which is low, then rising to low hills along the eastern boundary". Soils are described as dark grey forest clays and quite stony. He disagrees with the Valuer-General's description of there being permanent water in the Gregory River. Mr Conroy says that natural supplies last for 7 to 8 months in most seasons. There are three equipped bores used for stock and domestic purposes. As with the previous appeal he refers to the nutrient deficient soils, the need for heavy fertilisation for improved pastures and a flooding disability over much of the 17 -- 17 of 177 -- , d in heavy wet seasons. In his opinion, the land is not suitable for sugar cane growing. The sales mentioned in the previous matter are again included in his valuation basis. Mr Conroy values the land at $200 per hectare as a small grazing block, with a rounded total mount of $31,000. In this matter Mr Eisenmenger sees the River frontage land as being marginal cane land and refers to the Valmadre purchase of expansion cane land at $997 per hectare as forming a valuation basis. This sale was seen to be a weak basis for his valuation in the previous appeal (AV91-489), and it must be seen to be even more so here. Mr Eisenmenger provides no classification of the land and values it overall at $300 per hectare. Nevertheless, I see Mr Conroy's apportionment of the Leetjlorraway sale as supporting the Valuer-General's valuation of this land rather than his own and refer particularly to the "91.3 hectares of undulating forest at $350 per hectare". The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. AV91-491 - P., L.A. & M.E. Faust - Portion 43 {Special Lease 39970) Parish of Tawvale - 23.47 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $16,400 - Appellants' estimate $13,000. Portion 43 is surveyed as a triangular shaped parcel on the southern outskirts of Proserpine. There is no formed road access and the property is used for the grazing of cattle in conjunction with an adjoining grazing property. The land is low-lying timbered predominantly with ti-tree, intersected by Lagoon Creek and subject to periodic flooding. The Valuer-General has valued the land as being exclusively used for the 18 -- 18 of 177 -- siness of primary production (grazing). It would seem that the conditions of the lease and the nature of the land would restrict its use to that of a limited grazing nature. It follows that its use for the "business" of primary production would be possible only in terms of its association with the larger adjoining holding. Mr Eisenmenger sees the property as being readily marketable because of its adjacency to the town. While this may be so, because of its size it would seem that such demand would be for a grazing use which could hardly qualify as a "business" but more likely for hobby type purposes. While there may not be seen to be a lot at stake here, I have not been convinced that Mr Eisenmenger has in fact valued the land in terms of Section 11 (1 )(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act, as he says he has. His interpretation of unimproved market value related to its town adjacency may well be realistic, but any enhancement in that value for potential for use other than for the "business" of grazing needs to be excluded. He says that it has been valued as a small grazing property but refers to the sale of an 11.03 hectare property some 15 kilometres from Proserpine purchased as a homesite and for small crop farming, showing an analysed sale price of $3,626 per hectare, as the basis of valuation. I fail to see how that sale could realistically be interpreted as a basis for a valuation of $700 per hectare for the grazing use of the subject land. Mr Conroy tendered a report containing the various grazing sales used in other appeals. He agrees there is no evidence of a directly comparable nature but was influenced by the Leetjlorraway sale which is further from town, superior country overall and with some arable potential. This sale analysed to show an unimproved value of $537.60 per hectare overall. He values the subject land at 19 -- 19 of 177 -- DO per hectare. There is no evidence before the Court as to the level of value applied to the much larger adjoining property with which the subject land is used. Nevertheless, after consideration of size and location I will adopt Mr Conroy's valuation based on $400 per hectare. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value as at 31st March, 1990, in terms of Section 11 (1)(vii) of the Act, determined in the amount of $9,400. Appeal AV91-650 - P. & M.E. Faust - Lot 2 on Plan HR1974 being Demeter Pastoral Holding 05/5467 and Lots 3 and 4 on Plan HR1975 being Proserpine Pastoral Holding 05/3468 and balance of Lot 1 on Plan HR1497 being Special Lease 05/42657 part of State Forest 387 and Lot 666 on Plan H12471, Parishes of Mamelon and Proserpine, County of Herbert, containing 18,624 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $600,000 - Appellants' estimate $512,000. The property subject of this appeal is known as Proserpine Station, comprising the largest single grazing aggregation in the Shire of Whitsunday. It is located in the Clarke Ranges/Double Peak Ranges area about 24 kilometres west of Proserpine, with good bitumen sealed road access. The property comprises the balance area of the original holding after resumption of about 5430 hectares for the Peter Faust Reservoir, which filled in 1990. Mr Eisenmenger says the balance area of the property, after resumption of the Proserpine River valley floor, comprises about 6400 hectares of steep ridges and mountain with the balance being easy sloping ti-tree, poplar gum and ironbark forest. Mr Conroy sees the balance area after the resumption as comprising about 20 -- 20 of 177 -- 1 ual areas of better class and poorer class country. He says 1600 hectares is unavailable country which has been fenced out. Permanent water is available in the reservoir lake, but the valuers agree that the presence of the lake causes management and access disabilities. Both rely on the sales evidence discussed generally· in the decisions in the appeals on the Collingvale Station valuations, particularly AV91-653 & 488. The sale of Dittmer Holding while of the significantly smaller area of 2560 hectares, is seen to be the best evidence available. Mr Conroy says that in its unimproved state Proserpine Station would be superior overall to Dittmer Holding but not in his opinion with the lake resumption and the problems it has caused. His evidence indicates to me some pre-occupation with matters relevant to the effect of the lake on the improvements and the improved nature of Proserpine Station subsequent to the resumption. The task here is to find the value of the land if it was unimproved. The management difficulties and access disabilities to the various sections of the property; the intrusion into the area by lake orientated tourists and campers are matters which fall to be considered but not the replacement or relocation of improvements such as fencing and yards. The availability of permanent water is also to be considered but not as a comparison with the satisfactory water position which existed prior to the resumption. Mr Eisenmenger has indicated that he has given specific consideration to the disabilities resulting from the presence of the lake on unimproved value and also to the size of the property relative to the sales evidence. He has concluded that all things considered the subject property remains superior to the primary comparison - Dittmer Holding. On the evidence before me, I prefer his conclusion 21 -- 21 of 177 -- to a value of $32.50 per hectare to that of Mr Conroy who contends for a valuation of $25 per hectare. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-652 - C.R. & W.J. Davies - Lots 40, 46 and 47 on Plan HR270 and Lot 51 on Plan HR529, Parish of Andromache, 398.2 hectares - Valuer- General's valuation $92,000 - Appellants' estimate $30,200. The location of this property is described by Mr Conroy as being approximately 24 kilometres south-west of Proserpine via 20 kilometres of bitumen and 4 kilometres of rough gravel road. He says that during normal wet seasons flooding can deny access to the property which is used for "pasture assisted cattle grazing". Mr Conroy provides a description of the country on each surveyed lot varying from a small area of loamy clay arable soils subject to flooding on the Goorganga Creek flats at the eastern extremity rising to fair clay loam undulating forest adjacent, with the balance varying from shallow grey soil undulating forest to low stony hills particularly in the north-western section. He classifies and values the land as follows: 6 hectares arable @ $1,000 per hectare 54 hectares better forest @ $250 per hectare 302.2 hectares undulating forest @ $125 per hectare 36 hectares broken hills/gullies @ $25 per hectare Total Adopt $58,000 $6,000 $13,500 $37,750 $ 900 $58.150 He refers to the three grazing sales which were discussed firstly in the Collingvale Station appeals, particularly AV91-653 and 488, but gains most comfort from the Leet/Lorraway sale of 195.3 hectares which he had analysed and 22 -- 22 of 177 -- ssified as follows: 56 hectares potential arable @ $1,200 per hectare 91.3 hectares undulating forest @ $350 per ~ectare 48 hectares hard forest ridges @ $120 per hectare In his opinion, the Leetjlorraway sale property is superior to the subject land in each classification, and he has adjusted the values for the subject land in line with that opinion. Mr Conroy has not provided any basis for the apportionment of values to the various classifications of country on the sale property, although it has been previously noted that the level of arable land value is not inconsistent with the "Valmadre" sale used by the Valuer-General as assisting in establishing arable land value. His analysis of the sale has not been challenged as evidence of value. If the value of the arable land was accepted as being $1,200 per hectare as apportioned by Mr Conroy then the value of the balance area of 139.3 hectares of forest grazing would equate approximately $270 per hectare overall. Mr Eisenmenger has applied a valuation of $230 per hectare overall to the subject land. He describes the land as comprising 70 hectares of poplar gum, ironbark and ti-tree flats with about 155 hectares of easy sloping forest timbered with poplar gum, ironbark and some bloodwood with about 173.2 hectares of steeper stony ridges with predominant timber of ironbark and grass tree. Unfortunately Mr Eisenmenger had no knowledge of the Leet/Lorraway sale, although it actually adjoined one of the sale properties forming his basis (Dittmer Holding). It took place near the date of valuation and appears to have features more capable of comparison with the subject land. Mr Eisenmenger relies again on the two sales referred to in the Collingvale Station appeals, both much larger in 23 -- 23 of 177 -- 1a and both considered significantly inferior in terms of pro rata value. It appears more likely that as in most of these matters, the sales selected and provided as a basis are seen by the Valuer-General to offer support to general levels of value rather than as examples of direct comparisons. In this annual valuation it is indicated that an increase was considered to have been established in grazing values and that increase then applied overall to maintain the existing relativity from property to property. With regard to relativity of valuations, Mr Conroy provided the example of a nearby property of about 450 hectares which he says is valued at $217.83 per hectare yet has long frontage to Goorganga Creek with arable land of marginal sugar-cane growing potential. He felt the valuation of the subject land was demonstrably too high in comparison. Other examples of two properties of near 1000 hectares were given (Portions 140 and 141, Parish of Tawvale with good cane land and some potential cane land valued at $200 per hectare overall and Lot 75, Parish of Crystalbrook with some arable land and considered overall superior country to the subject land valued at $143.70 per hectare). Mr Eisenmenger was not in a position to deny or confirm the information on relativity provided by Mr Conroy. In his opinion however the long standing relativities had not been disturbed. The evidence on which the valuers rely is far from conclusive yet in this matter the Leet/Lorraway sale would appear to be capable of assistance. It is noted that the Valuer-General's valuation on that sale property is $62,000 (approximately $318 per hectare) according to Mr Conroy's evidence. His analysis of the sale indicates an unimproved value of $105,000. If his analysis is correct, 24 -- 24 of 177 -- , , could suggest that either the Valuer-General's adopted levels of value are conservative or alternatively the valuation of the sale property is by itself too low. Mr Conroy's examples of relativities of valuations indicates that if his perception of the quality of the country on the various blocks is accurate then there is need for closer examination of the existing relativity in the area. I do not propose on the state of the evidence to find a result based purely on relativity, particularly when Mr Conroy has provided the evidence of the Leet/Lorraway sale. I am influenced by Mr Conroy's evidence overall to find that the Valuer-General's valuation of the subject property could be too high. I am not convinced however that there is the degree of inferiority between the grazing lands of the Leet/Lorraway sale property and the subject property as suggested by Mr Conroy. I have decided that a valuation of $190 per hectare overall would resolve the doubts that have been created by my appreciation of the evidence. · The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value as at 31st March, 1990, determined in the rounded amount of $75,000. Appeal AV91-640 - W.A. Pepper (Jnr) and M.C. Pepper - Lot 5 on Plan HR1428 and Lot 3 on R.P. 717806, Parish of Dryander, 217.2 hectares - Valuer- General's valuation $127,000 - Appellants' estimate $78,000. The Valuer-General's original valuation on this cane farm (at the relevant date) was $139,000. On objection the valuation was reduced to $133,000 and then to $127,000 in terms of Section 21A ofthe Valuation of Land Act. The Section 21A action by the Valuer-General resulted from the Land Court decision delivered by the learned Member, Mr Carter, on 11th December, 1991, when the value of the 25 -- 25 of 177 -- signed cane land on adjoining property (owned by F.W. and N.L. Pepper and R.F. and C.A. Raiteri - AV91-634) was reduced to $1,000 per hectare. That farm had a gross assigned area of 112.1 hectares and a farm peak of 6100 tonnes of average quality cane. The subject property had a gross assigned area of 67 hectares and a farm peak of 2658 tonnes of average quality cane. In this matter Mr Paterson appeared as Counsel for the Valuer-General. Mr Conroy who had been involved in the appeal above continued to conduct the case for these appellants. He called Mr W.A. Pepper to give evidence. Mr Pepper advised that since 1987, cane production on the subject property had declined from 60 tonnes per hectare to 34 tonnes per hectare in 1991. In 1990 he had planted 40 acres (16 hectares) of new ground and half of that planted cane died. He sought advice from the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and was advised that due to a high build-up of sodium and magnesium the property was no longer suitable for cane growing. This advice had been confirmed by the Department of Primary Industries. The problem might be temporarily relieved by the application of gypsum at an estimated cost of $1,000 per hectare but unless the underground drainage was corrected this treatment would be of limited assistance. Similar advice had been received by the owners of the adjoining land. These two properties were once one and lay at the lowest level in a basin of the valley to where, over the years the debilitating sodium and magnesium had leached. Underground drainage it appears, would need to be so extensive as to be impractical to carry out. As a consequence, Mr Pepper has abandoned the cane farming operation and commenced a program of suitable tolerant pasture 26 -- 26 of 177 -- ablishment for the fattening of cattle. About 200 acres (approximately 80 hectares) of the property was subject to flooding and erosion and it was expected that the establishment of pasture would assist this disability. Mr Pepper agreed that at the relevant date the property was used for cane farming and indeed he still retained the assignment because there had been no market interest in his efforts to sell it. He believed the land would never again be used for growing of sugar cane. He also agreed that the problems of the subject land were comparable with those of the adjoining property. Mr Conroy presented a report in which he assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as follows: 67 hectares cane land @ $1,000 Less allowances 25% 7 hectares headland @ $500 74 hectares balance @ $250 217 hectares Adopt $72,000 $67,000 $16,750 $50,250 $3,500 $18,500 $72,250 Contained in his report were the analyses of four sales of cane farms brief details of which are as follows: 1. Ruge/Taylor - 20.3.90 - analysed to show the following classification of value: 61.1 hectares cane land @ $1,200 12.4 hectares headland @ $375 20 hectares balance @ $28 2. Cane Country Pty Ltd/Patullo - 6.10.89: 38.8 hectares cane land @ $1,650 14 hectares headland @ $1,000 6.8 hectares balance @ $390 27 -- 27 of 177 -- Peterson/Large - 24.8.89: 56.8 hectares cane land @ $810 6.39 hectares balance @ $120 4. Ferraris & Ors/Moranino - 11.4.89: 97.9 hectares cane land@ $470 9.2 hectares balance@ $65 His verbal evidence is that he places the most reliance on the first sale (Ruge/Taylor). In his opinion although this property had salinity disability during dry seasons it was generally of superior quality to the subject land before consideration of its specific additional disabilities. In the absence of these disabilities he saw a comparison of $1,000 per hectare for the subject land as being reasonable, then he allowed 25% for the disabilities. Apart from the additional headland areas he felt the cost of improving the · balance area for effective grazing was prohibitive. Mr Eisenmenger describes the assigned land on the subject property as comprising "dark creek loams along Crofton Creek rising to lighter grey/brown forest loams on the low ridges. The paddocks on the eastern side are generally stony in nature and comprise brown clay loams of which some are scrubby soils. The assigned land is generally flat to easy sloping along the creek with steeper slopes on ·the eastern paddocks". He describes the balance areas as "generally easy sloping with predominant timbers being poplar gum, ti-tree and pandanus palm in the creeks." His valuation said to be based on Mr Carter's decision in Appeal AV91-634, is as follows: 28 [1992] QLC 320 -- 28 of 177 -- ( 67 hectares assigned cane land@ $1,370 Less Allowances: Stone Flood Working, drainage, $ 1,650 $6,250 salinity and soda $17,000 Add Balance: 150.2 hectares@ $400 Total $91,600 $24,900 $66,700 $60,080 $126,780 Adopt $127,000 "Basis of Valuation" Mr Eisenmenger's report contains the following: "In making the valuation regard is had to two sales namely sales number 30 and 31 on the sales schedule. Sale 30, although it has a low peak index is considered superior in that it has irrigation and the soils on this farm are superior to those on the subject. Sale 31 is also considered to be superior with better soils. Also both sales do not experience the difficulties of salinity and soda which is evident in the subject farm." (the underlining in this passage is mine) Sale 30 is Mr Conroy's Sale 3 and Sale 31 is Mr Conroy's Sale 1. The analyses by the two valuers are compared as follows: Ruge/Taylor: Plant Stools Structures incl. interest Water incl. interest Conroy 58,700 12,540 96,973 Timber Treatment incl. interest 4,859 174,888 Unimproved Value 68.1 ha cane land @ $1,200 12.4 ha headland/ arable @ $375 20 hectares balance @$28 29 Eisenmenger 56,500 10,800 87,940 136,710 68.1 ha cane land @ $1,858 32.4 ha balance @$150 -- 29 of 177 -- ~erson/Large: Stools Plant & Equipment Structures incl. interest Water incl. interest Timber Treatment incl. interest 15,500 46,000 97,927 32,205 90,720 Unimproved Value 56 .8 ha cane land @$810 6.39 ha balance @$120 70,640 19,740 131,921 56.8 ha cane land @ $1567 7.2 ha balance @$650 In the Ruge/Taylor sale, Mr Conroy had amended an earlier analysis presented before Mr Carter. As a result of evidence given in the earlier Court he had interviewed the purchaser and found some information provided to him prior to his first analysis was incorrect. The major difference now lies in the value of the timber treatment. Mr Conroy's calculation is based on a greater area cleared to cane land/head land - 79 hectares (including 3.88 hectares increase) than Mr Eisenmenger - 70 hectares (excluding increase). Mr Conroy says there was an additional area of 15 hectares of cleared forest. Apparently both valuers interviewed the purchaser, but obviously Mr Eisenmenger much closer to the date of sale. He says the additional area had not been cleared at the date of sale and the 15 hectares of forest which had been cleared was, at the date of sale of no value, having been pushed only, in the past, with significant regrowth. While Mr Conroy has obviously endeavoured to establish the true position, Mr Eisenmenger obtained his information from the same source much closer to the date of sale. will accept Mr Eisenmenger's analysis. With regard to the Peterson/Large sale, again Mr Conroy has carried out further enquiry and has accepted what he has been told. Mr Eisenmenger had reason to sight the contract relative to the sale price of $341,300 and had 30 -- 30 of 177 -- ablished that the price included only the fixed improvements and irrigation plant. For the reason that Mr Conroy has included items such as stools, plant and equipment, based on the advice given to him but without his sighting the contract, I will accept Mr Eisenmenger's analysis. Mr Eisenmenger's analyses of the sales were accepted by Mr Carter in the appeal referred to earlier. Mr Carter in that decision effectively reduced, on the basis of all disabilities (and I am satisfied that they included the sodacity problem), the valuation of the assigned land from approximately $1,366 per hectare to $1,000 per hectare. Before objection, it is noted that the original valuation of the whole of that property had been $10,000 higher. The valuation of the subject land had originally been $139,000 reduced to $133,000 before Mr Carter's decision on the adjoining land. The subject assigned land then carried a valuation of $1,085 per hectare or about 20% less than the adjoining land. The evidence before me is that the two properties had been valued with consideration to peak, existing relativity, country type etc. and there had already been recognition, to a degree, of the salinity and sodacity problem. The Valuer-General's submission before me is that Mr Eisenmenger is correct in adopting Mr Carter's decision on the adjoining assigned land and applying that directly to the subject land. It is the evidence of each witness that the nature of land and the disabilities are very comparable. The question was never addressed before me as to why the previous relativity between the two properties existed - it seems that the history of the properties and the objection process has given recognition to the common nature of the land. The adjoining property has a much larger assigned area and normally that would be argued to reflect a lower 31 -- 31 of 177 -- rata value, all other things being equal. I can only assume, on the state of the evidence, that the much more favourable mill peak index on the adjoining property influenced the previous relativity of valuations. I have concluded then, that if I accept Mr Carter's decision on the adjoining property and again on the evidence before me I have no reason (apart from Mr Conroy's protestations) not to accept his reasoning, then I should also accept that, for the assumption above, the previous relativity should be maintained. I will therefore determine the unimproved value of the assigned land on the subject property at $800 per hectare after consideration of all its similar disabilities. The reasons given by Mr Eisenmenger for his valuation of the balance area, in his comparisons both with the sales and the adjoining land are logical and I accept them. Mr Conroy provides no real basis for his apportionment of the value of the balance land. My determination is as follows: 67 hectares @ $800 per hectare after allowance for all disabilities 150.2 hectares@ $400 per hectare Total Adopt $114,000 = = = $ 53,600 $ 60 ,080 $113,680 The appeal is allowed and the Valuer-General's valuation set aside accordingly. Appeal AV91-643 - LE. Donadelli - Lot 124 on Plan HR140, Lot 164 on Plan HR846, Lot 2 on Plan HR889 and Lot 2 on R.P. 729578, Lot 12 on R.P.743335, Lot 16 on R.P.748480, Lot 2 on R.P. 804109 and Road Licences 30/3386 and 30/3608, Parish of Tawvale - 154.2 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $145,000 - Appellant's estimate $110,000. Mr Eisenmenger describes this property aggregation as basically in two 32 -- 32 of 177 -- rts, the southern part adjoining the Proserpine River and Mt Julian, the northern part being adjacent to Eckert Road. It is a cane farm about 7 kilometres north-east of Proserpine with access via Shute Harbour Road. The farm has a gross assigned area of 91 hectares and a farm peak of 4785 tonnes of average quality cane. In Mr Eisenmenger's description the assigned land comprises loams along the Proserpine River and Palm Creek running back to higher country of light loams then stony forest loams on the easy ridges at Mt Julian. The northern part of the aggregation has brown forest loams with some stone. The balance land is generally stony ridge or gully and creek bank. Mr Eisenmenger says there is a Proserpine Mill tramway and siding at Mt Julian and the mill tramway runs along Eckert Road. His report contains the following "The property is subject to significant flooding from the Proserpine River and Palm Creek which result in crop loss and erosion." Mr Conroy also highlights the flood and erosion disability and tendered photographs portraying some of the damage occasioned by the 1991 flood. Expenditure resulting from this flood damage was said to be in the vicinity of $80,000 and 5500 tonnes of cane was lost. The 1991 flood was abnormal - considered to be of a 1 in 100 year frequency. Mr Conroy says that about one- third of the farm is flood affected every 4 to 5 years. Mr Conroy's valuation is set out as follows: 91 hectares cane_land @ $1,200 Less flooding allowance 5% 33 $109,200 $ 5,460 $103,740 -- 33 of 177 -- 10 hectares arable @ $700 53.2 hectares balance @$100 Total Adopt $116,000 Mr Eisenmenger values the land as follows: 91 hectares assigned cane land @ $1,600 Less Allowances Flooding $7,000 Drainage $1,800 Stone and working $4,800 Add Balance 63.2 hectares unassigned @ $200 Total Adopt $145,000 $ 7,000 $ 5,320 $116,060 $145,600 $13 ,600 $132,000 $12 ,640 $144,640 It can be seen that the major difference between the valuers is the value ascribed to the assigned cane land. Mr Conroy values that land at $1,200 per hectare before the flood allowance and Mr Eisenmenger at $1,600 before allowances. Both rely on the sales evidence provided in the previous appeal (AV91-640) with particular emphasis on the sales Peterson/Large and Peterson/Large, where the analyses were: Mr Conroy - $1,200 and $810 per hectare respectively Mr Eisenmenger - $1,567 and $1,858 per hectare respectively For the reasons given in the previous decision, I prefer the analyses of Mr Eisenmenger as most likely representing the factual situation at the date of sale and in accordance with the contract of sale in the Ruge/Taylor transaction. Both valuers have applied a value before allowances, in line with the Ruge/Taylor sale and it follows that I will adopt Mr Eisenmenger's valuation of the assigned land. He has then been more generous in the overall allowances made for disabilities to include flooding, drainage, stone and working. 34 -- 34 of 177 -- Each valuer, although approaching it in different ways, has found similar amounts for the balance land. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-647 - H. Walsh - Lot 16 R.P. 736944, Parish of Conway - 15.94 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $41,000 - Appellant's estimate $23,000. Situated at Russell Road, off Conway Road, Conway, about 25 kilometres from Proserpine, this is a vacant Rural A zoned site. Mr Conroy says its only use is as a rural residential homesite but one which is quite steep, rising from the 60 metre contour in the south-western corner to the 200 metre contour in the north-east. It is predominantly heavily timbered forest with pockets of thick scrub and rainforest. He describes its disabilities as access, lack of services, lack of water and the steep nature of the land. Russell Road is an unformed road with a rough track "cut by a 10 metre deep gully". Apparently there had been a deep wash-out of the gully at the relevant date and over a period of about four months before it was repaired by the Council, but then at the cost of the appellant who owns other land off Russell Road. Mr Conroy says that neither telephone nor power are available to the site. It seems that in fact these services while not connected are available but with the cost of connection to be borne by the owner. Mr Conroy bases his valuation on four sales, the brief details of which are: (1) Thomas/Raiteri - 20.95 hectares - 11.2.88, $30,000 (valued by the Valuer-General at $45,000) - situated Duval Road. 35 -- 35 of 177 -- r (2) Finlay/Sullivan & Clifford - 2 hectares - 3.11.89, $20,000 (valued by the Valuer-General at $21,000) - situated Monaghan Road. (3) Welsh/Brandejsky - 2.009 hectares - 5.2.90, $33,000 (valued by the Valuer-General at $32,500) - situated Conway Road. (4) Woodman & Co/Fox & Hammond - 118.4 hectares - 16.5.90, $104,000 (Valuer-General's valuation $95,000 - reduced by Land Court to $80,000 (AV91-713)) - situated Saltwater Creek Road. Mr Conroy's evidence is that while the first sale is well before the relevant date, that land also had gazetted but unformed access and no immediate availability of electricity or telephone. He agreed that it did not have ocean views as did the subject land but felt that it offered more physical options for a homesite because it was not as steep as the subject land. It had extensive rural and river views. The second and third sales were of smaller sites with limited views. The fourth sale was a transaction to which reference was made on a number of occasions through these sittings. The owners who had purchased the property shortly after the relevant date of valuation had also appealed against the Valuer- General's valuation of that land. Mr Carter had reduced the valuation from $95,000 to $80,000 on the owner's evidence that a constructed access to the preferred homesite had been through private adjoining property - a fact that was not known to the purchasers at the time of purchase. The sale property was located in an isolated locality with a general (but specifically wet weather) access disability. Mr Conroy gave evidence that one of the purchasers was the President of the Wildlife Preservation Society, and had purchased the land to ensure conservation of its natural attributes and to exclude development. Mr Conroy was convinced that the 36 -- 36 of 177 -- rchase price was too high and probably influenced by the purchaser's specific requirements rather than open market considerations. Mr Carter's interpretation of the owners intentions, based on the owner's sworn evidence, embraces some of what Mr Conroy suggests but the requirements of access to a homesite indicates that the owners' interests in the land embraced not only a desire to preserve its natural features, but also its use as a rural residential retreat. Mr Eisenmenger describes the subject land as being generally elevated, rough in nature, steep in slope, cut by gullies. He says that as the land is elevated there are ocean views available to the south and east. In making his valuation he had particular regard to three sales as follows: (1) Cern/Anders - 19.8 hectares - 21.12.89, $110,000 (unimproved) applied valuation of $100,000 - situated Gilmore Lane, Canon Valley. (2) Damis Nominees Pty Ltd/Lange & Leontjew - 2.002 hectares - 28.9.89, $40,000 (unimproved), applied valuation of $35,000 - situated Allan Road, Conway. (3) Damis Nominees Pty Ltd/Murrie - 2 hectares - 5.10.89, $37,500 (unimproved) applied valuation $35,000 - situated Allan Road, Conway (adjoining sale 2). The first sale was described as a large very steep site difficult to develop but with extensive views, immediate access by formed gravel track for 600 metres, then difficult internal access. It is located about 11 kilometres north of Proserpine. The second and third sale adjoin, fronting a formed gravel road, in the same locality as the subject land, further to the east past the Conway Beach Road turnoff. Mr Eisenmenger describes these sites as being moderate to steeply sloping with fair 37 -- 37 of 177 -- ·al views. In his verbal evidence he says the views are very good from the rear, embracing the ocean. These sites have superior access and are not as steep as the subject land. They are much smaller in area than the subject, which is higher in elevation and in Mr Eisenmenger's opinion, having superior views. He sees both the sale sites as having the advantages of easier contour and better access, but of less overall value than the subject land. Mr Conroy says that Mr Eisenmenger's first sale is in a far more desirable location and the second and third sale are superior in terms of market value to the subject land. Reasons given for this superiority included the access, uninterrupted water views from the rear and that the developer had already paid for the provision of electricity. He says that the only practical site for building on the subject land is in the extreme south-west corner where the views would be obstructed by vegetation on the adjoining land. To select a site of higher elevation in order to gain the better views, was, in his opinion, impractical due to cost considerations. In his opinion the Valuer-General's valuation does not take into consideration the costs with which the owner would be faced in order to provide all-weather access and connection of services. He sees the additional area over and above a standard 2 hectare site as being of little advantage in this matter due to the steepness of the land. I am satisfied that other things being comparable, the larger site, even with its steep contours would fetch more than the nearby 2 hectare sites, under ordinary market considerations. In comparison with the smaller nearby sales, the access to the subject land is obviously inferior. It is said by Mr Conroy that the cost of provision of electricity to these sale properties has been paid but both valuers 38 -- 38 of 177 -- ree the desirable views would be from the rear of the site. The cost of providing electricity to such location from the road would then be at the cost of the purchaser, although logically at lesser cost (lesser distance) than to the south-west corner of the subject site. While Mr Conroy has raised valid matters for consideration, I find his sales evidence of less assistance than that provided by Mr Eisenmenger which is closer to the relevant date and in the case of the smaller sale properties, in the same locality. I am not convinced that the Valuer-General's valuation has been proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-623 - H.D. & G.P. Walsh - Lot 18 on R.P. 733100, Parish of Tawvale - 1061 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $24,000 - Appellants' estimate $17,000. Situated in Kanandah Street, about 1.5 kilometres from the Proserpine Post Office, Lot 18 is a Residential A zoned site backing on to the golf course. It is of irregular shape at the head .of a bitumen sealed, concrete kerbed and channelled cul-de-sac. A single unit dwelling is erected on the site and all town services are available. Mr Conroy values the site at $21,000. He says that it was the last allotment in the street to be sold and built on and that there is a sewer main running through the block at a depth of about 4 metres. He had been informed that before the existing residence could be constructed it had been necessary to have the sewer main encased in concrete at a cost of $10,000 to the owner about 5 years ago. He was not in a position to offer any information as to the precise location of the sewer 39 -- 39 of 177 -- 3in or whether the expenditure was specific to the design of the particular dwelling erected. It emerged that he had not made any allowance for the existence of the sewer main in his valuation. Mr Conroy based his valuation on five vacant residential sites, broad details of which were: (1) Lot 5 Lurline Drive, 809m 2, 3.2.89, $18,000 (V.G. valuation $20,500). (2) Lot 38 Eddie Street, 763m 2 , 6.3.89, $19,000 (V.G. valuation $19,400). (3) Lot 37 Eddie Street, 763m 2 , 2.6.89, $23,000 (V.G. valuation $19,400). (4) Lot 26 Eddie Street, 849m 2 , 27.6.89, $22,000 (V.G. valuation $20,500). (5) Lot 39 Eddie Street, 754m 2 , 10.7.89, $21,000 (V.G. valuation not stated). While the subject land was larger in size, he was of the opinion that any benefit of size was equated by the irregular shape. He agreed that the adjacency of the golf course could be seen to be advantageous, but was of the opinion that his valuation of $21,000 being in excess of the Valuer-General's application of value to his sale properties, took any superiority of the subject land into consideration. Mr Eisenmenger had not been the valuer responsible for the initial valuation, but had inspected the land and the sales used in the Valuer-General's valuation as follows: (1) Lot 104 Spalla Drive, 771m 2, 28.4.89, $26,250 (applied $22,500) (2) Lot 43 Hansen Drive, 771 m 2 , 29.8.89, $24,000 (applied $20,500) (3) Lot 26 Eddie Stret, 849m 2 , 27 .6.89, $22,000 (applied $20,500) (Mr Conroy's sale 4) Mr Eisenmenger is of the opinion that the evidence supports the valuation of the subject land. He said that the valuation maintains previous relativity and represents a 15% increase over the previous valuation. He said that the records 40 -- 40 of 177 -- iicate that the question of the sewer main had not previously been raised as a problem and his enquiries at Council had not revealed its existence. In his opinion the subject land would be regarded as only average for the town which generally suffered some storm water drainage disabilities in times of high rainfall. He felt that the newer estates and particularly the Hansen Drive area - had attracted a better overall standard of dwelling but then in his opinion, the Valuer-General's valuation in those areas represented a generally higher level of value when the size of the sites was considered. The third sale was of a corner site and slightly larger than the first two but also adjoined a large open stormwater drain. In his opinion, all things considered, the subject land as an overall residential site was superior to any of the sale properties. With this, Mr Conroy disagreed. In his opinion, the Hansen Drive area is considered locally to be the premier residential location in Proserpine and the subject land as a site would carry lesser value. The question of comparison is one of opinion, but I have concluded that while the subject land is of irregular shape and not in as prime a location as Hansen Drive, insufficient regard has been given by Mr Conroy to the recognised superiority of the land, particularly in comparison with the common sale, in terms of the size of the site and its cul-de-sac location adjoining the golf course. There is no argument from Mr Eisenmenger that if the subject site was in fact adversely affected by a sewer main then some allowance should be made. There is however no cogent evidence available as to the effect on the unimproved value of the site. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. 41 -- 41 of 177 -- 1 ,peal AV91-620 - Roach Investments Pty Ltd - Lot 15 on R.P. 710342, Parish of Crystalbrook - 943 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $18,200 - Appellant's estimate $15,500. This Residential A zoned site is situated in Telford Street, approximately 450 metres from the Proserpine Post Office. All town services are available and the site is used for single unit residential purposes. It is rectangular in shape with dimensions of approximately 20 metres by 47 metres. Telford Street is a dead-end street with bitumen strip and concrete kerbing and channelling. Mr Conroy says the land falls gently to the rear and has no distinguishing features. He finds the disabilities of the site to be its location "in close proximity to the Proserpine Sugar Mill, Grey's Sawmill and sugar cane farms. The North Coast Railway runs past Telford Street, the resultant noise being a problem." Based on the five sales scheduled in the previous matter (Appeal AV91-623) he assesses the value to be $15,500, with consideration having been given to the disabilities. Again the Valuer-General's valuation was based on the three sales referred to in the previous appeal. Mr Eisenmenger is in agreement with the degree of inferiority found by the original valuer in comparison with the sales. He says "The subject is larger than the sales, however it is in close proximity to the saw mill, railway line, the sugar mill and a cane paddock and it is considered that these factors make it a less attractive property." Most of the verbal evidence and cross-examination involved a comparison with the common sale - a corner site, of slightly smaller area (849 square metres), the main disability being adjacency to an open storm water drain. The values ascribed by the Valuer-General to inside (and slightly smaller) lots near the 42 -- 42 of 177 -- 'Tlmon sale in Eddie Street indicate that either the drain disability was not seen as significant or alternatively the corner position and greater size was of significance. Either way, while the subject site is larger than the common sale and closer to the business centre, there is seen to be some foundation in Mr Conroy's argument that the sale has been applied harshly to the subject land which is located in an area with readily identifiable heavy industrial usage. Mr Eisenmenger's report indicates that he sees the cane fields nearby to the subject land as a disability. While both valuers have identified the disabilities of the subject land, I am swayed by Mr Conroy's argument that the Valuer-General's applied value may not make sufficient allowance for the likely effect on value. On the other hand it seems to me that Mr Conroy has considered the negative features to the exclusion of the positive features of slightly larger size - certainly a factor if relativity with the inside Eddie Street sites was to be a criterion as he argued - then proximity to the business centre. I will adopt an unimproved value of $17,500. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $17,500. Appeal AV91-622 - A.E. Davies - Lot 3 R.P. 713089, Parish of Tawvale - 822 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $20,500 - Appellant's estimate $19,000. This Residential A zoned site is located in Barry Street about 1.2 kilometres from the Proserpine business centre. It is an inside rectangular shaped site with approximate dimensions of 23 metre frontage and 35 metre depth. Barry Street is bitumen sealed to concrete kerbing and channelling. 43 -- 43 of 177 -- Both Mr Conroy and Mr Eisenmenger refer to the same sales as contained in their reports on Appeal AV91-623 and 620. Mr Conroy describes this land as having a gentle fall to the southern (side) boundary. He says the drainage to the streets in this area is inadequate and water from Phaff and Jupp Street flow over the site, draining to the Anzac Avenue drain. If the common sale was used for comparison, he sees the subject land as being inferior, basically due to the flooding. The sale property is disadvantaged by the open drain adjacency, but then its drainage is improved by that facility. The sale has the advantage of being a corner site. He sees the subject land as inferior by far to the Hansen Drive and Spalla Drive sales put forward by the Valuer- General. He values the subject land in the sum of $18,000. Mr Eisenmenger says the subject land is comparable to the common sale and the Hansen Drive property but inferior to the Spalla Drive sale. he agreed under cross-examination that the subject land is subject to some local flooding but does not see that disability as peculiar to Barry Street. The common sale has comparable size but then it has the disability of the drain in terms of its adjacency, but a lesser flooding problem because of it. It is a corner site while the subject is an inside lot. On the evidence before the Court, I am inclined to the view that all things considered, the subject land is not as valuable as the common sale. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $19,500. 44 [1992] QLC 319 -- 44 of 177 -- 1 ,peal AV91-619 - W.N. Barry - Lot 1 on R.P. 709426, Parish of Tawvale - :.!023 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $24,500 - Appellant's estimate $21,500. Situated in Faust Street, about 1 kilometre from the business centre of Proserpine, this Residential A zoned inside lot has relatively normal frontage of about 20 metres but unusually long depth of about 101 metres. The site is developed with a single unit dwelling and is valued on that basis. Again both Mr Conroy and Mr Eisenmenger rely on the sales evidence presented in the appeals AV91-623, 620 and 622. Mr Conroy says that during heavy wets, the land experiences a rapid flow of water across Faust Street to the golf course at the rear, resulting in the gravel driveway being deposited over the front lawn. About 1 metre inside the western boundary is a Council asbestos drainage pipe which he says restricts "any building, garden, or even the driving of vehicles" along that boundary. Finally there is a local rumour that the adjoining large site (about 3260 square metres) to the west of the subject land might be developed by the Queensland Housing Commission with a block of low cost flats. He is of the opinion that the sales in his schedule are of "roughly comparable" land although the subject site has much larger area. He does not accept that the extra area adds significantly to the value of such a site, but agreed that other things being equal the extra area should result in the value being greater than that of any of his sale properties. He holds the opinion, however, that the drainage of the common sale and the Lurline Drive/Eddie Street locality is superior to the subject locality. His valuation of the subject land is $21,000. Mr Eisenmenger is of the opinion that the flooding problem of the subject 45 -- 45 of 177 -- 1d is a relatively common problem in Proserpine. He sees the additional area of the subject site, although back land, as giving the site value superior to any of his scheduled sales. He had not been aware of the existence of the Council drain referred to by Mr Conroy, but felt the block was of sufficient width for the drain to cause no particular problems to normal residential development. The additional area of the subject land would be expected to be a factor influencing value to a significantly greater degree than suggested by Mr Conroy, regardless of the flooding disability. Had the drain inside the western boundary been known to Mr Eisenmenger then I would have seen his valuation to be fair and reasonable. However, on the evidence of Mr Conroy as to the existence of the drain it is reasonable that some allowance should be made. I would not see it as restricting any building design, but it is reasonable to expect that it could cause some nuisance to the construction of access to the rear or establishment of boundary gardens. I will reduce the valuation by a nominal sum of $500 due to the evidence of the existence of the drain. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $24,000. GROUP 2 - MRS R.J. MERRITT'S VALUATIONS Appeal AV91-495 - W.A. & E.P. Deicke - Lot 22 on Plan D9355 - SLPF 05/2109, Parish of Gloucester, 1302 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $40,500 - Appellants' estimate $35,000 .. The land is situated in Mitre Court, Dingo Beach, the street being a bitumen 46 -- 46 of 177 -- 3led cul-de-sac not kerbed or channelled. There is no reticulated water or sewerage but electricity and telephone services are available. Dingo Beach has no educational or medical facilities and only limited shopping facilities. The township is about 42 kilometres north or Proserpine via 20 kilometres of bitumen and the balance gravel roads. Mrs R.J. Merritt was the valuer responsible for the Valuer-General's valuation. She describes the land as a generally level allotment with a north- easterly aspect offering Good ocean views across the esplanade. Mr Conroy does not agree with the description of the available ocean views which he says are limited by dense timber on the esplanade. He values the land at $36,000 and bases his valuation on seven sales in the period from February 1988 through to March 1989. He agreed that there had been increasing levels of value through to about September /October 1989 but then he says the market had fallen. He said it was difficult to prove the real market situation because of the lack of evidence at around the valuation date. Brief details of the sales he had considered were: (1) 706 m 2 site Cowry Street, 12.2.88 $36,500, V.G. valuation $51,000. (2) 610 m 2 site Scallop Court, 7.9.88 $23,000, V.G. valuation $26,500. (3) 705 m 2 site Cowry Street, 15.9.88 $18,000, V.G. valuation $32,000. (4) 617 m 2 site Cowry Street, 7.11.88 $34,000, V.G. valuation $40,500. (5) 832 m 2 site Mitre Court, 24.1.89 $40,000, V.G. valuation $36,500. (6) 727 m 2 site Cowry Street, 3.2.89 $34,000, V.G. valuation $32,000. (7) 707 m 2 she Cowry Street, 7.3.89 $45,500, V.G. valuation $47,500. Mrs Merritt had based her valuation on three sales as follows: (1) (2) 837 m 2 site Cnr Deicke Crescent and Mitre Court, 6.9.89 $55,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $54,500, applied $54,000 708 m 2 site Pioneer Drive, 10.1.90 $37,500, analysed to show an unimproved value of $37,000, applied $35,500. 47 -- 47 of 177 -- (3) 640 m 2 site Pioneer Drive, 26.10.89 $32,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $31,000 applied $28,500. Her comparison of each sale site and its relative superiority or inferiority, supports her valuation of the subject site which is larger than each of the sales. While Mr Conroy does not see size as having any significant effect on value, the larger size of the subject is obviously an advantage. Each of Mrs Merritt's sales is closer to the relevant date, two at the period when Mr Conroy says the market peaked, but one some months after when he believed it was in decline. Mr Conroy's Sale (5) which is in very close proximity, supports the valuation applied to that site by the Valuer-General and appears to me to support Mrs Merritt's valuation of the subject more so than Mr Conroy's valuation. The Valuer-General's valuation has not been proved wrong and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal AV91-496 - W.A. Deicke - Lot 905 on Plan D93510 APF15612, Parish of Gloucester, 797 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $26,000 - Appellant's estimate $24,000 . This land is situated in Trochus Street, Dingo Beach. The street has full width bitumen sealed surface to concrete kerbing and channelling. Mrs Merritt describes this land as being generally level with north-easterly aspect and no sea views. Her basis of valuation here deletes the first sale in the previous appeal (AV91-495), includes her Sales (2) and (3) in that matter, together with an additional sale being of a 1336 square metre site in Trochus Street, sold for $45,000 on 1.12.1989, analysed to show an unimproved value of $44,500, with an application of $44,000. Although in fairly close proximity, the additional sale is 48 -- 48 of 177 -- rveyed as a corner, has significantly larger area and also restricted ocean views. In this matter, Mr Conroy introduces another six sales, this time in the period from November 1988 to March 1989. Brief details are as follows: (1) 858 m 2 Pioneer Drive, 21.11.88 $20,000, V.G. valuation $27,500. (2) 800 m 2 Murex Street, 12.12.88 $24,000, V.G. valuation $27,500. (3) 853 m 2 Murex Street, 6.2.89 $21,000, V.G. valuation $26,500. (4) 874 m 2 Pioneer Drive, 20.2.89 $23,000, V.G. valuation $28,000. (5) 870 m 2 Murex Street, 20.2.89 $21,000, V.G. valuation $25,500. (6) 797 m 2 Trochus Street, 17.3.89 $28,000, V.G. valuation $26,000. Mr Conroy values the subject land at $21,000. It is noted that his Sale (6) is the only one which supports the Valuer-General's valuation one year later (31.3.90). Mr Conroy describes this sale as adjacent to the subject land and identical, but considers it to be a "high" sale. In each case Mrs Merritt's sales, two of which are subsequent to the market peak as described by Mr Conroy, and close the relevant date, support her valuation. Mrs Merritt's sales evidence is considered more reliable in establishing the unimproved value of the land at the relevant date than is generally Mr Conroy's evidence. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-493 - Deicke Enterprises Pty Ltd - Lots 285, 286, 288 and 289 on R.P. 746320, Parish of Gloucester, 3873 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $131,000 - Appellants' estimate $108,000. Lots 285 and 286 are located on the south-western frontage of Olden Court, Hydeaway Bay while Lots 288 and 289 are on the south-eastern frontage of Arkhurst Road. Hydeaway Bay is a beach-side residential development about 45 49 -- 49 of 177 -- 1metres north of Proserpine via bitumen and about 18 kilometres of gravel road. Under ground electricity and telephone services are provided. There is no reticulated water. The developers had been, and are, required to contribute towards upgrading of Dingo Beach Road and the eventual reticulation of water. Mr Conroy explained that the development comprises about 400 lots, less than 10% of which have been built on. When it was first developed in 1986 the marketing campaign was directed towards southern buyers who were flown to Hamilton Island for an overnight stay then to Hydeaway Bay by helicopter. He said very few of the southern buyers visited the development by road but found the setting of the land attractive as was the price level by southern standards. Nevertheless there had been a history of "buy-back" by the original developers then resales at what appeared to be a profit although selling expenses were extremely high. Subsequent to the first stages of development there were several operators in the marketing of lots and Mr Conroy believed that any recorded sale where those operators were involved either as vendor or purchaser were unlikely to be representative of fair market value. Their tactics were such that few sales were made outside of these operators. He said that any lots which had remained unsold would represent the worst blocks in the development. The subject lots were in the hands of the appellant company as a result of a dissolved partnership arrangement with the original joint developer and, in Mr Conroy's opinion, would fall into the inferior category. Mr Conroy provided with his report, a "sales and relativity" schedule of most of the lots in the older Court and Arkhurst Road area. The details of some of the sales were partly explained, but there was insufficient information generally for Mr 50 -- 50 of 177 -- mroy's sales information to be of assistance. One reason for the provision of the information in the schedule was to highlight what Mr Conroy saw to be inconsistency in the application of values by the Valuer-General. It seems to me that largely on the basis of relativity he valued Lots 285 and 286 at $25,000 each. These lots contained areas of 1,052 square metres and 936 square metres respectively, and were sloping with no sea views. He provided the Valuer- General's valuation on the adjoining Lot 284 to the west as being $24,000 and on Lot 174 to the east as being $26,000. These figures were not challenged. Mr Conroy says Lots 285 and 286 are below street level, falling to the rear boundary. He valued Lots 288 and 289, with areas of 918 square metres and 967 square metres respectively at $30,000 each. He described these lots as being sloping, both falling towards the southern boundary. He says that there are limited sea views from both lots but the views could be built out by development on adjoining lands to the north. Mrs Merritt describes Lots 285 and 286 as having a gradual cross-fall away from the road and agrees that no ocean views are available. Her valuation of each of these sites is $33,500 and $35,000 respectively. In her opinion, while the relativity between the valuations of these lots and those of the adjoining Lot 284 (1166 square metres) and Lot 172 (823 square metres) "looked wrong on paper" she believed the relativity to be reasonable due to the topography. Her recollection and description of the local topography did not provide a convincing argument in support of the relativity of valuations under Mr Conroy's challenge. Mrs Merritt described Lots 288 and 289 as falling gradually from the roadway with good sea views available to the north-east. She says that "the views may be 51 -- 51 of 177 -- stricted with future building, however the view will never be totally built out". Her valuations were $38,500 on each lot. Mrs Merritt agreed that the mar:keting techniques by the original developers and subsequent associated operators and the sales to non-local buyers did not offer a sound valuation basis. For that reason she had specifically investigated those sales in Hydeaway Bay only to purchasers who were from the local region. In nearby Dingo Beach where access from Proserpine was common to Hydeaway Bay for most of its distance and where generally similar services were provided; she felt a much more stable market had been created under normal marketing conditions. In her opinion, fair open market value could be established for Hydeaway Bay properties by reference to Dingo Beach sales of comparable land. sales": She said that in making her valuation "reference was had to the following (1) 800 square metre site Roseric Crescent, Hydeaway Bay, sold 4.1.90, $38,500, with application of $35,000. "Glimpse" sea views available, said to be "slightly superior - comparable" to Lots 285 and 286 but inferior to Lots 288 and 289. (2) 800 square metre site Gloucester Avenue, Hydeaway Bay, sold 6.2.90, $65,000 (filled), analysed to show an unimproved value of $54,300 with an application of $51,000. Absolute esplanade frontage - superior to all subject lands. (3) 837 square metre site Corner Deicke Crescent and Mitre Court, Dingo Beach, sold 6.9.89 $54,000 - superior location to all subject lands. (4) 708 square metre site Pioneer Drive, Dingo Beach, sold 10.1.90 $37,500 - considered to have some comparability to Lots 285 and 286, but due to lack of view seen to be inferior to Lots 288 and 289. 52 -- 52 of 177 -- Mr Conroy has no argument with regard to the comparability of Hydeaway Bay and Dingo Beach but says that neither sale at Dingo Beach as referred to by Mrs Merritt could be considered comparable as land, and it was impossible to draw any comparison between the subject lots and the much superior beach front location of Sale (2) at Hydeaway Bay. Mrs Merritt says that where sales were not comparable as land, their inclusion was to lend support to the overall relativity which had been applied. Nevertheless the only sale included in Mrs Merritt's "valuation basis" which is primary evidence is the Sale (1), and it apparently has some physical disability being intersected by a gully, is much closer to the beach front and has differing views. With few sales and generally weak market evidence, the question of relativity of values becomes largely a question of opinion, but one of importance. It is disappointing when the Court is provided with diverse opinions from professional values as to matters of fact - in this case the physical description of the land and its attributes and/or negative features as to topography and available view. The evidence before me leaves me in doubt as to the veracity of the existing relativity of valuations. On the evidence of Mr Conroy it would seem certain that the relativity existing between the subject Olden Street lots and neighbouring lots is wrong. Mrs Merritt says she has given consideration to the question of relativity and says the differences are caused by topography but then had some difficulty in describing the positive features of topography applying to these lands, at least to the degree she suggests is correct. It seems that a re-examination of relativity of valuations in this immediate locality is warranted, but I have concluded that sufficient doubt has been created by the evidence . before this Court to warrant some adjustment. I have 53 -- 53 of 177 -- i;ided to find unimproved values in the amounts of $26,000 for Lot 285 and $27,500 for Lot 286. With regard to Arkhurst Road, I have not been convinced that the market would interpret the views with the same enthusiasm as has Mrs Merritt, particularly in terms of permanency. If the topography was as Mr Conroy described it, one would have expected the value of Lot 288 to be something less than that of Lot 289 yet both valuers saw no difference in value between each lot. Again as a reflection of the doubt created as to permanency of views I will find values of $35,000 for each lot although on the evidence I would have expected a submission that one was more valuable than the other. The questior, arose as to why one and not two valuations issued for these four lots, when all four do not adjoin. Lots 285 and 286 adjoin but then are separated by some distance and a public road from Lots 288 and 289. It was Mr Conroy's submission that the land subject of the following appeal (AV91-492) comprising two further lots in the nearby Blackcurrant Drive, in the same ownership should also be included if it was the policy of the Valuer-General to amalgamate non-adjoining lots for valuation purposes. Section 15 of the Valuation of Land Act deals with "Separate valuation" . Subsection 1(b) reads: . Unless the Valuer-General otherwise directs - Lands which do not adjoin or which are separated by a public road, or are separately owned, shall be separately valued. " It seems on the submission of Counsel for the Valuer-General that in the case of the lands subject of this valuation the Court may accept that the Valuer- General has directed that these lands, not be separately valued at the date relevant to this matter. It also seems on the evidence of Mr Conroy that Lot 286 has 54 -- 54 of 177 -- bsequently been sold. In the meantime, the appellants receive the benefit of the Valuer-General's direction because in the valuation both valuers agree that a bulk allowance of 2½% per lot should apply. The amount of the unimproved value will therefore be calculated as follows: Lot 285 26,000 Lot 286 27,500 Lot 288 35,000 Lot 289 35 ,000 123,500 Less 10% Bulk 12 ,350 $111 , 150 Adopt $111,000 The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the sum of $111,000. Appeal AV91-492 - Deicke Enterprises Pty Ltd - Lots 258 and 259 on R.P.746321, Parish of Gloucester, 1592 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $80,000 - Appellant's estimate $70,000. Lot 258 contains 792 square metres and Lot 259, 800 square metres. Both are situated in Blackcurrant Drive, Lot 258 now being at the corner of Roseric Crescent, Hydeaway Bay. There is no significant difference of opinion between Mr Conroy and Mrs Merritt here as to the physical nature and attributes of the sites. Mr Conroy describes them as elevated sites with good sea views and values each at $40,000 before an allowance of 2½% per lot for bulk. He uses the same schedule of relativity and sales as he did in the previous appeal (AV91-493). Mrs Merritt describes both lots as elevated sites with "easy to moderate 55 -- 55 of 177 -- pe up from the roadway. The north-easterly aspect lends to the excellent water views available from anywhere on these sites. The views cannot be lost with the advent of further building on other lands." Here she says she had reference to the Sales (1), (2) and (3) in the previous appeal. Sale 1 is inferior she says having regard to the "far inferior" views and inferior topography. In valuation terms there is not a lot between the valuers, Mrs Merritt valuing each lot at $42,000 before the allowance for bulk. Mr Conroy has not been successful in creating the doubt here that he did with the quality of the lands in the previous appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-631 - Roach Investments Pty Ltd - Lot 2 on R.P. 748478, Lots 195 to 200 and 225 on R.P. 747096; Lots 169, 175 to 177, 325 and 326 on R.P. 747097; Lots 142, 145, 146 and 155 on R.P. 747098; Lots 187 and 215 on R.P. 747094; Lots 141, 143, 144, 160, 161, 181, 182 and 184 to 186 on R.P. 747095; Lots 148, 150, 153 and 154 on R.P. 747099 and Balance Lot 1 on R.P. 748478, Parish of Gloucester, 31.91 hectares - Valuer- General's valuation $920,000 - Appellant's estimate $650,000. The land involved in this appeal comprises 33 developed lots in the latest stage of development at Hydeaway Bay together with two balance areas. Mrs Merritt has valued the land under the provisions of Section 11 (D) of the Valuation of Land Act, when a beneficial result would be expected to flow to the owner who develops land and is in the process of marketing it. The relevant Section reads as follows: {1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except subsection (2), where an owner subdivides his land into 6 or more parts the parts that continue to be owned by him (being not less than 6) shall be deemed to form a single parcel and shall be valued as such pursuant to this Act (notwithstanding that the same may 56 -- 56 of 177 -- not adjoin) and in valuing that parcel any enhancement in the value thereof by reason of works carried out by that owner on the land so subdivided shall be disregarded: Provided that the unimproved value of that parcel shall be not less than 5 times the average unimproved value of the parts continuing to be so owned and for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of each such part it shall be taken to be a part to which this section does not apply. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the operation of section 11 (1 )(vii)." Hydeaway Bay has telephone and electricity services available. There is no reticulated water or sewerage. The developer was required to pay headworks contributions for the provision of water and a contribution towards the upgrading of the Dingo Beach Road. While the area of the land is said to be 31.91 hectares, no doubt based on original surveys, the total area of the remaining surveyed residential lots is said to be 3.0412 hectares while the balance areas total 29.31 hectares, making an overall total of 32.35 hectares which is the area valued by Mrs Merritt. Her approach to the valuation was to find an overall in globe value of the total area as a commencing point. Based on one sale, in January 1990, of an unimproved in globe parcel of 21.95 hectares at Shute Harbour Road Cannonvale, showing $52,000 per hectare, described as comprising about 8 hectares of gentle to easy sloping land with the balance steep to very steep country, she assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as being $23,000 per hectare overall. She then isolated the area subject of the residential subdivision as being 9.884 hectares, and (based on the pro rata overall value of $23,000 per hectare) as having value of $227,341. To this sum she added the headworks charges of $2,500 per lot for water and $2,200 per lot for external road which amounts had been paid by the developer. 84 lots were created, the total headworks charges amounting to 57 -- 57 of 177 -- 94,800. The total value of the land plus headworks charges became $622,141. The aggregated area contained within the subdivided lots, excluding road and pathways, reduced to either 7.7961 hectares or 7.7691 hectares (a typographical error appearing in one or other of the figures in the written report), indicating an in globe value for the aggregated area exclusive of roads of about $80,000 per hectare. The unsold lots contain an aggregated area of 3.0412 hectares. Mrs Merritt's valuation then became: 3.0412 hectares at $80,000 per hectare - 29.31 hectares at $23,000 per hectare - Say $920,000 $243,296 $674,130 $917.426 The methodology adopted by Mrs Merritt is in accordance with that approved by my learned colleague Mr Carter in Riverside Drive Estate Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General 1988-89 12 QLCR 165. Mrs Merritt's total exercise then required the check to ensure compliance with the "statutory mini~um" provision that her valuation was not less than five times the average unimproved value of the parts continuing to be so owned. This statutory minimum on her calculation would have been $275,000. Mr Conroy had no argument with the level of value applied by Mrs Merritt to the individual surveyed lots in her exercise in establishing the statutory minimum value. His report had deleted a number of the lots involved in the appeal, but he had not attempted the exercise of valuing the land in accordance with Section 11 (D) of the Act. His primary argument was that Mrs Merritt's valuation of the in globe balance land was too high. He agreed that the valuation task was made difficult by the lack of sales of comparable in globo land in the locality. In his 58 -- 58 of 177 -- )inion the unimproved value of the balance of Lot 1 and Lot 2 on R.P. 748478 was $10,000 per hectare. He provided a schedule of nine sales of in globo land, two of which sales involved Hydeaway Bay land but not arms-length transactions and a third of a much larger tourist resort site in the general locality but not comparable for valuation purposes. The remaining six sales (one of which was a partial resale) were of land in the town of Whitsunday locality. Broad details of the sales are as follows: (1 )& 54.42 hectares - $31,790 per hectare, 11.1.89, then a resale of 40.42 (2) hectares, 30.3.90 for $39,585 ·per hectare comprising the better section of the property with elevation and sea views (Valuer-General's valuation $34,635 per hectare). Mr Conroy's verbal evidence was that the land had been subdivided subsequently as a very well presented residential estate which was being marketed in the range of $105,000 to $185,000 for individual lots. In his opinion the land was by far superior to the subject land. (3) 64. 72 hectares - $21,630 per hectare, 1.2.89 - no sea views but good access and close to services. (4) 10.19 hectares - $107,950 per hectare, 20.2.89 - elevated land, good sea views, good access, close to all services, approval for 109 lots but purchaser subsequently in receivership - considered by Mr Conroy as being a high sale. (5) 14 hectares - $29,285 per hectare, 13.3.89 - undulating to steep land, part with sea views. (6) 53.58 hectares - $55,990 per hectare, 23.8.89 - undulating to elevated, steep in parts, part with excellent sea views. In Mr Conroy's opinion the one sale used by Mrs Merritt was at a high level of value, an opinion which he believed to be supported by the fact that the mortgagee subsequently took possession of the development. The initial asking prices of the developed lots were in the range of $70,000 to $105,000. He saw his 59 -- 59 of 177 -- le (2) and the Valuer-General's adoption of that level of value for that sale property as supporting his opinion relative to Mrs Merritt's sale. Mr Conroy described the balance areas of the subject land as having future subdivisional potential, comprising the remaining unsubdivided land in Hydeaway Bay. In his written report he describes this land as "mostly undulating, low-lying and with no sea views. It is inland of the existing development". In his verbal evidence he confirmed that Lot 2 had no sea views, but said that "the other" (balance Lot 1) does have sea views but from very steep land which would be difficult to develop. He also indicated that the design of the existing subdivision had made no provision for road access to this later balance area. This appeared to be the situation (at least in the southern section of balance of Lot 1). The sales evidence available to the valuers is in a vastly different location to the subject land. It is evident that both see the subject locality as significantly inferior to the location of any of the sale properties, and both recognise the need to make allowance for that location disability including consideration of the access and general lack of services. No specific method of comparison was put forward and there is no evidence before the Court as to the testing of conclusions by either valuers. Courts have consistently referred to the dangers inherent in the hypothetical development approach to valuation of in globo property, and the preference for a basis to be provided by sales evidence. However, it seems to me, that .the method of hypothetical development at least provides a means of checking conclusions where professional opinion needs to be formulated on the evidence of sales of land which is clearly not comparable in terms of value. Mrs Merritt sees a single sale showing $52,000 per hectare as supporting her rather precise value of 60 -- 60 of 177 -- 3,000 per hectare for the subject in globo land. Mr Conroy offers more sales evidence much of which is, apart from being removed in locality, removed in time from the relevant date. It would seem that he considers his best evidence as being the Sale (2) at $39,585 per hectare as supporting his valuation of the subject balance land at $10,000 per hectare. During the sittings reference was made to Mr Conroy's Sale (2) on several occasions. It seems that while the Valuer-General had applied a value to the sale land which was supported by the sale (which took place virtually at the relevant date), Mrs Merritt had subsequently been informed by a colleague that there were circumstances surrounding the sale and the transfer of a house on other land, which made the transaction unreliable as evidence of open market value. Although here preliminary investigations had indicated otherwise, she accepted her colleagues advice and had decided the sale providing evidence of value. Mr Conroy's evidence indicated that he had a closer knowledge of the transaction than did Mrs Merritt. He is adamant that the sale was an open market transaction, was not clouded by any other transaction and the evidence provided by the sale was a reliable guide to market value. If the land is as superior as he says it is in comparison with the subject land, then the Valuer-General's valuations of $35,000 per hectare on the sale property and $23,000 per hectare on the subject land would appear to be too close. Where the evidence to support the Valuer-General's valuation at least of the undeveloped subject land is so weak, and as some doubt has been caused by Mr Conroy's introduction of Sale (2), and in an overall unclear situation, I see the need to review the Valuer-General's in globo valuation of the subject land. It is clear that 61 -- 61 of 177 -- l Valuer-General's valuation of $23,000 per hectare was interpreted as reflecting an overall value of the deemed single parcel which needed to be considered in terms of the legislation. I have concluded that on a pro rata basis that valuation is too high. I do not accept that it is then contrary to the legislation to find that all parts of a deemed single lot . are necessarily of equal value (before consideration of headworks charges). Doing the best that can be decided on the evidence and opinions provided, I would have difficulty accepting that the pro rata value applied by Mrs Merritt to the developed land (excluding headworks contribution) represented any significant under-valuation of that component part, although it may well be found to be conservative, based on the individual lot valuations. I will adopt Mrs Merritt's valuation on that land. However, it is clear that the undeveloped land has less potential than did the developed land in its in globo state. It has generally inferior topography and should carry significantly lower value on a relative in globo basis. I will determine its value at $15,000 per hectare. The end result on the basis of Section 11 (D) of the Act is: 3.0412 hectares @ $80,000 per hectare - 29.31 hectares @ $15,000 per hectare - Total Adopt $685,000 243,296 439 ,650 $682,946 The amended valuation remains well in excess of the "statutory minimum" which would reduce on the amended valuations to $245,000. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value of the land is determined in the amount of $685,000. 62 -- 62 of 177 -- peal AV91-813 - G. & M. Sawtell - Lot 46 on R.P. 744453, Parish of Gloucester, 800 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $64,000 - Appellants' estimate $40,000. The land subject of this appeal is situated in Gloucester Avenue, Hydeaway Bay. It enjoys frontage to the unformed beach front esplanade. The Valuer-General's valuation, carried out by Mrs Merritt, is based on three sales: (1) Lot 24 Gloucester Avenue, 800 square metres, sold 6.2.90, $65,000, in filled condition, analysed to show an unimproved value of $54,300, applied value of $51,000. In its unimproved condition, the land, forming part of the frontage dunal system with gullies and low lying areas, required approximately 2 metres of imported fill. Mrs Merritt says in its unimproved condition, it is inferior to the subject land. Both lots have esplanade frontage. (2) Lots 204 Roseric Crescent, 800 square metres, sold 4.1.90, $38,500, analysed unimproved value $38,000, applied valued $35,000. Considered far inferior to subject in location and topography. (3) Lot 125 Mitre Court, Dingo Beach, 837 square metres, sold 6.9.89, $55,000, analysed unimproved value $54,500, applied value $54,000. Considered inferior, separated from esplanade by road, good ocean views screened by trees. The sales evidence used by Mrs Merritt has been discussed in other Hydeaway Bay and Dingo Beach appeals. Mr Conroy's valuation of the site is $50,000. His report includes a schedule showing the sales history of fourteen lots, with sale dates ranging from early 1989 through to early 1990, in many cases involving either the original developer or subsequent professional marketers (sales which Mr Conroy had warned of in earlier hearings as being unreliable evidence). Included in the schedule was the sale in Gloucester Avenue used by Mrs Merritt. 63 -- 63 of 177 -- Mr Conroy agreed that the level of value applied to the subject land would have been reasonable had filling not been carried out. The appellant had been involved in earth moving work in the original development of Hydeaway Bay and had informed Mr Conroy that the subject lot had in fact been filled. He had not been provided with any specific details as to quantity of fill, but knew that the Valuer-General had made allowance for filling on some of the other frontage dunal lots such as Lot 24 (the sale lot). He felt that the subject valuation should recognise the information as to filling provided by the owner. Mrs Merritt agreed that she had not interviewed the appellant/ owner but said that an inspection did not reveal any evidence of the natural contours having been altered. Where fill had been allowed for on other lots it was obvious that the filling had been carried out being able to be identified by comparison with adjoining lands and the nature of the local draining system. Mr Conroy complains that insufficient investigation has been carried out by the Valuer-General. The onus is, of course, on the owner and in this case Mr Conroy as agent for the owner to prove that the Valuer-General has erred. Mr Conroy brings no evidence to the Court other than heresay, to support his contention. It is appreciated that fill can become an "invisible" improvement, but I accept what Mrs Merritt says in that where adjoining lands remain in natural condition, the nature of the dunal area would be expected to be such as to provide at least an indication of fill. Until the appellant can verify the claim, possibly by original survey contour information, it must fail, as does this appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. 64 -- 64 of 177 -- I ' >peal AV91-632 - T. & M. Mott - Lot 4 on R.P. 741933, Parish of Dryander, 30.98 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $65,000 - Appellants' estimate $40,000. Located off the Dingo Beach Road, approximately 20 kilometres north of Proserpine, the subject land is· zoned Rural A and, according to Mr Conroy is used for grazing and fruit growing. He describes the land as comprising steep timbered ridges in the eastern half falling through sloping forest to level to undulating forest frontage in the western half. He says the land is broken by a number of gullies and along the southern boundary is a hard stony timbered hill which is fenced out. He describes the disabilities of the land as its very stony soils and the area of "steep heavily timbered unavailable mountain" comprising about 20% of the property. Mr Conroy values the land at $40,000. He says that the property was purchased shortly after the relevant date with the intention by the purchasers of it being used for the business of primary production, based on the growing of small crops, fruit trees and the grazing of cattle. Details of the sale and his analysis are as follows: Purchased by appellants on 18.4.90 Less Structures including interest Fencing including interest Water including interest Timber Treatment including interest Fruit Trees Less Development Interest 29,505 4,900 3,970 2,890 7,500 48,765 6,689 $105,000 55,454 $49,546 Mr Conroy interprets the sale as showing $1,615 per hectare unimproved or a rural homesite value of $50,000, but then suggests that if Section 11 (1)(vii) of the 65 -- 65 of 177 -- iluation of Land Act was to apply (used exclusively for the business of primary production) then it should be valued at $1,250 per hectare or $40,000. Included in his schedule of sales is the Leet/Lorraway sale on 9.3.90 which he analysed to show an overall $537 .60 per hectare (with a potential arable component of 56 hectares at $1,200 per hectare). This sale had not been analysed by the Valuer-General but Mr Conroy has referred to it and the sale has been discussed in ·other appeals where the value of primary production land was relevant. A sale from Johnstone to Kalfax Pty Ltd of 51.77 hectares on 9.5.89 for $134,000 was analysed by Mr Conroy to show an unimproved value of $73,500 (Valuer-General's applied valued $95,000) or $1,419 per hectare. He says the sale land is marginally inferior to the subject in terms of useable land area, but may have some subdivisional potential influence. Mr Conroy says the subject property presently runs 19 head of cattle and then lists the fruit growing activities as including 80 banana trees, 20 citrus trees, 20 custard apple trees, 2,500 paw paw trees, 20 avocado trees, 100 mango trees and 50 kumquat trees. No specific evidence is provided as to the business operation or the business plan in the period relevant to this valuation (from the date of valuation through to the date of issue/display). At the date of sale there were, according to Mr Conroy, 50 kumquat trees (which he valued at $50 each) and 50 mango trees (valued at $100 each). Mrs Merritt describes the land as comprising easy to moderately sloping, rising to steeper ridges and its use as being as a rural residential homesite. She says that "Access to the property is good although the legal access is not actually 66 -- 66 of 177 -- :med and physical access is obtained from Dingo Beach Road onto the south- western corner of the block." Mrs Merritt had not used the sale of the subject improved property in her valuation basis, preferring to compare the site with sales of vacant, lightly improved land. Nevertheless some one year after the date of sale she had inspected the property and interviewed a relation of the purchasers. In her opinion the sale would analyse to support her valuation. Her information as to the state of the property and improvements at the time of sale and her analysis (given verbally) varied significantly to the details contained in Mr Conroy's analysis. On the state of the evidence, there is seen the distinct possibility that Mrs Merritt had not been properly informed of renovations and additions to the house since the purchase. She had valued fencing at a nominal amount as her information was that most of the fencing had been replaced since the date of sale. If there had been the citrus and mango plantation she was not aware of it from her inspection and in her opinion the 15 hectares of clearing mentioned by Mr Conroy would have added only relatively nominal value to a rural residential site. If it was the only sales evidence available in this matter I would find that Mr Conroy's analysis would have been more reliable, although the question arises as to the added value of some of the improvements. He has made enquiries as to the added value of plantation orchards, but he did not know the age of the trees said to be on the property at the date of sale, and, on his own evidence, "they had not been tended for some time". Had the purchasers acquired the property for the business of primary production, and Mr Conroy's analysis been accepted totally, it seems to me that such analysis could have been argued to indicate at least the purchasers' view of its worth in terms of Section 11 (1)(vii) of the Act, rather than the lower amount with 67 -- 67 of 177 -- ant evidentiary support as suggested by Mr Conroy. In any event I am not convinced that at the relevant period, the property was being exclusively used for the business of primary production, regardless of the purchasers' stated intent. If that situation has subsequently changed then it will be a matter for consideration on revaluation at a later date, although for the appellants to prove that a business is being conducted there needs to be detailed evidence to support such contention. The question of exclusive use for the business of primary production, and matters which need to be considered were discussed at length recently by the Land Appeal Court in Crawford v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 138. Having decided that the land at the relevant date should be valued as a rural residential site, there remains the evidence of how the analysis of the improved subject property should be viewed, in light of the vacant or lightly improved sales evidence provided by Mrs Merritt. She relies on three sales to form her valuation basis, as follows: (1) A 19.8 hectare site in Gilmore Lane, Cannon Valley, sold on 21.12.89 for $110,000 unimproved. It is a smaller better located site with steeper topography but with excellent views and Mrs Merritt sees it as significantly superior to the subject land. (2) A sale of two sites comprising a total area of 105.3 hectares for $270,000 on 2.5.90. This land is situated in Moranino Road, Cannon Valley. Mrs Merritt analysed the sale to show an unimproved site value of $120,000 for a 40.5 hectare site and $140,000 for a 64.8 hectare site. She says the sale land is similar in topography to the subject but superior in location. (3) A 2.091 hectare site in Dingo Beach Road in close proximity to the subject land sold on 23.10.89 for $33,000 showing an analysed unimproved value of $32,000. Mrs Merritt includes this much smaller sale to "demonstrate levels of value and the relativity between different size sites. 68 -- 68 of 177 -- None of the sales are seen to offer a strong basis for direct comparison, yet the sale of the small nearby site then the much higher level~ of value indicated for superior sites, indicates to me that the Valuer-General's valuation of the subject land is not unreasonable. I have formed the opinion that Mr Conroy's analysis of the sale of the subject land would provide an unreliable basis, as he has analysed it, to identify the rural homesite value. Mrs Merritt has also indicated in her comments that consideration has been given to the position relative to legal access to the property. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. AV91-633 - W. & J. Eastwood - Lot 1 R. P. 747086, Parish of Dryander, 2.04 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $38,000 - Appellant's estimate $30,000. This appeal relates to a vacant rural-residential site zoned "Rural A Pastoral", situated in Sugarloaf Road about 12.5 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office, via bitumen and 2 kilometres of gravel road. Electricity and telephone services are available. Mr Conroy describes the land as undulating and cut by a sharp creek at the rear. His valuation is $30,000. A schedule containing nine sales is included with his report. Brief details are: (1) Ekert/Kinder - 2 hectares, Sugarloaf Road, 16.9.88 $44,000 (V .G. $45,000). (2) Stinson/Carlton Inn Pty Ltd - 1.984 hectares, Sugarloaf Road, 8.3.89 $46,575, resold to McLeod, 27.4.89 $60,000 (V.G. $43,000). (3) Ekert/Jackson - 2.741 hectares, Sugarloaf Road, 27.9.89 $41,000 (V.G. $44,000). 69 -- 69 of 177 -- ) Airlie Magpie/Webster - 1.622 hectares, Dominique Road, 23.10.89 $41,000 (V.G. $39,000). (5) Ogilvie/Stevenson - 2.002 hectares, Cannon Valley Road, 13.12.89 $35,000 (V.G. $33,000). (6) Ogilvie/Pont & Talbot - 2.127 hectares, Cannon Valley Road, 3.1.90 $46,000 (V.G. $35,500). (7) Ogilvie/Wood - 2.044 hectares, Cannon Valley Road, 20.1.90 $43,500 (V.G. $35,500). (8) Ekert/Wright - 2.446 hectares, Sugarloaf Road, 2.2.90 $45,000 (V.G. $44,000). (9) Baritone Holdings/Lariat Pty Ltd - 2 hectares Pringle Road, 31.5.90 $32,500. Mrs Merritt's valuation of $38,000 is based on three sales, two of which are in common with Mr Conroy's Sales (5) and (8). The third sale is: Ekert/Blackwood - 2.053 hectares, Sugarloaf Road, 27.10.89 $52,500 (V.G. $45,000). She describes the land as having an easy to moderate slope up from the roadway and says good rural views are available. In her opinion, the common sale (Mr Conroy's 5) is an inferior parcel to the subject, situated on a major roadway with "no redeemable features". Mr Conroy believes this sale to be the most comparable to the subject. He says while it is on a busy road, it has better access being full bitumen, not cut by creek crossings as the access to the subject land can be in exceptional wet seasons. He says the views are restricted to within the immediate locality and more comparable to those available from the subject land. He is of the opinion that Mrs Merritt's description of good views being available from the subject site is an over statement. 70 [1992] QLC 318 -- 70 of 177 -- It was revealed during cross-examination of Mrs Merritt that her inspection of the property was limited to what she could see from the road. She could see that the land rose gradually from the road to a crest then she "assumed" it sloped away to the rear. Her description of available view was based on a no doubt logical assumption that with the rising elevation from the road the view improved. Nevertheless, the weight which may be placed on Mrs Merritt's evidence as to the overall physical nature of the subject land, the available views, and its specific comparability with the sales, has been reduced substantially. It is appreciated that with annual valuations there is insufficient time permitted for other than cursory (if at times any) inspections of individual lots and the valuer, of necessity must rely largely on previous relativity and descriptions of those who have gone before. However when a valuation is challenged and its validity is to be tested before the Court, it is clearly impossible for a valuer to give credible evidence if a reasonable inspection has not been carried out, not only of the land subject of the valuation, but the sales evidence on which reliance is placed. A "reasonable" inspection would be no less than a prudent purchaser would be expected to undertake in making a judgment as to the quality of the land, and would depend not only on the nature of the land but the size of the parcel. A potential purchaser of the subject property who ventured no further than the front boundary would not, in my mind, be considered prudent. Mr Conroy's inspection discovered the creek at the rear and he sees the views, even from the most elevated section as being "limited" to the immediate locality. I must accept his description. He says that of all the Sales, his sales (5), (6) and (7) are the most comparable, in terms of land, yet (6) and (7) are at much 71 -- 71 of 177 -- Jher levels of value and he sees those sales as being unreliable. That opinion seems confirmed by the Valuer-General's application of value to those lots. It must be said that in the majority of cases the sales evidence is supportive of the Valuer-General's valuations and the relativity generally established. Even with the limited inspection carried out by Mrs Merritt, it would seem that to accept Mr Conroy's valuation would be placing too much emphasis on the effect of the gravel road and occasional wet weather access problems to the subject lands. It seems that at least part of the subject land is physically superior to Sales (5), (6) and (7). On the basis that I accept Mr Conroy's description of the available view, I will reduce the valuation to slightly greater than the highest applied to the land in Mr Conroy's Sales (5), (6) and (7). The appeal is allowed the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the sum of $36,000. Appeal AV91-635 - G. & S. Hope - Lot 5 on R.P. 736942, Parish of Dryander, 3.481 hectares - Valuer-General's Valuation $52,000 - Appellants' estimate $42,000. This property is in the same general locality as the previous appeal (AV91-- 633) although somewhat closer to Airlie Beach which is 9 kilometres distant via bitumen roads. The land is surveyed with a rather narrow frontage to Riordonvale Road in relation to its depth then has a long narrow access strip frontage to Sugarloaf Road at the rear or western boundary. Mr Conroy describes the land as rising steeply from the road with distant and limited sea views fr_om the highest point. He says that where the land has been cleared (for the access driveway) it is subject to severe erosion - so much so 72 -- 72 of 177 -- 1t the Council has threatened to charge the owners for removal of material which washes onto the road. He says that the western access strip to Sugarloaf Road is so steep and narrow to be of no practical use. He uses a similar sales schedule to that in the previous matter. Here, he says Sales (5), (6) and (7) are considerably inferior although (6) and (7) are high sales. Sales (1 ), (3) and (8) are of similar elevation, are less susceptible to erosion, but do not enjoy the distant sea views. His Sale (2) actually adjoins the subject, the first transaction to a local developer who then on-sold within a short period to an interstate buyer at an abnormally high price. He says Sale (4) is probably the closest comparison to the subject in terms of topography, but again that land does not have the sea views. Overall he says Sale (1) (an early sale) then Sales (3), (4) and (8) are the most comparable. He values the subject land at $42,000. Mrs Merritt describes this land as having an easy to moderate slope with good rural views available. Again she has not been on the land, her description based on what she could see from the road. In this case she was not aware of the distant sea views. Her basis was derived from the common sale - Mr Conroy's Sale (8) ($45,000 applied $44,000) and the Ekert/Blackwood sale ($52,500 applied $45,000). Mr Conroy says that the Ekert/Blackwood sale which is in the same subdivision as Sales (1), (3) and (8), while shown to have taken place in October 1989, was really negotiated in May 1989. Mrs Merritt's evidence indicates that she placed some weight on the larger area of the subject site as compared to the sales and saw the dual access as an advantage. She did not consider the relatively narrow width of the block to be any 73 -- 73 of 177 -- .rticular disability. Mr Conroy says at least part of the extra area is taken up in the useless access strip survey and sees the shape as a disability in terms of comparison with most of the sales. Mr Conroy has obviously carried out a more acceptable inspection than has Mrs Merritt and I lean more to his opinions as a result. Nevertheless I feel the overall evidence would support a valuation higher than he has found. I will adopt an unimproved value in the amount of $46,000. The appeal is allowed and the Valuer-General's valuation set aside accordingly. Appeal AV91-810 - Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd and Ors - Lot 108 on Plan HR307, Parish of Dryander, 48.26 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $130,000 - Appellants' estimate $70,000. Mr Conroy describes this vacant land as having potential for future subdivision. It is zoned Rural A, situated off the Riordonvale Road about 13 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office by bitumen then about 1 kilometre of gravel road. Electricity and telephone are not connected. The land is described as being undulating to sloping timbered forest in the southern section rising to steep heavily timbered country in the north. Attractive rural views are available. Mr Conroy values the land at $72,500 which is the equivalent of $1,500 per hectare. He says that the land was purchased by a local developer in late 1988, for $2,000 per hectare; the purchaser's intention being to subdivide the land into rural residential lots. In his opinion the market for this type of land has fallen 20-25% from the date of sale tci the date of valuation. He selected four sales of in globo land to assist in his valuation. These sales showed values of $3,944 per hectare for 38.03 hectares (February 1988); $6,753 per 74 -- 74 of 177 -- :tare for 42.2 hectares (March 1990); $10,857 per hectare for 46.05 hectares (May 1990) and $1,784 per hectare for 56.04 hectares {August 1990). The first, third and fourth examples had subsequently been subdivided as rural residential sites. In his opinion, the fourth sale was the only one comparable, although still superior. He understood the transaction to be an arms length sale. It was Mrs Merritt's understanding that the parties involved in the fourth sale of Mr Conroy were associated. Mrs Merritt says that access to the subject land is fair, comprising 300 metres of unformed road then 450 metres of dozed track to earth and bitumen roads. She described the land as comprising approximately 20% open to lightly timbered easy sloping to steep stony forest ridges with the balance being steep scrubby mountain, the southerly aspect offering good rural views from elevated sites. Her valuation is based on its value as a rural site. She had interviewed a director of the appellant company who had advised her that when the property had been purchased the price was considered reasonable as a long term investment. The purchase price was $100,000 in November 1988 and as the market had increased to a peak in about October 1989 before declining, she believed the purchase supported her valuation. Her main basis was provided by three other sales as follows: (1) Moranino/Della Vale - 105.3 hectares in two surveyed lots, sold 2.5.90 for $270,000 analysed to show site values of $140,000 and $160,000 (before allowance for bulk) for a 40.5 hectare site and a 64. 7 hectare site respectively. This land is not as steep as the subject land but is further from Airlie Beach and regarded as slightly inferior. This sale has been used generally as a basis by the Valuer-General for the larger rural homesite valuation. 75 -- 75 of 177 -- Cern/Anders - 19.8 hectares, sold 21.12.89 $110,000 (applied $100,000), abuts rural residential subdivision, moderate to steep vine forest with excellent views, 600 metres of dozed track access to bitumen road. This sale has also been used generally for a basis for the valuation of the larger rural homesites with above average views. (3) E.N. Woodsman & Co/Fox & Hammond - 118.4 hectares, sold 16.5.90 ($104,000 unimproved, Land Court determination $80,000), moderate to steeply sloping tropical vine scrub merging with coastal forest - poor access. This sale has also been widely used by the Valuer-General as representative of value for the larger poorer sites. Mr Conroy is of the opinion that Sale (1) was purchased for primary production use (grazing) and is not representative of site values and his opinion as to the non suitability of the third sale for use in establishing rural homesite values has been expressed whenever it is used by the Valuer-General. He takes the view that it is wro,-ig to use rural site sales in the valuation of the subject land because he sees its potential as being for future subdivision. There is a market demonstrated for the larger rural sites by the evidence provided and regardless of the intention of the purchasers, that evidence seems to me to set base levels of value, for sites within the range of topography and location as described. It would be seen as unusual for a purchaser with primary production (grazing) i,ntentions, to pay greater than rural homesite values (or to be able to purchase at less than that level of value) while land with subdivisional potential even if distant, would normally command some premium in value. I do not see the subject land as being unfairly treated in terms of the valuation basis adopted by the Valuer-General. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. 76 -- 76 of 177 -- ,peal AV91-807 - W. Schwind - Lot 1 R.P. 746059, Parish of Dryander, 18.61 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $90,000 - Appellant's estimate $66,000. This appeal will succeed or fail on whether or not it is found to be exclusively used for the business of primary production when Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act would require consideration. The land is situated in Telford Road, about 14 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office with about 1 kilometre of gravel road access past the bitumen. Mrs Merritt valued the land as a rural homesite and while her inspection was limited to a view from the road boundary, Mr Conroy agrees that as a rural site a valuation of $90,000 would not be unreasonable. However it is his case that the land is used exclusively for the running of cattle by the owner of adjoining lands. He says there is no house on the land, while the Valuer-General's records indicate the presence of a dwelling. In light of the inspections carried out by the valuers, if the matter was to be settled on the existence of a dwelling then Mr Conroy's evidence would be accepted. The matter does not so rest however. For his case to succeed Mr Conroy needed not only to show that cattle are being grazed but that the land was being used exclusively for the "business" of grazing. He knows something about the activities of the person grazing the cattle but has no detail of the actual scale of that operation or the arrangement with the appellant, or indeed any evidence which might assist in establishing whether the use is in fact part of a business operation. The onus is on the appellant to provide such information if it is to be shown that the Valuer-General has erred, in not valuing the land under Section 11 (1 )(vii) of 77 -- 77 of 177 -- 1 ) Act. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-636 - W.P. Smith - Lot 20 R.P. 747991 Parish of Dryander, 1.997 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $65,000 - Appellant's estimate $55,000. This land is situated at the north-eastern head of the Black Road cul-de-sac about 9.5 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office. It is a steeply sloping site and heavily timbered. Views to the sea have been opened up by the lopping of trees on the site. Mr Conroy points out that the area available for building was limited to a small area in the north-east frontage and adjacent to a surveyed access strip to the adjoining Lot 19. He says that the land is not stable and clearing for the homesite has caused mud slides and erosion. There is concern as to the effect of the clearing of the Lot 19 access strip and the need for construction of a retaining wall. Mr Conroy sees the Black and nearby Paluma Road subdivisions as being of generally better quality than most local developments. He restricted his sales evidence to that immediate locality but the only recent sale was of the subject land which had been purchased by the appellant in September 1989 for $105,000. He provided details of two sales in Paluma Road Lot 8, 2.012 hectares on 15.9.88 for $85,000 (V.G. $63,000); Lot 14, 2.154 hectares on 6.12.88 for $75,000 (V.G. $62,000) and another in Black Road, Lot 6 2.024 hectares on 14.12.88 for $87,000 (V.G. $74,000). It was his opinion that the market in 1988 was higher than at the date of valuation. His valuation of the subject land was $55,000. Mrs Merritt describes the views available from the site as excellent. Apart 78 -- 78 of 177 -- 1m the sale of the subject land (which she did not apply "as it was considered it did not represent the conservative market trends shown by other sales"), Mrs Merritt referred to the sale of Lot 35, 2.123 hectares in Orchid Road, Cannon Valley for $72,500 (application $66,500) on 16.1.90 in her valuation basis. She regarded the sale as slightly superior, especially with regard to its more convenient location to Cannonvale/Airlie Beach. While both had difficult topography, she felt the subject land had greater problems for development. The sale land had good rural views but she felt in its natural state, the views did not encompass the sea. Reference was made to a "24 hour rock-crushing plant" in the vicinity of the sale, but not so close as to cause a major disability. Mr Conroy felt that the sale land could have sea views although not readily accessible. He disputed that the quarry was a 24 hour operation at the date of sale. He agreed however that apart from the erosion problems of the subject land, the sale land was reasonably comparable. On Mr Conroy's evidence the subject land has proved to have instability problems when cleared, a disability he says the appellant would not have had knowledge of at the time of his purchase. Nevertheless, the appellant did pay considerably more for the land than the Valuer-General's valuation. Mr Conroy's contention that values at the date of valuation were lower than at the later 1988 period is unable to be proved. The evidence before the Court in this sittings generally is that values rose until the latter part of 1989 before declining but the extent of the decline as suggested by Mr Conroy, at least as at the relevant date, is not evident in those sales which took place closer to that date. In this matter, Mrs Merritt's valuation would be seen to be conservative even 79 -- 79 of 177 -- the 1988 evidence provided by Mr Conroy. I have not been persuaded that the valuation appealed against is unreasonable or that it has been proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-809 - F. & D. Baiocchi - Lot 12 on R.P. 737344, Parish of Dryander, 2.004 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $64,000 - Appellants' estimate $50,000. This appeal is also against the valuation of a rural residential homesite. It is situated at the corner of Paluma Road and Wallace Court about 8 kilometres from Airlie Beach. It is a triangular shaped site, with frontage of about 150 metres to Paluma Road. Mr Conroy says the land is entirely below the level of Paluma Road, falling steeply into the northern boundary. He says about 20% only of the site being the area restricted to the western boundary is capable of being developed for building. He says the site is affected by water draining from the south and "becomes quite sloppy during wet seasons". It has sea views but according to Mr Conroy the views are poorer "than those from the other Palu ma Road properties to the south". He values the land at $50,000, relying on the same sales as he did in the previous appeal {AV91-636). Mrs Merritt describes the land as having "an easy to moderate slope away from Paluma Road. Good rural views are available." In this matter (in addition to the sale of Lot 35 in Orchid Road for $72,500, valued at $66,500 which formed her basis in the previous appeal and which land she felt was only slightly superior to the subject block in this matter) she also used the sales in Sugarloaf Road referred 80 -- 80 of 177 -- in previous appeals (Lot 1 27.10.89 $52,500 and Lot 7 2.2.90 $45,000 which are further from Airlie Beach with inferior access roads and considered inferior to the subject land). Reference is also made to the sale of Lot 20, Black Road (the , subject land in the previous appeal) which was not relied on in that matter, but which had been valued at $65,000. She says Lot 20 is slightly further from Airlie Beach and has much more difficult topography although she sees this as being compensated for by its excellent views. She says Lot 20 is overall superior. Under cross-examination, it was established that Mrs Merritt's inspection of this property was also limited to a viewing from the road. She agreed that the block could be subject to some bagginess occasionally, but felt that the affected area would be about 25%. She felt that, if the valuation was seen to be too close to that of Lot 20 in Blacks Road, it would be because Lot 20 was undervalued. Her evidence in this matter, particularly her comparison with Lot 20 in Black Road and Lot 35 in Orchid Road is not convincing and her limited inspection makes her evidence of little assistance to the Court. It seems on Mr Conroy's evidence that the views available may be superior and the physical nature of the land inferior to that assumed to be the case by Mrs Merritt. I have not been persuaded by Mr Conroy's argument as to the correct valuation of Lot 20 in the previous matter, but I am persuaded here that there is a greater degree of inferiority between the subject land and both the previous appeal lot and the sale land in Orchid Road. On the evidence before the Court, the appeal is allowed. I will determine the unimproved value in the amount of $57,500. It is seen as possible that this decision will create the need for a closer examination of the physical nature of the 81 -- 81 of 177 -- bject land and other sites in the nearby locality and the overall relativity of valuations at the time of the next revaluation. The Valuer-General's valuation is set aside accordingly. Appeal AV91-642 - P. & V. Russell - lot 3 on R.P. 732103, Parish of Dryander, 1.996 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $55,500 - Appellants' estimate $40,000. The property subject of this appeal is situated fronting Shute Harbour Road about 2 kilometres from Cannonvale and 7 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office. It is zoned rural - residential and used as a homesite. It is agreed that the land is valued on the basis that it has no higher potential. Mr Conroy describes the land as sloping, rising to a hard stony hill in the south-eastern section, from where fair sea views are obtained. He refers to a drainage disability at the road frontage. While there is a drain constructed, the owner has found the necessity to deepen the drain from time to time to mitigate bagginess on a narrow road frontage section within the property. The adjoining land to the north is owned by an earthmoving contractor and there has been some past quarrying activity with a ten metre deep excavation along the common boundary. There is also a nearby quarry operation which carries out blasting "two or three" times a week, the overall activity causing a noise and dust disability. On the adjoining land to the south at the corner of Orchid Road is a bus depot. Mr Conroy says the hard nature of the land is such as to cause erosion problems and loss of top soil. The owner has told him that with the "new government legislation" he is not permitted to destroy timber on the property and he has difficulty in effectively controlling and maintaining growth of guinea grass, amongst timber 82 -- 82 of 177 -- Jrowth. It did not become clear during the hearing which government legislation the owner had felt restricted his maintenance of timber regrowth on the property. Mr Conroy valued the land as a rural homesite in the sum of $45,000. He presented a schedule of seven sales the brief details of which are as follows: (1) Lot 26 Wattle Road, 2.076 hectares, 14.11.88, $40,000 (V.G. $49,500) (2) Lot 38 Orchid Road, 3.497 hectares, 20.3.89, $74,000 (V.G. $54,000) (3) Lot 37 Orchid Road, 2.162 hectares, 7.4.89, $71,000 (V.G. $53,000) (4) Lot 36 Orchid Road, 2.103 hectares, 20.8.89, $55,000 (V.G. $56,500) (5) Lot 29 Orchid Road, 2 hectares, 16.8.89, $63,000 (V.G. $61,000) (6) Lot 34 Orchid Road, 2.154 hectares, 18.12.89 $65,000 (V.G. $63,500) (7) Lot 35 Orchid Road, 2.123 hectares, 16.1.90 $72,500 (V.G. $66,500) He held the opinion that the location of the Orchid Valley Estate sales as contained in his schedule was superior to the Shute Harbour Road location of the subject land. These sales comprised elevated land with heavy virgin timber cover and offered a private setting not affected by disabilities such as the quarry operation near the subject land. In his opinion, Sales (2) and (3) were higher in elevation and also had sea views capable of being obtained from the rear, and he saw the Valuer-General's application of value to those lots to be out of line with that of the subject land. He said that Sales (4), (6) and (7) had sea views available from the rear if timber was cleared, but Sale (5) was affected by a gully and was inferior to the land in Sales (4), (6) and (7). He was at a loss to explain the difference in sale prices between Sale (4) and Sales (6) and (7) except that Sale (4) was to a local buyer and Sale (7) was to an interstate purchaser. He disagreed with the Valuer-General's relativity of valuations on the Sales (4) to (7). Mrs Merritt described the subject land as being level to gently sloping at the front "rising to a moderate to steep gravelly ridge. Good views are available from 83 -- 83 of 177 -- 1 e elevated site at the top of the ridge." Again, her inspection was limited to a viewing from the road. She agreed there was a drain within the road reserve which she believed would be adequate for normal storm water run-off. She did not see the excavation on the adjoining lot as being a disability but she had noticed stock piling of material on that land which she says she took into consideration as a detriment to the value of the subject land. Mrs Merritt's valuation basis included three sales common to Mr Conroy's evidence (his Sales (4), (6) and (7)) . Her report also included the sale of Lot 20 in Blacks Road (Appeal AV91-636) although her reasoning for including that sale is unclear when she had discarded it in the valuation of the sale land. Mrs Merritt realistically had not investigated the earlier sales of Mr Conroy in the Orchid Road area when sufficient evidence was available closer to the relevant date. A difference of some significance existed as to the description of the physical nature of Mr Conroy's Sale (4). He says it was surveyed off the same ridge as Sales (6) and (7) and found difficulty in accepting that it was significantly inferior to those lands. Mrs Merritt's evidence is however that Sale (4) is low in elevation, in a valley between two ridges. She had inspected this sale land and had visited the house which had been subsequently erected to interview the owner. Mrs Merritt had inspected Sales (6) and (7) and interviewed the local purchaser of Sale (6). She agreed that the purchaser of Sale (7) was from interstate. In her opinion the relativity between the valuation of the land contained in Sales (4) to (7) was reasonable. She had not been able to see the sea views which Mr Conroy said would be available from Sales (6) and (7) (with clearing) but had accepted the good views available would be comparable to those enjoyed by 84 -- 84 of 177 -- , e subject land. In her opinion the subject land was physically superior to Sale (4) but then the disabilities of the location of the subject land offset that physical superiority. While Mrs Merritt's inspection of the subject property is considered inadequate, in this matter that may have worked in favour of the appellants, because she had not been aware that the available views encompassed the sea, a recognised desirable feature. There is agreement that the sales in Orchid Road enjoy a more desirable environment than does the subject land, but I am persuaded more by the physical description of Sale (4) by Mrs Merritt than the description by Mr Conroy, and it appears that Mrs Merritt has suitably discounted the valuation of the subject land for its disabilities. The adjoining excavation may be more of a detriment to residential adjacency than recognised by Mrs Merritt, but she has considered the nature of the use of the adjoining lands and has not recognised the full extent of the views. I have not been convinced that the evidence has proved the Valuer- General's valuation to be unreasonable or wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-637 - S. Perrin; H & D Kelly - Lot 12 R.P. 733390, Parish of Dryander, 2.124 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $55,500 - Appellants' estimate $45,000. This land is situated in Orchid Road and both valuers have used the same sales evidence as in the previous appeal (AV91-642). It is the comparability of the evidence, common to the basis of each, with the subject land which is in dispute. Mr Conroy's description of the nature of this land is as follows: 85 -- 85 of 177 -- Comprises a low site, which is very stony. It is cut by two deep creeks, one along its eastern boundary and the other through the centre of the block. There are no sea views from this property. He nominates the disabilities of the land as being flooding and erosion from the creeks and the very stony nature of the land. He says the available building site has been restricted to being close to the road and to neighbouring property, due to the nature of the land. Mrs Merritt's description of the nature of the land is as follows: The land is undulating rising to easy sloping and is intersected by a large gully. Rural views are available from the property. " Mrs Merritt's inspection was again conducted from the road. She said the land had been readily visible and she was confident that her description was adequate. She had assumed a visible second gully in the east to be on adjoining land, based on her identification of the boundaries. She had not considered the possibility of flooding in the eastern section of the land as was suggested by Mr Conroy. In her opinion, and based on her inspection of Sale (4) in the previous matter, the subject land suffered generally similar disabilities from intersecting gullies. While it may be that Mrs Merritt has gained an understanding of the disabilities of this property from her limited inspection, her evidence is challenged as to her full knowledge of the extent of those disabilities. I accept Mr Conroy's description of this property under the circumstances of the inspections which have been carried out. Mrs Merritt's description of the nature of the land on Sale (4) has been accepted and I am persuaded that that sale is the closest comparison 86 -- 86 of 177 -- Jvided, suggesting that Mr Conroy's valuation of the subject at $45,000 is too low. On the basis of Mr Conroy's description of the subject land, it may be that insufficient allowance has been made by Mrs Merritt for the extent of gully disabilities and I will make some further allowance. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $50,000. Appeal AV91-638 - V.J. & R.E. Mcfarlane - Lot 59 on Plan HR131, Parish of Dryander, 29.54 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $105,000 - Appellants' estimate $50,000. Situated off Brandy Creek Road about 14 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office, this land is zoned Rural A (pastoral) and is used as a large rural- residential site. Mr Conroy says there is about 1 kilometre of rough poorly maintained gravel road access to a concrete causeway over Brandy Creek to reach the property. In support of his description of the road, Mr Conroy tendered a letter from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (Ombudsman) in response to a complaint by another local resident as to the condition of Brandy Creek Road. The letter appears to me to be more relevant to the standard of access further to the east, although reference is made to maintenance of this road being limited to annual gradings. Mr Conroy says that grading occurs usually prior to the wet season subsequent to which it remains in poor condition with any maintenance carried out by land owners rather than by the Council. The road is also used by timber jinkers hauling logs from a State Forest to the east. The 87 -- 87 of 177 -- useway adjacent to the property floods after about 100 millimetres of rain, cutting off access to the property. The property has been cut off for about 3 weeks after an exceptional wet season, but usually it is for relatively short periods depending on the pattern of rainfall. Mr Conroy describes the land as comprising about 4 hectares of undulating creek flats rising to very steep, rough, heavily timbered country. His valuation is in the sum of $40,000. His report contains a schedule of three sales of sites of about 2 hectares in Cannon Valley Road at prices ranging from $35,000 to $46,000. These sales have been referred to in earlier decisions. Mr Conroy says he does not place great weight on the sales evidence - he is more concerned with the relativity between the valuation of the subject land and other valuations in the Brandy Creek Valley. It was established that the examples given as to lack of relativity related to the application of Section 11 (1)(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act to the valuation of those properties. Mr Conroy says that many of the properties given this benefit are not in fact used for the business of primary production. He says that the subject property has a plantation of 300 mango trees and runs a limited number of cattle but he does not see its use as being of sufficient scale to qualify for the benefit of valuation under Section 11 (1)(vii) as he does not see the majority of other local properties qualifying, although apparently so recognised by the Valuer-General. Mrs Merritt described the access to the property as being made poor by the gravel road access across the flood prone creek. She described Brandy Creek as a formed gravel road, a statement criticised by Mr Conroy although it appears consistent with the advice provided to the Ombudsman by the Whitsunday Shire 88 -- 88 of 177 -- Juncil and as contained in the tendered letter, i.e. : The first 700 metres of Brandy Creek Road (marked A on the attached plan) has been formed and gravelled for a number of years being the first section of road upgraded. The next 1 kilometre of road (marked B on the attached plan) has recently been upgraded to a fully formed gravel and drained standard. Mrs Merritt's report states that the property is situated 6 kilometres from Cannonvale/Airlie Beach. Under crqss-examination she explained that that was the measured distance to the property "from the outskirts of Cannonvale". Her report states that the land is vacant when it appears from Mr Conroy's evidence that there has been a dwelling on the land for a number of years. Her inspection again did not involve entry onto the property. Instead she says she relied on what she could see from the road as well as the notes of others on the file and aerial photography. She does not disagree with Mr Conroy's description of the land, but her inspection of the properties the valuations of which are under appeal has been shown on a number of occasions to be inadequate and consequently unreliable. Mrs Merritt's valuation as a rural site was based on three sales, all of which have been used generally in the valuation of the larger rural sites in the locality, and discussed in other decisions. Brief details are: (1) Lot 2 Gilmore Lane, 19.8 hectares, 21 .12.89 $110,000, applied $100,000 - moderate to steep vine forest, excellent views from elevated sites. 10 hectares smaller, further from Cannonvale/Airlie Beach, "considered slightly inferior". (2) Lots 2 and 58 Moranino Road, Cannon Valley, 105.3 hectares, 2.5.90, $270,000, said to show site values of $120,000 (40 hectares) and $140,000 (65 hectares) before bulk allowance. Described as having difficult wet weather access, but comments in this report suggest the 89 -- 89 of 177 -- access is still superior to that of the subject land. (3) Woodman & Co/Fox & Hammond, Saltwater Creek Road, 118.4 hectares, 16.5.90, $104,000, Land Court Decision $80,000 - "although considerably larger in area than the subject block, this sale is considered inferior in view of situation and access." In the valuation of the larger rural sites, Mr Conroy has been consistent in his criticism of the use of the Sale (2) which he sees as having been purchased for primary production use, and Sale (3) which he ·sees as a special purchase not indicative of market value. He sees Sale (1) as being in a more desirable area and considerably superior to the subject land. Nevertheless, it has been considered that in other matters these sa les cannot be ignored but are of assistance in establishing rural site values in the general locality. It is noted however that the first sale has been used in other matters as offering evidence of value of the larger sites with good views. Mrs Merritt's evidence suggests that she place most reliance on Sale (1). Under cross-examination she agreed that it was located in an area with greater subdivisional activity for smaller rural-residential sites and did not have the immediate creek crossing access problem of the subject land. It is 10 hectares smaller and she sees the sale site as being slightly inferior. She gave evidence that with the larger rural sites it was her opinion that the nature of the land in excess of a useable area of about 4 hectares was really of little significance. It is Mr Conroy's contention that the sales of the small 2 hectare sites which he has submitted, are of assistance in establishing a base site value to which might be added the relative worth of the balance area. The subject land he says has 4 hectares of useable land while the balance area adds relatively nominal value. It 90 -- 90 of 177 -- ~ms to me that the larger sites fall into a different market category and the sales of sites within that category provide the better evidence for comparison purposes. Mr Conroy's evidence is that the main thrust of this appeal relates to relativity. He is of the opinion that if the obvious lack of reasonable relativity is due to the application of Section 11 (1 )(vii) of the Act, as it clearly is on the evidence (even though there is some misdescription of the application of Section 11 (1)(vii) in some of the Valuer-General's records) then that is unreasonable and lacking fairness, because many of the properties enjoying that benefit are not entitled to it. The purpose of this hearing is to decide the correctness of the valuation under appeal, not to inquire into the correctness of unchallenged valuations, even though correct relativity is important to the function of valuations used for revenue gathering purposes. Section 13(7) of the Act provides that the Valuer-General's valuation shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise. While the main thrust of this appeal fails, there has been justified criticism of the inadequate inspection by Mrs Merritt. She says that Sale (1) was her prJmary basis for the valuation and that the sale land was slightly inferior, although her evidence in this regard was not convincing. Mr Conroy on the other hand saw the steep nature of much of the subject land and its specific access disabilities as reducing its value to less than that of the appeal land (AV91-639), the decision on which will follow, valued by the Valuer-General in the sum of $90,000. While Mrs Merritt's opinions as to comparisons are assisted by previously established relativities and opinions of others, in the circumstances of the evidence before me, I must be guided by Mr Conroy's opinion. If proper relativity of 91 -- 91 of 177 -- luations between rural sites in this area is disturbed as a consequence then a closer examination will be necessary on revaluation - when the question of application of the benefit of Section 11 (1 )(vii) to various properties will no doubt also be considered. The appeal is allowed the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $85,000. Appeal AV91-639 - A.M. & J.D. Sutherland - Lot 1 on R.P. 722068, Parish of Conway, 21 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $90,000 - Appellants' estimate $67,000 . As with the previous appeal (AV91-638) this property is situated in Brandy Creek Road but about 1 kilometre further to the east, being about 15 kilometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office. The access involves poor gravel road for 2 kilometres. This property is also used as a rural residential homesite. Mr Conroy describes the land as being situated entirely below Brandy Creek Road with a uniform slope down to Brandy Creek as its northern boundary. He says the creek frontage country is flood affected "with the majority of the site affected by eroded gullies and soaks (boggy nature)". He values the land at $50,000 again relying on three sales of sites of about 2 hectares in Cannon Valley Road. Mrs Merritt describes this land as rising "from creek flats to easy to moderate sloping country. All of the property falls below the roadway." This description does not seem to be in conflict generally with that of Mr Conroy's. Mrs Merritt agrees that some of the creek frontage country would be subject to flooding but sees t he presence of the creek as advantageous to the desirability of the site. 92 -- 92 of 177 -- , ie does not see the slope below the road as any particular disability and says she has given consideration to erosion susceptibility. There is criticism of her description of the access to the property as being "fair", when the evidence indicates that tpe condition of Brandy Creek Road deteriorates to very poor condition until the annual grading takes place. Mrs Merritt was questioned at length as to relativity of site valuations in this locality. There has been no suggestion here or any admission by Mrs Merritt that the inspection was less than adequate. This land, on the evidence, has a greater proportion of more useable land and a lesser access problem than the site involved in the previous appeal (AV91- 638). I have found that Mr Conroy's evidence in that matter as to the superiority of this land in comparison should be accepted. The rural sites sales evidence is seen to support the Valuer-General's valuation of this land. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-812 - A . Russell - Lot 152 on Plan HR258 (Special Lease 33408) Parish of Conway, 43.09 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $65,000 - Appellant's estimate $35,000 . This appeal is against the Valuer-General's unimproved valuation of the above described land as at 31st March, 1990. As a matter of background, Mr Russell had contested the Crown's recommendation for the rental for the third period of the special lease, commencing 25th September, 1989. In a decision handed down on 12th April, 1991, my learned colleague Mr C.H. Carter, determined the rental in the sum of $2,250 per annum based on his finding that a fair unimproved value at that relevant date was $75,000. An appeal was lodged 93 -- 93 of 177 -- ainst that determination to the Land Appeal Court. It was found that jurisdiction did not lie for the appeal to be heard due to defective lodgment procedure. Mr Conroy conducted the case for the lessee in the previous Land Court hearing and now the appellant, in this matter. The land is situated at the northern extremity of Russell Road off Conway Road , approximately 27.5 kilometres from the Proserpine Post Office. Mr Conroy describes Russell Rciad as a gazetted but unformed road with a rough gravel track on the road reserve, cut by a 1o metre deep gully. He says telephone and electricity are not avail able. These services are not connected, but are capable of connection at the cost of the applicant. The land adjoins, on the northern side, Lot 16 on R. P.736944, the valuation of which was afso appealed against, the decision being contained in reference AV91-647. Matters such as the access, connection of services and some sales evidence is common to the two matters. Mr Conroy describes this property as being situated in the foothills of the Conway Range, with Little Conway Mountain rising to 344 metres on the eastern boundary of the site. He says: Approximately 80% of the site is situated above the 200 met re contour line. The balance, being the south-western section Is relatively gentle, rising from the 80 metre contour to the 200 metre contour. Throughout the easier country are a number of deep gullies and low spurs. The land is stony and the soils shallow in the north to deeper in the south-west. The ranges to the north channel an enormous volume of water through the property, which would make the success of any agricultural venture extremely doubtful. Mr Conroy's report contains a schedule of four "Rural A" sales. These were the same sales he put before the Court in appeal AV91-647. He values the subject land at $35,000. 94 -- 94 of 177 -- Mr Eisenmenger had taken responsibility for the Valuer-General's valuation in that appeal, in which his basis was obtained from three sales, Cern/Anders, 19.8 hectares in Gilmore Lane and two 2 hectare properties in Allan Road. Mrs Merritt is the valuer responsible for this valuation. She refers to the two 2 hectare sales, 28.8.89 $40,000 and 5.10.89 $37,500 as providing a level of value for smaller homesites. Her primary basis is the Fox and Hammon.d purchase of 118.4 hectares in Saltwater Creek Road for $104,000 on 16.5.90, the details of which have been discussed in a number of other appeals. Mr Conroy has included that sale in his schedule, but reiterates his opinion that it was a special purchase and not indicative of fair market value. Mrs Merritt also refers to the sale of a 48.259 hectare lot (to Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd - Appeal AV91-810) in Riordonvale Road on 8.11.88 for $100,000 (Valuer- General's valuation $130,000). This sale had not been used as a basis for the 1990 valuation, but she sees it as having some relevance here in that it is of land with similar topography; with services unconnected and some access disability. Mr Conroy says that the land involved in that sale was purchased for future subdivision and has no relevance to the valuation of a rural homesite. The Valuer-General's valuation of that site had been on the basis of it having highest and best use at the relevant date as a rural homesite, and that valuation was affirmed. That land is in a superior location and the sale took place at an earlier date, and while it is not seen as providing primary evidence of value here, it does provide a guide to levels of value being achieved. I do not propose to refer to the evidence common to appeal AV91-647 again, in detail. I have accepted the Fox and Hammond purchase as forming part 95 -- 95 of 177 -- the Valuer-General's basis for valuation of the larger rural sites with disabilities of access and topography. I have affirmed the Valuer-General's valuation of $41 ,000 on the adjoining Lot 16 (15.94 hectares) as a rural homesite with the same access disabilities and lack of connection to services. It is accepted that the potential of the subject land is for use as a rural homesite and that as such, it would be seen in the market place as being more valuable than is Lot 16. There is no evidence before the Court which persuades me to find that the Valuer-General's valuation has been proved incorrect. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-646 - R.F. & C.A. Raiteri - Lot 2 on R.P. 726951, Parish of Conway, 20.95 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $45,000 - Appellants' estimate $30,000. The Valuer-General had initiall y valued this rural homesite in the amount of $50,000 but allowed an objection and amended the valuation to $45,000. The land is situated off Duval Road about 11 kilometres from Proserpine. It appears that the land as surveyed had no legal access to Duval Road and the appellants (who purchased the land on 11.2.88) have subsequently acquired easement access over adjoining property. I am informed that the matter of access was the reason for the objection against the original valuation having been allowed. Mr Conroy describes the land as comprising undulating to very steep heavily timbered mountain country of which only a small part in the north-western corner could be developed as a homesite. He says electricity and telephone are not available. While good views are available from the higher sections he says these do not offset the disabilities of lack of services and access or the nature of the 96 -- 96 of 177 -- id. He values the land at $30,000. His report contains the four "Rural A" schedule of four sales used in Appeal AV91-647 and AV91-812. The first sale is that of the subject property to the appellants on 11.2.88 for $30,000. Mrs Merritt describes the land as being a moderate to steeply sloping hill offering very good rural views from the south, south-west and south-easterly aspects. Her valuation is based on sales of three sites of about 2 hectares, (two of which were used and discussed in Appeal AV91-647 and AV91-812), together with the Gilmore Lane sale of 19.8 hectares on 21.12.89 for $110,000. The third 2 hectare site is a level lot with no views situated on Conway Road and sold on 5.2.90 for an analysed unimproved value of $32,000 which amount was applied as the unimproved value. (This was also one of Mr Conroy's sales). While the small sites have no access difficulties and telephone, electricity services are available. I agree that they indicate base levels of site values. The much larger subject site sold in early 1988 for $30,000, with no access or services and I accept that while there had been a recent decline in the market at the relevant date of valuation, the rural homesite market, on the evidence, had risen significantly from even late 1988 to about October 1989 until the decline commenced. I do not accept then, that the sale price of the subject land in February 1988 should be seen as indicative of the value of the subject land in March 1990, as Mr Conroy's valuation suggests. The Valuer-General's evidence is not of directly comparable land but there is no alternative evidence before the Court to prove that the valuation is incorrect. I am satisfied that the disabilities of the block including access, topography and the unavailability of services except at the cost of extension, have been recognised by the Valuer-General. 97 -- 97 of 177 -- The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-811 - Damis Nominees Pty Ltd - Lot 5 on R.P. 738979 Parish of Conway, 49.41 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $79,000 - Appellant's estimate $60,000. Situated in Allan Road, a short distance easterly of the Conway Beach Road turn-off from Conway Road, this vacant land comprises the balance area of an original survey subsequent to the excision of four lots of about 2 hectares each from the original south-western corner. Mr Conroy describes the land as rising sharply from Allan Road on its southern boundary to very steep timbered mountain country in the north, much of which is inaccessible. He says the block is cut by a number of sharp eroded gullies. Excellent views over Repulse Bay are available from the majority of the site. He values the land at $55,000 and refers to the same four "Rural A" zoned sales as in the previous appeal (AV91-646) and earlier in App ea l AV91-647. Mrs Merritt describes the land as "easy sloping rising to steep rocky forest ridges. A deep gully passes north\west, south\west through the property. Magnificent views are available from elevated sites". She agreed that it would be unlikely for a dwelling to be erected in the areas from which the "magnificent" views might be assumed to exist. Her valuation is based on the Fox and Hammond purchase (16.5.90, 118.4 hectare $104,000 - Land Court Determination $80,000) which, while larger in area, is inferior in situation and access and of similar topography and in her opinion comparable overall; the 2 hectare Allan Road sales referred to in the previous appeal, and being part of the original portion of which the subject land is the balance; and the Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd purchase on 8.11.88 98 -- 98 of 177 -- 48.259 hectares in Riordonvale Road for $100 ,000. The latter sale was considered low (Valuer-General $130,000) bei ng an early sale, and has superior location but is of comparable size and topography. Mr Conroy objects to the use of the last mentioned sale as he maintains it was not purchased as a single site but for future subdivision. His verbal evidence indicates that the subject land's development potential is restricted by its topography but there was a possibility of the excision of one further lot. He saw the land as "not much superior to Russells" (AV91 -812), valued by the Valuer- General at $65,000 which valuation was affirmed in another decision. It seems to me that the evi dence supports the value found by the Valuer- General even as a single site and th ere is evidence that there is some potential for one further lot to be excised. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-645 - G.P. Walsh - Lots 8 and 9 on R.P. 733741 and Lot 13 on R.P. 734152, Parish of Conway, 6.003 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $101,000 - Appellant' s estimate $90,00 0 . This land comprises three vacant rural-residential sites, two of which adjoin, situated in Conway Road on the northern road frontage to the west of the Conway Beach Road turn-off and about 27.5 kilometres from Proserpine. Conway Road is bitumen sealed. Telephone and electricity services are available. Mr Conroy describes the land as rising steeply from Conway Road on the southern boundary to high timbered mountain country in the north. He says Lot 9 and 13 have steep eroded gullies running through them. He says that the properties have been on the market for some years with the only offer received 99 -- 99 of 177 -- 'Ving been $25,000 for Lo t 13. Hi s valuation is as follows: Lot 8 $30 ,000 Lot 9 $25,000 Lot 13 $ 25 ,000 $80,000 Less Bul k 7.5% $6,000 $72,00Q Again he includes the schedule of sales containing the four "Rural A" sales used in Appeal AV91-646 and other matters. These are two 2 hectares sale, Lot 2 in Monaghan Road for $20,000 on 3.11.89 (Valuer-General's valuation $21,000) and Lot 1 Conway Road {also used by Mrs Merritt in the previous appeal) $33,000 on 5.2.90 {Valuer-General's valuation $32,000). Mrs Merritt describes the land as level to undulating "offering good rural views and backing on to dense rainforest". She disagrees with Mr Conroy's suggestion that a better description might have been "undulating to very steep". Her sales evidence is that of the three 2 hectare sites used in Appeal AV91-646 (Lot 1 Conway Road 5.2.90 analysed unimproved value $32,000 applied $32,000; Lot 1 Allan Road analysed unimproved value $40,000 applied $35,000; Lot 2 Allan Road analysed unimproved value $37,500 applied $35,000). She says that the first sale site offers no elevation or views while the two sites in Allan Road are "slightly inferior" because of access (gravel as opposed to bitumen) and steep topography. The sale schedule describes these latter sale lots as being "moderate to steep with fair rural views". Mr Conroy says the Allan Road sale blocks are superior and under cross- examination, Mrs Merritt agrees they have views encompassing Repulse Bay but says that the subject lots have comparable views of the bay. Mrs Merritt agreed 100 -- 100 of 177 -- at she had made no allowance for the gullies as described by Mr Conroy on Lots 9 and 13. Mrs Merritt's valuation was based on equal site values of $36,500 less a bulk allowance of 7½%. It seems that the Valuer-General has exercised his discretion in not valuing Lot 13 separately, affording some benefit to the appellant through the bulk allowance. While some doubt has been created by the conflicting evidence as to the inferiority or superiority of the Allan Road sales in comparison with the subject lands it seems those sales afford the best evidence of value. As the evidence stands, while I have formed the impression that the subject land has somewhat steeper contours from the road to the rear than as described by Mrs Merritt, I will adopt her valuation of Lot 8 but reduce the valuations on Lots 9 and 13 due to the more difficult topography ,(eroded gullies) to the site values of $35,000 applied to the Allan Road sales (described as having some topography disabilities). The valuation will then become: Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 13 $36,500 $35,000 $35,000 Subtotal $106,500 $ 7,987 $98,513 Adopt $99,000 Less Bulk 7½% The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $99,000. 101 -- 101 of 177 -- Jpeal AV91-648 - H.D. and G.P. Walsh - Lots 3 to 8 on R.P. 746282 Parish of Conway, 26.83 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $195,000 - Appellants' estimate $150,000. This land comprises an aggregation of six surveyed lots, five of which are of about 2 hectares of generally rectangular shape fronting Allan Road, opposite the Conway Beach Road turn-off, the sixth (Lot 8) being of battle-axe type shape with an access strip frontage to Allan Road running back to the northern (rear) section of the original survey. Each of the lots is vacant. Mr Conroy describes the aggregation as comprising undulating forest country on its southern boundary rising to very steep heavily timbered mountain country in the north with about 75% of the block being unavailable. He said the land had been partially developed for an avocado and banana plantation. When there had been a slump in avocado prices about "3 or 4 years ago" the appellants had subdivided the land, enabling it to be sold off in separate parcels if the need arose. A decision had been made not to market the individual lots and it had been retained and used as one lot. There was no suggestion or evidence led by Mr Conroy to the effect that the land should be valued as being used for the business of primary production. It is his contention however, that the land should be valued as one site and that is the thrust of this appeal. Mrs Merritt has recognised that the appellants were the subdividers of the land and has carried out an exercise to establish if benefit might be provided under Section 11 (D) of the Valuation of Land Act which is repeated here: 11 D. Valuation of subdivided land. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except subsection 2), where an owner subdivides his land into 6 or more parts the parts that continue to be owned by him (being not less than 6) shall be deemed to form a single parcel and shall be valued as such pursuant to this Act 102 -- 102 of 177 -- (notwithstanding that the same may not adjoin) and in valuing that parcel any enhancement in the value thereof by reason of works carried out by that owner on the land so subdivided shall be disregarded. Provided that the unimproved value of that parcel shall be not less than 5 times the average unimproved value of the parts continuing to be so owned and for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of each such part it shall be taken to be a part to which this section does not apply. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the operation of section 11 (1 )(vii)." Mrs Merritt has, based on sales evidence, valued the land in globe, at $4,500 per hectare and after consideration of contributions to Council for upgrading Allan Road, found that a valuation of $135,000 would apply except for the proviso "that the unimproved value of the parcel shall be not less than 5 times the average unimproved value of the parts ... ". When she valued the individual parts, Lots 3 to 7 at $35,500 and Lot 8 at $56,500 the average value of the parts was $39,000 and the "statutory minimum" of 5 times the average, was $195,000. Even though it was a matter which had to be considered by Mrs Merritt, there is little to be served by my devoting time to the "in globe plus contribution" calculation when the implications of the statutory minimum outweighs the benefit to such a significant degree. In the circumstances when it is normal valuation practice for a bulk allowance to be made against the aggregated value of adjoining lots in common ownership, any benefit which flows from the fact that the appellants were the original subdividers, is negligible. The methodology employed by Mrs Merritt is seen to be correct. The fact that the land is in subdivision cannot be ignored. It is correct for a single valuation to issue as all lots adjoin, but as the land is not exclusively used for the business of primary production or alternatively a single dwelling house, the enhancement in 103 -- 103 of 177 -- !ue for that the land has been subdivided cannot be ignored. It follows that Mr Conroy's valuation as a single site would have applied only had the land been exclusively used for a single dwelling house. He says if his contention is wrong then he would challenge Mrs Merritt's valuation of the individual lots. Her basis for those valuations has been provided and exchanged and is consistent with evidence used in other rural residential site valuations in the locality. I am not persuaded that she has erred or that the valuation has been shown to be incorrect. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-644 - Quinnimont Pty Ltd - Lots 1 to 5, 10, 13, 16 and 18 on R.P.749038, Parish of Dryander, 19.87 hectares - Valuer-General's Valuation $300,000 - Appellant's Estimate $212,000. This appeal relates to an aggregation of nine lots in Stage 2 of the Staniland Drive rural-residential estate, about 8.5 km from Proserpine. The individual lots vary in size, in the range of and not less than 2 hectares. Electricity and telephone services are available. Each site is vacant. The appellant company was not the original owner, having acquired the aggregation subsequent to subdivisional development. Mr Conroy describes Lots 1 to 5 as being well elevated with minimal clearing, the remaining vegetation consisting of subtropical rainforest with a number of large tree species. Each of these lots is below the road sloping to the rear. Lot 1O is described as well elevated with steep slopes falling towards its western boundary. There is no description of Lot 13 in his written report but Lot 13, 16 and 104 -- 104 of 177 -- are described verbally as being above the road on its southern frontage, with steeper slopes and wider views than on the northern frontage. Mr Conroy scheduled nine sales of ·rand, seven of which are within the first stage of development, the balance in Stage 2, the dates of sale ranging from October 1988 through to June 1990, with prices ranging from $36,000 to $51,000. He says that generally the lots within the first stage are superior to the second stage, due to the wider, more attractive views available. The sales in Stage 2 were Lot 9 on 3.4.89 for $45,000 and Lot 11 on 6.12.89 for $51,000. Mrs Merritt agrees that views are generally superior from the first stage of development but says that section of Staniland Drive present an exceptionally steep incline and while the second stage still slopes, it is of much easier incline. She describes the land generally as having a moderate to steep fall from the northern side of the road and a steep upward slope from the southern side, with views varying from fair to very good. T he basis of her valuation comprises the sales of three lots, one in the ~irst stage and two in the second. Brief details are: (1) Lot 11, first stage, 2.004 hectares, 2.10.89 $42,500, applied $40,000. She sees this sale land as slightly inferior to any of the subject lots and comments "although it shares a similar outlook and topography, it is not as well elevated and is situated on the first stage of Staniland Drive, which is exceptionally steep." She agreed verbally that the view might be a little wider than that available from Lots 1 to 5, but the sale land in her opinion, remained inferior due to the more difficult access. (This sale is included in Mr Conroy's schedule). (2) Lot 11, second stage, 3.232 hectares, 6.12.89 $51 ,000, applied $48,000. Although of generally similar topography it is larger in area and, in her opinion, slightly superior to each subject lot (this sale is included in Mr Conroy's schedule). 105 -- 105 of 177 -- 1 ) Lot 8, second stage, 2.333 hectares, 16.3.90 $48,000, applied $44,000, described as being of similar topography and outlook and overall comparable. Mr Conroy held the opinion that Sale No.1 being in Stage 1 was superior to any of the subject lots, Sale No.2 while not as steep as some of the subject lots represented what he saw as a high sale which is also as he saw Sale No.3 to a non-local purchaser who had funds available from an accident compensation payment. Both valuers valued each individual lot then allowed a bulk allowance of 22.5% (2.5% per lot). The individual lot values are set out as follows: Lot Mrs Merritt Mr Conroy 1 $42,500 $40,000 2 $42,500 $40,000 3 $42,500 $40,000 4 $42, 500 $40,000 5 $42,500 $40,000 10 $46,000 $35,000 13 $42,500 $35,000 16 $43,500 $38,000 18 $43,500 $38,000 Mrs Merritt informed the Court that the original valuation on Lot 13 had been $45,000, but that valuation had been reduced on objection, when it was accepted that there was an embankment erosion disability at the frontage. She is convinced that otherwise the northern street frontage lots, although of steeper topography are superior to the southern side Lots 1 to 5. She says that Lot 10 has an elevated area near the frontage which makes it relatively more valuable than the other lots. 106 -- 106 of 177 -- 1e says that the elevated area then runs into Lot 11 (Sale No.2) and although a larger site, that sale supports her valuation of Lot 10. It is also noted that while Sale No.3 (Lot 8) may have been to a non-local, the sale was applied conservatively. The earlier sale of Lot 9 ($45,000) does not appear to disturb Mrs Merritt's basis. Mr Conroy is adamant that Lot 1O is an inferior site. On the evidence put before the Court, while a dispute arises as to the relative qualities of Lot 10 and Lots 13, 16 and 18, Mrs Merritt has given consideration to the features as described. I prefer her application of the available sales evidence and see no reason to disturb her assessment of relativity. It is noted that the Valuer-General has used his discretion in not issuing separate valuations for non adjoining lots which provides an advantageous result to the appellant. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-808 - Quinnimont Pty Ltd - lot 5 on R.P.746329, Parish of Dryander, 14 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $385,000 - Appellant's Estimate $280,000. Zoned Rural A Pastoral, the property to which this appeal refers, is situated on the corner of Shute Harbour Road (a limited access road) and Paluma Road. Electricity and telephone services are available. Reticulated water and sewerage services would require extension to service the property. Mr Conroy describes the land as being low, falling gently from Shute Harbour Road to Galbraith Creek which forms its rear or western boundary. He says the site is subject to some ponding "on a small scale during big wet seasons". He sees the highest and best use of the land as being for rezoning to permit 107 -- 107 of 177 -- ;idential subdivision. His valuation of the land is $294,000, being $21,000 per hectare. His report contains the six in globo sales referred to in Appeal AV91-631. The first sale in the schedule comprised the subject land together with Lot 4 R.P . 737331 purchased by the appellant company in January 1989 for the equivalent of $31 ,790 per hectare. Lot 4 which Mr Conroy describes as being vastly superior land, was resold on 30th March, 1990, for the equivalent of $39,585 per hectare. The Valuer-General's valuation on Lot 4 at the relevant date (31st March, 1990) is the equivalent of $34,635 per hectare. More will be said of this later. Mr Conroy said he saw his second sale (a 64.72 hectare property of undulating to low-lying topography in Jubilee Pocket) on 1.2. 89 for the equivalent of $21 ,630 per hectare as of assistance because of the comparable topography. His fourth sale also gave him comfort, because it was of the same size as the subject land, but of superior quality. It also was in Jubilee Pocket and sold on 13.3.89 for $29,285 per hectare. Mrs Merritt also sees the highest and best use of the subject land as being for future residential development. Her valuation is at the rate of $27,500 per hectare, having been reduced on objection from the equivalent of approximately $32,000 per hectare. Her valuation basis was formed from two sales, and "relativity with other parcels of englobo land". (The underlining is mine) Her first sale was of a 21.95 hectare parcel at Cannonvale on 8.1.90 for $1,150,000 unimproved with an application of $1,100,000 ($50,000 per hectare). This land was described as comprising "about 8 hectares of gentle to easy sloping land, the balance being steep to very steep country". Mr Conroy says that apart 108 -- 108 of 177 -- m the land being hardly comparable the price represented a high sale to inexperienced developers. Mrs Merrit's second sale was of a 42.12 hectare parcel off Shute Harbour Road and Robinson Road, Cannon Valley on 1.3.90 for $285,000 analysed to show $275,000 ($6,500 per hectare) which amount was applied. This land had approval for park residential development. The particular relativity examples given by Mrs Merritt and examples on which she said she relied heavily, were the valuation of the adjoining Lot 6 R.P. 746329 (6.489 hectares) - $23,000 per hectare and Lot 4 R.P. 737331 (40.4198 hectares) - $34,500 per hectare. It was revealed during cross-examination that she was not aware of the zoning of Lot 6 although she believed the land to be developed with a milk depot. She was unable to agree or disagree with the suggestion that Lot 6 was zoned "Special Facilities". She felt that, if that was the case, such zoning would have been a detriment "being a restrictive zoning". With regard to Lot 4, this was Mr Conroy's sixth sale referred to earlier. Mrs Merritt had been told by another Departmental officer whom she said had investigated this sale, that it was unreliable because a house property was in some way involved and the contract price was less than it should be while its contract price on the house was in excess of its market value. She had carried out a "kerbside" inspection of the house property and satisfied herself that the contract price of $400,000 was excessive. She had at some earlier date interviewed a director of the company which purchased Lot 4 and had been informed that the transaction had been at arms length with no circumstances which might suggest it to be unreliable evidence of value. In fact she had used the sale in the valuation of Lot 4 at the 109 -- 109 of 177 -- \evant date. In this matter, however, believing the advice of her colleague to be correct rather than the initial first hand information she had been given, she had not pursued the investigation of the sale any further. Nevertheless, she puts forward and relies heavily on the valuation of Lot 4 in support of her valuation of the subject land. She says that the valuation of the subject land. had been reduced on objection because of an initial perception of incorrect relativity. In comparison however, she saw its relatively small size as being a factor having an appreciating effect on market value. She did not see the main road frontage location as having a deleterious effect. She had no knowledge of the two sales of in globo land at Jubilee Pocket which Mr Conroy felt supported his valuation. On the totality of the evidence before me, it is cl ear that not only is the Valuer-General's basis derived from sales of land which is not comparable either physically or in potential, but the relativity approach is in part flawed by the comparison of a valuation of adjoining land with differing zoning and potential - a comparison which is offensive to basic valuation principle. Whether the sale of Lot 4 is tainted or not (and I prefer Mr Conroy's evidence here because he is obviously better acquainted with the circumstances of the transaction than is Mrs Merritt), I have found that Mr Conroy's comparison with Lot 4 for relativity purposes is more convincing. I will adopt his valuation. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $294,000. 110 -- 110 of 177 -- GROUP 3 - MR R. MULLER'S VALUATIONS Appeal AV91-617 - Roach Investments Pty Ltd -Part of Lot 3 on R.P. 710342, Parish of Tawvale, 941 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $21,400 - Appellant's estimate $17,500. This land fronts Faust Street about 500 metres from the business centre of Proserpine. All town services are available. Faust Street is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. There are two residential flats on the site which is zoned Residential B. The land is generally level to gently sloping. Mr Conroy valued the land at $19,000. His investigations had disclosed no sales of vacant Residential B zoned land. He then set about analysing the sales of four improved properties in the Residential B zone. Brief details of these sales and his analyses are as follows: (1) 1014 square metres Residential B site in Ann Street developed with 2 flats sold in March 1990 for $83,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $19,680. The Valuer-General's valuation of the land was $23,000. (2) 1214 square metres Residential A site together with a 1543 square metre Residential B site in Chapman Street, sold in November 1989 for $160,000 developed with a 24 room guest house and manager's residence. The sale was analysed to show a land content of $27,045, apportioned as $12,000 for the Residential A site and $15,045 for the Residential B site. The Valuer- General's valuation was $60,000. (3) 556 square metre Residential B site in Florence Street, developed with four flats, sold in July 1989 for $120,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $23,100. The Valuer-General's valuation was $24,500. (4) 981 square metre· Residential 8 site in Telia Street, developed with three flats, sold in May 1989 for $76,500, analysed to show an unimproved value of $19,500. The Valuer-General's valuation was $30,500. 111 -- 111 of 177 -- Mr Conroy placed no reliance on Sale (2) because it was a low sale. His enquiries of either the vendor or purchaser in the remaining sales indicated to him that no premium had been paid for the Residential B zoning. While he agreed that it might be expected that, all other things being equal, a Residential B site would be more valuable than a Residential A site, he found this not to be the situation in Proserpine. Mr Conroy had understood that a single unit residence would not be permitted by Council on a Residential B zoned site, but later in the sittings he provided a copy of the town planning scheme which appeared in the Government Gazette dated 26th January, 1985, in which as of right (Column Ill) uses in the Residential B zone were shown to include "dwelling-houses" and "multiple dwellings - Class "A" " (defined as a multiple dwelling comprising two (2) dwelling units). As might have been expected, Mr Paterson, Counsel for the Valuer-General, cross-examined Mr Conroy at some length on his valuation of the improvements in the sales analyses. Mr Conroy did not disagree that in at least Sales (1) and (4) which were his main basis, the analysed land value may well have been less than a Residential A level of value. This demonstrates the difficulty facing Mr Conroy in seeking to rely on sales of highly improved property in relation to the land content. There can be no cogent reasoning to support a proposition that inclusion in the Residential B zone could depreciate the value of a site below that of the Residential A zone, when as of right uses in the Residential B zone include both those of the Residential A zone and additional uses. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr R. Muller, registered valuer. Mr Muller had not carried out the original valuation but in the absence of that officer had investigated the matter, inspected the land and the relevant sales which had 112 -- 112 of 177 -- t , 1en used. He took the approach that in the absence of vacant or lightly improved sales of Residential B land, regard should be given to the Residential A level of value then the higher potential which a Residential B site had in comparison. He investigated the cost involved in having a Residential A zoned site rezoned to Residential B and had been informed that Council fees and advertising would amount to approximately $1,975, before any headworks charges which he understood related to the size of the development proposed on any particular site. Mr Muller felt that the value of a Residential B zoned site would equate at least a base Residential A level of value together with the fees to be outlaid in achieving rezoning from Residential A. He ran the need to also consider the potential trouble, delay and risks involved in achieving rezoning. He had been aware that a rule of thumb relating to a 10% premium over and above Residential A value had been used by the Valuer-General in establishing previous valuations and relativity for Residential B zoned land in Proserpine. He did not disagree wrth this level of premium as a general proposition but believed that each valuation of Residential B zoned land needed to be considered on its particular merits. He indicated, when pressed to explain his overall approach, that a valuation of "about $19,000" would have been applied to the site had it been zoned Residential A. The adjoining sites were valued by the Valuer-General at $19,400 and $19,600 respectively. Mr Muller had paid regard to five sales of vacant Residential A zoned properties in Proserpine ranging in price from $21,000 to $26,000. He saw typical sale prices as being between $22,000 and $24,000. It is noted that one of the sales had been used by Mr Eisenmenger in his valuation of Residential A zoned sites. Mr Muller's scheduled sales were: 11 3 -- 113 of 177 -- ) A site of 817 square metres in Anzac Road, sold 2.6.89 for $21 ,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $20,500 with an application of $19,800. Anzac Road carries moderate traffic, not as busy as Main/Faust Street. There is a large open drain opposite the sale property which is in an older residential area opposite and in sight of light industrial uses. Mr Muller's evidence was that this particular sale was his primary basis while the balance were more support sales . (2) A site of 763 square metres in Eddie Street, sold 2.6.89 for $23,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $22,100, with an application of $19,400. (3) A corner site of 849 square metres in Eddie Street, sold 27.6.89 for $22,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $21,500 with an application of $20,500. (This was one of Mr Eisenmenger's sales in previous matters). (4) A site of 772 square metres in Spalla Drive, sold 20.3.90 for $23,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $22,500 with an application of $21 ,000. (5) A site of 743 square metres in Spalla Drive, sold 14.2.90 for $24,000 analysed to show an un improved value of $23, 100 with an application of $19,600. On the evidence and with consideration to the decision I have made in Appeal AV91-620, I find that Mr Muller's estimate of a v al ue of "around $19,000" had the land been Residential A, not to be unreasonable. As Mr Muller says, he would have preferred to have had sales of Residential B zoned land, as indeed it is desirable to establish values from within the same zoning. Mr Conroy attempted to do this by analysing improved sales but with an obviously flawed result in terms of unimproved value. If the market for Residential B zoned vacant land was non-existent through lack of demand (as Mr Conroy suggests), then unimproved values would logically not be lower than Residential A levels, because single-unit residential use is as of right in the Residential B zone. I accept that, while cost does not necessarily equal value, in identifying value for 114 -- 114 of 177 -- '1sidential B zoned land at the relevant date in Proserpine, when there is no acceptable sales evidence available, Mr Muller's approach i.e. to find a premium over and above Residential A value related to the costs and risks involved in rezoning, is logical, and might be expected to provide a fair and reasonable result until the market suggests otherwise. An arbitrary percentage allowance would not, depending on the base value, necessarily provide the same result. I do not in the circumstances find the Valuer-General's valuation to be proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Va lu er-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-621 - Roach Investments Pty Ltd - Part of Lot 3 on R.P. 747407, Parish of Tawvale, 943 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $20,500 - Appellant's estimate $17,000 . This appeal relates to land forming part of the surveyed lot involved in the previous appeal, (AV91-617), in this case being the part fronting Telford Street, which accommodates a structure described by Mr Muller as an unused service garage . . It is noted that in Mr Conroy's report he describes the structure as an old shed. In his verbal evidence he says the shed is used by the tenants of the flats constructed on that part of the land fronting Faust Street. There is no suggestion before the Court however that the Faust and Telford Street "parcels of land" should not have been separately valued, as directed by the Valuer-General. Mr Conroy values this part of the land at $17,000. Both Mr Conroy and Mr Muller rely on the same sales evidence as in the previous matters. Both agree ·that Telford Street land is somewhat inferior to Faust Street due to clos er proximity to the heavy industrial type undertakings (and 115 -- 115 of 177 -- 1 ' rticularly the sawmill) referred to in Appeal AV91-620. Mr Muller does not see the sugar mill as having any measurably worse effect on Telford Street than on Faust Street. Against the opinion given by Mr Eisenmenger in Appeal AV91-620, Mr Muller did not see the close proximity of cane fields as being a particular problem to residential usage and felt that the significantly lesser volume of traffic in Telford Street was a positive feature. He had not sought to disturb the relativity indicated by previous valuations, but felt that in comparison, the Residential A values applied to Telford Street might be too low rather than too high. I do not agree with this opinion. A map showing relativity of applied values to both Residential A and Residential B zoned properties in Faust and Te lford Street was tendered. Th is showed that the Residential B zoned properties in Telford Street carried relatively higher valuations above Residential A values than was the case in Faust Street. While no cogent explanation for this was forthcoming, I see the comments relative to the approach of adding to Residential A values, a premium including rezoning costs to find Residential B values as being one explanation. In other words, formal rezoning costs for these types of sites will be constant regardless of the varying base level of Residential A values. I find the evidence in Appeal AV91 -620 to have been more convincing in establishing the degree of inferiority of Telford Street in terms of comparison with the Residential A sales evidence. Having found that in Faust Street a premium $2,500 above Residential A level of value was reasonable in establishing a fair level of value for that Residential Bland, I will do the same here. In Appeal AV91-620, I found a Res idential A level of value of $17,500 for Te lford Street and it follows that the Residential B level would be from my observations above, $20,000, resulting in 116 -- 116 of 177 -- ·elatively minor reduction in the Valuer-General's valuation. On that basis the appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $20,000. Appeal AV91-625 - Roach Investments Pty Ltd - Lots 1 to 6 on R.P. 722028, Parish of Tawvale, 1601 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $129,000 - Appellant's estimate $112,000. Situated in Main Street at the corner of Dobbins Lane, Proserpine, the subject property is zoned Commercial and is developed with three separate buildings comprising various shops and residential flats. The site is of rectangular shape and has frontage of 17.22 metres to Main Street as its northern boundary and to Dobbins Lane as its rear or southern boundary and frontage of about 95 metres to Dobbins Lane as its eastern boundary. The land is physically sound and level in contour. Mr Conroy valued the land at $66,500. His primary basis for the valuation is the sale of the subject property in May 1989 for $235,000, analysed by him to show a land content of $66,510. His valuation report contained a sales schedule in which were included two other sales, one of which was of the Westpac Bank premises and the second a vacant site at the corner of Mill and Waite Streets. Mr Conroy said that the Westpac Bank sale was at a high level of value due to the bank tenancy arrangement and was not relied on by him. He felt that the vacant land sale should not be ignored. It was of a site of 809 square metres which had sold in January 1990 for $40,000. The Valuer-General's valuation of that site was $39,000. He agreed that the location of this sale land could be described as on the fringe of the commercial area while the subject land was within the central business area, 117 -- 117 of 177 -- me distance westerly of the hub which was generally recognised to be the Commonwealth Bank property in Main Street, between Dobbins Lane and Chapman Street. The vacant land sale showed a value of $49 per square metre as a corner site. He agreed that a site of similar size in the same location as the subject land would be more valuable on a unit of area basis, but ,then the subject property was twice the size and that needed to be taken into consideration. His valuation of the subject land equated $40.59 per square metre. Evidence for the Valuer-General was again given by Mr R. Muller. He had taken over the task of supporting the Valuer-General's valuation as the original valuer had been transferred. Mr Muller had inspected the property and considered the valuation to be fair and reasonable. Under the heading "Valuation Basis" in his written report is the following passage: "A sale of the subject property occurred on the 10th of May, 1989, for $235,000. Improvements on the property included two (2) storey timber and brick shops with flat over, a single storey brick shops (2) and an ex garage/storage building. The property analysed to an unimproved value of $134 ,000 . The Valuer applied a conservative value of $129,000 which is in line with the 25% increase applied to commercial properties for the 1989 revaluation." The Court was informed that the 1989 valuation remained unaltered as at the relevant date in this matter. The sale of the subject property was seen to support that valuation and formed the Valuer-General's primary basis in this matter. A supplementary schedule containing four additional sales was tendered. Th is schedule included the Westpac Bank property, the analysed unimproved value of which was some four times in excess of the applied value (supporting Mr Conroy's opinion as to it being a high sale), the Commonwealth Bank premises, the analysed value of which was significantly in excess of the applied value, the vacant land sa le 118 -- 118 of 177 -- 3rred to be Mr Conroy which had been analysed to show the applied value, then the sale of a small improved Main Street commercial property which sold in April 1989 at an analysed value well in excess of the applied value. The additional sales were seen to support the values which had been applied by the Valuer-General although it is evident that the two sales which had been adopted as supporting that level were the vacant land sale and the sale of the subject property. The vacant land sale is of land of inferior location. It supports the Valuer-General's valuation precisely. It is seen to cast doubt on the veracity of Mr Conroy's analysis of the unimproved value component of the subject sale, regardless of the larger area of the subject property. As this case narrowed to the interpretation of the sa le of the subject land, the analysis contained in Mr Muller's report appeared, prima facie, to support the Valuer-General's valuation. However it transpired that the analysis had not been carried out by Mr Muller - it had been prepared by the original valuer. Mr Muller had perused the analysis and agreed with its contents but had not personally checked the floor areas of the structures. A difference of some magnitude was discovered between the floor area of the main structure (the Main Street frontage shops and flats), as contained in Mr Conroy's analysis and that in Mr Muller's report. Mr Conroy's evidence is that he personally measured the building while Mr Muller admitted that he had not - instead re lying on the information provided to him, as to the size of the structure. The Valuer-General's analysis cannot, in the circumstances, be accepted. Mr Muller had at least inspected and verified the nature and condition of the improvements and that has been of assistance in consideration of the adde.d value of the improvements. 119 • -- 119 of 177 -- There remains dispute as to the replacement costs of the buildings and what might be a fair depreciation rate for age and obsolescence. On the evidence I have concluded that if the sale is to be accepted as evidence of value, Mr Conroy's assessment of the "added value " of the improvements, bearing in mind their age and his estimate that they would have a remaining life of 1o to 12 years, is excessive and his analysed land value too low. Support to this contention is then provided by the vacant land sale. Nevertheless, I am also unable to find that the sale supports the Valuer- General's valuation when the analysis is read on a building floor area which cannot be accepted as correct on the evidence before the Court. The overall sales evidence could indicate that the existing relativity is too harsh in terms of t he valuation on the subject land. I will allow the appeal and determine the unimproved value in the amount of $115,000. The Valuer-General's valuation is set aside accordingly. GROUP 4 - MR S.J. WHITFIELD'S VALUATIONS Appeal AV91-538 - Powder Blue Pty Ltd - Lots 17 and 18 on R.P. 748502 , Parish of Dryander, 2258 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $200,000 - Appellant's estimate $160,000. Lot 17 contains an area of 1224 square metres and Lot 18 1034 square metres. They are located at the intersection of Shute Harbour Road and Macarthur Drive Cannonvale, and have frontage as the northern boundary to Commerce Close, a cul-de-sac street providing the access to eighteen (including the subject) fully serviced commercial zoned lots. 120 -- 120 of 177 -- Mr Conroy describes the land as being below the level of Shute Harbour Road on its southern boundary and falls from Shute Harbour Road to its northern boundary, the site also falling from its eastern boundary to its western boundary. His valuation of the aggregated site is $160,000, being rounded from a calculation at $70 per square metre. Included in his report was a schedule of what he described as fringe commercial sales. The first was the 22nd July, 1988, sale of the Cannonvale Shopping Centre of a site of 1.933 hectares for $1,025,000 which is of no assistance to him because he said that even applying a very conservative value to the structural improvements, the land value content was nominal. The second sale was of the parent parcel of 3.519 hectares from which the subje~t land was subdivided, on 31.8.88 for $887,500 and of no assistance in this matter. The third sale was of a small (454 square metre) corner site in a pocket of commercial zoned land on Beach Road opposite the waterfront. This site was developed with an office and restaurant and sold on 21.2.89 for $195,000, showing on Mr Conroy's analysis, a land content of $84,000 or $185 per square metre. Then there was the sale of the subject land itself on 9.5.89 for $285,000 which Mr Conroy saw as a high sale. The fifth sale was of a 5653 square metre site described as Lots 1 and 2 on R.P. 744923 at the corner of Shute Harbour Road and Erromanga Drive, on 26..5.89 for $410,000 showing $72.50 per square metre as vacant land with "excellent exposure but flood prone". Mr Conroy said that the purchaser had been a local buyer with intention to develop a site for commercial purposes - a project which did not proceed. He saw this sale as being the only real evidence available. It was his opinion that, if the sale and subject lands were directly comparable as land, a higher pro rata level of value would be expected to apply to the smaller 121 • -- 121 of 177 -- bject sites. However, he fe lt that with the sale site being well exposed, near lev el land and the only commercial site in a developing area, it had superior potential to the subject, for commercial development. Mr S.J. Whitfield was the valuer responsible for the urban valuations in th is locality. Although he described Lot 18 as being mainly level and Lot 17 as having a gentle cross-fall, he had no serious disagreement with Mr Conroy's description of the land. He also agreed that the commercial potential of the land was somewhat limited and expressed some surprise that the parent parcel had been developed as it had been in the first place. His valuation basis had been assisted by two sales, the small site in Beach Road which another valuer in the Department had analysed to show $213 per square metre (Mr Conroy $185 per square metre) and a property in the main business area of Airlie Beach which had been analysed to show $1,686 per square metre for the land as at 22.1.90 but to which $725 per square metre had been applied then reduced to $615 per square metre as at 31st March, 1990. Mr Whitfield made the written comment that ths sale of the subject land had not been analysed as it was considered to be "so far above the market to be of no use as a basis". In his verbal evidence he said that while he did not use the sale, his valuation could be considered a conservative application. Mr Whitfie ld in his approach to the commercial valuations had carried out a capitalisation of rental exercise on a selected property ("Mango Terrace" - 263 Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach) to demonstrate the level of unimproved value indicated by an analysis of a fully rented, fully developed commercial property in the central commercial area of Airlie Beach. All rentals relating to the building were negotiated in 1990. Based on 122 -- 122 of 177 -- a capitalisation rate of 12.5% he found the improved market value of the property to ; $1,267,520 from which a land value of near $755 ,000 or $1 ,293 per squa~e metre was deducted. An unimproved value of $850 per square metre had been applied to that property, indicating to him that his overall approach to the valuations of commercial zoned land was conservative. He agreed that the sales quoted were hardly comparable to the subject. His primary considerations had been to ensure reasonable relativity throughout the commercial lands and he felt comfortable with the result. He said that at the relevant date there had been no evidence to suggest either an increase or a decrease from the previous annual valuation, regardless of a pessimistic climate which he had perceived to exist. When it came time to consider objections to the commercial valuations he believed that hindsight had confirmed the earlier perception and he had reviewed his commercial valuations, reducing many by around 15%, but not all. He said he reviewed the individual relativities before making reductions and did not see the reduction warranted on the subject land. His valuation was calculated as fo ll ows: Lot 17 (inside lot) Lot 18 (corner) 1224 m2 @ $90 per m2 adopt $110,000 1034 m2 @ $100 per m2 adopt $100,000 $210,000 Less Bulk allowance 5% $ 10.5 00 $199,500 Adopt $200 ,000 Mr Whitfield had been aware of Mr Conroy's fifth sale on the Shute Harbour side of Airlie Beach and had applied the sale to the valuation of that land. He did not use it as a basis in this matter but agreed that it offered evidence of value provided careful consideration was given to the non-comparable features. The sale 123 • -- 123 of 177 -- land was flat, subject to some flood disability which necessitated some filling, and hile enjoying steady traffic exposure, not to the density as did the subject. He felt that when all matters were considered including size, this sale offered support to his valuation. I am inclined to agree with Mr Whitfield's opinion. Both the subject land and the last mentioned property sold in May 1989. Mr Whitfield rejected the sale of the subject as a basis because it seemed high and applied a significantly lower value. The other sale was adopted as a basis for the valuation of that land. He has given consideration to relativity of all commercial lands and holds the opinion that the valuation of the subject land is fair. The evidence overall does not convince me that the subject land should carry the same pro rata value as the sale on which Mr Conroy relies, but something higher. Mr Whitfield's aggregated value of the subject land equates approximately $88.50 per square metre for 2258 square metres and his valuation of the sale land was near $70 per squ ar e metre for 5653 square metres. His valuation is not proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer- General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-534 - Jalam Pty Ltd - Lot 56 on R.P.746925, Parish of Dryander, 3511 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $385,000 - Appellant's estimate $250,000 . Situated at the corner of Shute Harbour Road and Stewart Drive , Cannonvale, about 2. 75 km from the Airlie Beach Post Office, this land is zoned Commercial and is developed with a suburban shopping centre comprising fifteen ground floor shops and one first floor office. Mr Conroy describes the land as being level with no distinguishing features. 124 -- 124 of 177 -- His valuation is $280,000 or $80 per sq u are metre. He relies solely on the sale of 1 .e site situated on the Shute Harbour side of Airlie Beach at the corner of Erromango Drive, which sale was discussed in Appeal AV91-538. He says the sa le property is about the same distance easterly of Airli e Beach as the subject property is to the west, but agrees tt1at as a commercial site the subject land enjoys a greater flow of passing traffic and is located in a more densely developed area. In this matter Mr Whitfield says he has had regard to the sale of the small Beach Road site which represented the "only commercial value basis in this area" but had not personally analyse d that sale. It w as small in area, highly improved and provided an admittedly poor dire ct comparison basis. His primary approach was one of relativity "with central commercial values in Airlie Beach and other commercial developments in the Sh ire ." Wh il e Mr Conroy's an alysis of the Beach Road sale was somewhat less than that of the Valuer-General, I do not find that sale to be of any assistance. Wh ile none of the evidence is ideal, I am inclined to the view that the better evidence is provided by the sale on which Mr Conroy relied, although it seems to me that the subject land ·would be seen in the market place to be considerably more valuable as a commercial site in comparison, than has been found by Mr Conroy. While Mr Whitfield did not use that sale as a basis in this matter, I am not persuaded that it proves his valuation to be wrong. He has given consideration specifically to the question of re lativity and it was for this reason that an objection against the original valuation of $440,000 was allowed amending it to $385,000 or $110 per square metre. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General 's valuation affirm ed . 125 -- 125 of 177 -- Appeal AV91-547 - Jalam Pty Ltd - Lot 309 on Plan C5411 Parish of Dryander, 1 012 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $175,000 - Appellant's .;timate $120,000. The land to which this appeal relates is located in Coral Esplanade, Cannonvale, approximately 3.1 k il ometres from the Airlie Beach Post Office. The land is vacant and is zoned Commercial. It has rear access provided by Herring Lane . Mr Conroy describes the land as being level and having good water views. He values it in the sum of $125 ,000. He uses as his primary basis the third sale referred to in Appeal AV91 -538. This was the small property of 454 square metres fronting the esplanade one lot removed from the subject land to the west, at the corner of Beach Road. It was developed as a restaurant and office and sold on 21 .2: 89 for $195,000. Mr Conroy analysed the sale to show a land content of $84,000 or $185 per square metre. He says the location of the subject land is such that any commercial development potential is unlikely to be realised in the short term. His valuation is a rounded figure based on a calculation at $125 per square metre which in his opinion takes the size and limited commercial potential into consideration. Mr Whitfield says the land is about 1 metre above street level and "enjoys superb ocean views. An attractive beach with a swimming enclosure lies opposite." He agrees that the land is zoned Commercial but has this to say: " However the present owners purchased the land as vacant land subject to Council granting consent for six residential units. Messrs Murray and Thomson (as Jalam Pty Ltd) were of the opinion at the date of purchase that this site was no longer viable as a commercial site. I agree with this contention. 126 -- 126 of 177 -- His valuation is as fo llows: 1012 m 2 zoned Commercial but viewed as a units site @ $175 per rn 2 Adopt $175,000 $177,100 His basis of valuation was obtained having regard to the following sales; (1) Lot 53 Duell Drive, 982 square metres, zoned Residential B, sold 23.1 .89 $66,000 showing an unimproved value of $65,500 with application of $59,000 ($60 per square metre) - described as an easy sloping lot with no sea views. (2) Lot 1 Pleasant Drive, 2457 square metres, zoned Residential B, sold 12.2.89, $227, 712 showing an unimproved value of $221,700 with application of $185,000 ($75 per square metre) - described as having a filled low-lying gully, no or very restricted sea views. (3) Lot 30,2 Salmon Street, 1012 square metres, zoned Residential B, sold 28.2.89 $95,000, showing an unimproved value of $94,000 - described as low-lying with minor gully no views. Mr Whitfield had made enquiry at Council as to any policy which might interfere with rezoning to Residential B and felt comfortable that there would be no obstacles from that quarter although he was unable to obtain anything in writing to that effect. He was fortified in his opinion as to the highest and best use of the land when his enquiries of the appellants indicated that the property had been purchased in 1987 subject to Council approval for the erection of residential units. If it was a conditional contract it appears that the condition was waived as the land remains zoned Commercial and the evidence before the Court was that to the best of the knowledge of the valuers no application for rezoning had been made. Mr Conroy was aware that a marketing sign advertising units to be erected had been placed on the land at some stage in the past. Now Mr Conroy does not disagree that from a physical point of view the 127 -- 127 of 177 -- land is well suited for a residential unit development. He holds the opinion however .at it should be valued as zoned, because he has learnt from experience that verbal advice from a Council is not good enough to rely on in terms of value. Mr Whitfield says he has been cognisant of the necessity for rezoning and agrees there would be some .risk involved, possibly as a result of objections, and there would be rezoning costs to be outlaid. He says he has taken these matters into consideration in his application of the sales but was unable to provide an opinion as to the amount his valuation would have been if rezoning to Residential B had in fact been achieved. He was unable to provide an estimate of the cost of rezoning. He had not given consideration to what his valuation would have been had the land been restricted to Commercial zoning. The only evidence before me as to the worth of the land strictly as zoned is that of Mr Conroy. His analysis of the sale of the small commercial site provides a land content somewhat less than the Valuer-General's analysis, but Mr Whitfield had not carried out that analysis and was not in a position to provide any supporting detail. In the circumstances I would accept Mr Conroy's valuation if the highest and best use was as zoned. It seems to me however that if rezoning to Residential B was seen to be achievable, even with some risk involved, and Residential B levels of value were significantly higher, then some enhancement would be expressed in the market place as a result of that rezoning potential. Mr Whitfield suggests that this was his approach, but was unable to place cogent evidence before the Court to indicate how he had arrived at his valuation; the degree of enhancement above commercial level of value contained within that valuation or the discounting which would be · necessary to satisfy prudent market considerations for costs and risks involved in 128 -- 128 of 177 -- achieving rezoning. In the absence of such evidence, I will accept Mr Conroy's base level of value and add some enhancement for the potential he has ignored. I will determine the unimproved value in the amount of $140,000. The appeal is allowed and the Valuer-General's valuation set _aside accordingly. Appeal AV91-545 - Motel Woolamai Pty Ltd - Lot 3 on Registered Plan 724211, parish of Dryander, 1212 m 2 - Valuer-General's valuation $135,000 - Appellants estimate $100,000. Situated at 14 Beach Road, Cannonvale, about 2.5 kms from the Airlie Beach Post Office, the land relevant to this appeal is zoned Residential B and is developed with the "Palm Tree Lodge" holiday units. The site is on the western street frontage handily located to local shopping facilities in Shute Harbour Road and a beach adjoining Coral Esplanade. It has frontage of about 26 metres to the street, is near level to gently sloping. A drainage easement runs along the southern boundary within the property, connecting with easements accommodating an open drain adjoining but westerly of the rear boundary. Aspect to the street is easterly. Limited sea views are available from the frontage upper level units of the existing building, although -these views rely on existing low density development to the north remaining. Mr Conroy called Mr G R Tiers, a director of the appellant company, who manages Palm Tree Lodge, to give evidence in connection with this appeal. The property had been purchased in April, 1989 and Mr Tiers described the decline in income generated from the complex subsequent to the time of purchase. He is not aware of any sales which had taken place in the immediate locality in recent times and felt that values has decreased rather than increased. He was naturally 129 -- 129 of 177 -- concerned with the trend of increasing outgoings such as rates, when the gross wme was declining. He gave some evidence as to his understanding of increases in valuation (effective for rating purpbses) from $48,000 in 1988 to $90,000 in 1989 then $135,000 in 1990. Mr Whitfield explained to the Court that there had in fact been no increase in the amount of the valuation from the relevant date of valuation in 1989 to 1990. The effective date for rating purposes is another matter and follows the date at which the value is required to be found. Mr Conroy's valuation of the land is $100,000. His basis of valuation was established after investigation of 3 sales of Residential B zoned land as follows: ( 1) Lot 53 Tropic Road (or Duell Road), 982 m 2, 23. 1.89 $66,000 (V.G. $59,000) - approval for 5 units - level site no (or very limited) sea views, shows $67.20/m2• (2) Lot 1 Pleasant Drive/Beach Road, 2457 m 2 , 12.2.89 $227,712 (V.G. $185,000) - Mr Conroy says could accommodate 15 units - generally level site, limited sea views, shows $82.92/m 2• (3) Lot 10 Border Drive, 884 m2 , 14.7.89 $75,000 (V.G. $70,000) - Mr Conroy says could accommodate 6 units - sloping site with no (or limited) sea views, shows $84.80/m 2• Mr Conroy says that although smaller in area he sees sales (1) and (3) as being inferior to the subject property on a unit of area basis, due to location. He sees sale (2) as being superior as land but then significantly greater in area. His valuation of th~ subject land equates $82.50/m 2. Mr Whitfield had regard to three sales, being Mr Conroy's sales (1) and (2) as well as: Lot 302 Salmon Street, 1012 m 2, 28.2.89 $95,000 - analysed to show an unimproved value of $94,000 ($93/m 2 ). At the time of sale there had been a small cottage which, while adding only nominal value, required the valuation to be based on its use then as a single dwelling house. Mr Whitfield describes the sale land as being low-lying with a minor gully and no views. Mr Whitfield differs in the description of Mr Conroy's sale (2). He says th is 130 -- 130 of 177 -- land is low-lying with a filled gully and no views. Mr Conroy does not resile from _; opinion that while the land in sale (2) may have been filled, it has superior location, and enjoys sea views although they may be restricted by adjoining development. He also holds the opinion that the sale land in Salmon Street referred to by Mr Whitfield has location superior to that of the subject land and also enjoys restricted sea views. Mr Whitfield's valuation was stated to be based on a unit of area value of $115/m 2 , the result being rounded down to the amount of $135,000 (approximately $111 /m 2 ). He said that he had been aware of the drainage easements both on and external to the property and had taken them into consideration but had made no specific allowa~ce as such. He saw the effect of the easements on the highest and best use of the property as being minimal. One area of disagreement between the valuers is the relative worth of Residential B zoned land with Beach road frontage as compared to similarly zoned land in the nearby side or back streets. The evidence is that Beach Road was once part of the main access route into Airlie Beach and the development on the subject land was complementary to overnight type accommodation. When the main access by passed Beach Road then the exposure of the subject land was limited more to local traffic. Nevertheless, Mr Whitfield sees Beach Road, although now carrying mainly local traffic, as being more suitable for holiday unit type development than the less exposed streets. This opinion was reflected in the level of value applied. Mr Conroy, on the other hand, says that now that the potential of the property is not influenced by high density traffic exposure, an advantage to the overnight or short accommodation market, the local traffic usage _of Beach Road is of no advantage. He hol.ds the opinion that the noisy location could be seen as a 131 -- 131 of 177 -- disadvantage in terms of highest and best use for holiday or longer term residential ;age. He drew attention to examples of what he saw as incorrect relati vity of valuations between that of the subject land and other properties in the immediately locality. It is possible in this instance to give specific consideration to the application of the sales as it affects relativity. On each of the sale sites, it is clear that the Valuer-General's application of value is supported by the evidence of those individual sales. In the case of Mr Whitfield's· third sale, the Salmon Street property, he advised the Court that had the benefit of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act not been given, then the valuation of that site would have been in the order of $90,000 or about $90/m 2 , an application which again would have been supported by that sale. He agrees that while restricted sea views from that site may well be obtained from upper levels of any development, his description as to lack of sea views relates to the view obtained from his ground level inspection. It seems to me that the best evidence of value supplied to the Court is that of the Salmon Street property. There may be, on Mr Whitfield's description of the physical qualities, some inferiority attaching to the sale land, but then there seems that its highest and best development for resident ia l units would provide the potential for superior upper level views. While there remain s a holiday letting influence on th e residential unit development potential of the immediate locality and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I lean to Mr Whitfield's opinion that the exposure afforded by the Bea ch Ro ad frontage of the subject provi d es it with some advantage over property with secondary street frontage. It is logical that any advantage would not be of the same significance as for t he once overnight passing trade, and as Mr Conroy says, 132 -- 132 of 177 -- could be offset, at least to some degree by the increased local traffic noise factor 1 residential use. Consequently I do not see any advantage as being as significant as suggE3sted by Mr Whitfield. accept his opinion that while the drainage easement encumbrance should not be ignored, its real effect on the potential use of the land or its market value is of a relatively nominal nature. In the end result and guided predominantly by the Salmon Street sale, I have decided to allow this appeal and determine the unimproved value in the amount of $120,000. The Valuer-General's valuation is set aside accordingly. Appeals AV91-561, 562, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 582, 583 and 584 - H.C. & L.R. Muller & Ors. These appeals relate to the commercial area of Airlie Beach. By consent of the parties they were heard together, the evidence as to matters affecting commercial values being common in each case. There is no disagreement between the valuers that no evidence is available which provides a clear indication as to the state of the commercial market as at the relevant date. Mr Whitfield said that when he investigated the situation at a time close to the relevant date, there was a perception of a declining market but no evidence to prove it. His enquiries of letting agents indicated that while tenants were experiencing trading difficulties and vacancies were occurring, there had not been any evidence of a fall in rent levels again as at the relevant date. In the absence of specific evidence to show a falling market, he had initially decided to re- write the level of values which had been found by the Valuer-General as at 31st March, 1989. Subsequent to that decision and when objections to the commercial valuations were under consideration, the probability that a declining market had commenced by the relevant date had, with the benefit of hindsight, become more 133 -- 133 of 177 -- obvious. It has been held that events including sales, subsequent to a particular valuation date may be taken into account to determine the value at the relevant date, in light of the circumstances that their existed, and to determine the proper weight to attach to such circumstances (vide Samios & Anor. v. F.C . of T 72 ATC 4063) Mr Whitfield argues that events leading up to the relevant date and certainly the only market evidence (the sale to which he made reference and which will be discussed later) did not allow any professional prediction as to the full extent of the difficulties and market decline which occurred after the relevant date. Subsequent events could not be interpreted to show the actual extent of the decline at the relevant date. Nevertheless, sensibly in my view, and in the spirit of taking a conservative rather than overly optimistic approach, he decided to reduce the commercial values based on his perception of what the actual situation might have been. He points out that the reductions in value from the 1989 level (generally around 15%, depending on consideration of matters of relativity) were not intended to reflect the extent of the decline in values which occurred after the date but a reasonable interpretation of what might have been the situation in the earlier period of recession. He accepts that any greater decline with the continuing recession after the relevant date would be a matter for consideration at another time. Mr Whitfield says that he has had regard to the sale of the property known as the National Bank premises (Kalfax Pty Ltd to Kennedy and Clay, 22.1.90 for $1,600,000). He analysed that sale to show an unimproved value of $1 ,686 per square metre but clearly did not rely on the sale because the value applied to the sale property was initially $725 per square metre reduced on objection to $615 per 134 -- 134 of 177 -- square metre. As was discussed in Appeal AV91-538 (Cannonvale commercial .1d) Mr Whitfield also carried out a rental capitalisation analysis of a specific property CUMango Terrace", 263 Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach) to check the veracity of his assessment of unimproved value. Using actual rentals, a net income was calculated then capitalised at 12.5% per annum (adopted, in the absence of sales evidence, as an opinion of fair return) to establish the estimated improved capital value of the property. By deduction of the assessed value of the improvements, the residual land value indicated that his applied unimproved value was conservative. As Mr Whitfield states, this was not the preferred method of assessing unimproved value, but at least he went to the trouble of doing the best he could in the absence of supporting evidence. Mr Conroy was obviously faced with the same difficulties as was Mr Whitfield, in terms of evidence. He explained to the Court the recent history of matters affecting. the commercial land market and local economy in Airlie Beach - from the buoyant period in 1988-89, fired by southern investors even though a tourist season had been lost to Expo, the Pilots Dispute which commenced in August 1989 and its significant effect on the tourist industry, an abnormally wet season in 1990, increasing interest rates, financial pressure on businesses already suffering from loss of tourist trade then the national recession. He was closely associated with the local market and had no doubt that by 31st March, 1990, values were falling. He could not prove it through sales evidence because as he says, it was the lack of any market which made it obvious. He tendered a schedule of twelve sales. which had taken place in Airlie Beach from as early as June 1987. Only three ·of these were subsequent to June 1989 to the period to June 1990. It was intend.ed that this evidence was to show the volatility of demand 135 -- 135 of 177 -- rather than evidence of value. Included was the National Bank premises sale which j analysed to show a much lower land content than did Mr Whitfield, but still higher than that applied by the Valuer-General. He gave evidence as to the effect on values of property as indicated by the forced sale market in 1991, although this was of no real assistance to the matter at hand. In the end result, both valuers now agree that commercial values, at least in the central business area had fallen from the level which had been applied by the Valuer-General as at March 1989. Neither valuers are able to demonstrate by any means, other than their expert opinion, the extent of the fall in values. I have gained the impression however that Mr Conroy has used the benefit of hindsight to a degree which might well have been arguable as correct later than the relevant date as the effect of the recession worsened. I am not convinced that the market at the relevant date would have expressed itself so pessimistically as it did increasingly after that date. In summary, I am not persuaded that Mr Whitfield has taken an unfair or unreasonable approach. Instead I accept that he has given the benefit of doubt as to a perceived declining level of value unable to be proved by evidence. I will accept the general level of value as proposed by him in favour of the significantly lower level sought by Mr Conroy. The individual appeals are now summarised as follows: Appeal A V91 -561 - H.C. & L. R. M uller - lot 1 R. P. 73 69 63 , Parish of Conway, 6 00 sq uare metres - V al uer-Genera l' s va lu at ion $56 0 ,0 00 - Mr Conroy's valuation $3 20, 00 0 . Mr Conroy's evidence is that this site at the corner of the Shute Harbour Road and Broadwater Avenue, backing onto a beachfront Esplanade, had been 136 -- 136 of 177 -- significantly filled in the past. He could not ascertain the actual volume of fill which ld been placed. Mr Whitfield informed the Court that notes on the Valuer- General's file indicated that fill to a depth of 1 metre overall had been previously allowed by the Valuer-General. Some confusion then arose as to how the 1989 valuation of $660,000 had been calculated, as it appeared that a base value of $1,000 per square metre had been adopted, a corner influence of 20% added, then an allowance made for fill of $60,000 based on 6,000 cubic metres (and not 600 cubic metres as it should have been). Mr Whitfield did not agree with an allowance of 20% for the corner nor the $60,000 for fill. He said by allowing a reduction of 15% of the actual 1989 valuation, his calculation would be: 600 square metres @ $850 per square metre Add 10% corner influence Less 600 cubic metres fill Total Adopt $560,000 =$5 10,000 = 51 ,000 $561,000 = 6,000 =$555,000 While it is a relatively nominal amount involved, I will ensure that an allowance for fill has been made, by reversing the rounding process to $550,000. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $550,000. Appeal AV91-562 ~ H.C. & LR. Muller - Lot 2 R.P . 736963 Parish of Conway, 603 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $510,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $300,000 . This land adjoins Appeal AV91-562 above on the eastern side. It is an inside lot also backing onto the beachfront esplanade. Mr Conroy's valuation is based on 137 -- 137 of 177 -- $500 per square metre with no allowance for fill. Again, Mr Whitfield indicated that , a Valuer-General's notes included the information that 300 cubic metres of fill has been allowed on the site at some time past. The previous valuation was $600,000 and his 15% reduction reduced that to $510,000 or approximately $845 per square metre. The nominal filling allowance is built in to that valuation. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-564 - J.K. & J.E. Dyson - Lot 8 R.P. 739915 , Parish of Conway, 608 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $510,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $300,000 . This land is situated at 271 Shute Harbour Road , backing onto the beachfront esplanade. Mr Conroy said the appellant's believed some fill had been placed on the site but he had made no allowance in his valuation which reflected $500 per square metre. Mr Whitfield said there were no official records suggesting fill. Again the previous valuation of $605,000 had been used as a base, the reduction of 15% rounded down to $510,000 or approximately $845 per square metre. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-565 - The Proprietors "Montipora" Building Units - Building Unit Plan 362 Parish of Conway, 631 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $595,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $350,000. This is an irregularly shaped site at 273 Shute Harbour Road, surveyed adjoining the road access to a public carpark within the beachfront esplanade reserve. Mr Conroy said that while the site appeared as a corner, and there was some exposure to traffic utilising the carpark, there was no enhancement for retail use on the carpark road frontage. He valued the land at $550 per square metre. 138 -- 138 of 177 -- It is Mr Wh itfield's opinion that the location of the carparking facility and the 1 Jserve provide the property with a distinct advantage over the inside lots to the north. He reduced the previous valuation of $700,000 by 15%, resulting in a calculation of a rounded $950 per square metre. Bearing in mind the resultant shape of the lot, created by the adjacency to the reserve and public facility, and on the evidence as to the somewhat limited extent of benefit provided by exposure to public access, and in comparison with the inside lots, I have formed the opinion that some over assessment of that benefit is reflected in the Valuer-General's valuation. I will reduce the benefit allowance of the 10% suggested by Mr Whitfield to 7½% but on a base va lue of $850 per square metre. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $580,000. Appeal AV91-566 - The Proprietors "Airlie Professional Centre" Building Units - Building Unit Plan 125, Pa rish of Conway, 1262 square metres - Valuer- Ge neral's valuation $750,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $500, 0 00. This site is situated on the southern frontage at 400 Shute Harbour Road, towards the eastern end of the central business area. Although he does not see it as a major disability, Mr Conroy makes reference to the run-off rainwater from properties to the south. His main concern is the effect of the economic recession on a property such as the subject where rental income is insecure and the overheads continue to rise. He values this larger than average commercial site at $400 per square metre. Mr Whitfield has reduced the previous valuation of $880,000 by 15% to a rounded $750,000 equating $600 per square metre. 139 -- 139 of 177 -- The evidence before the Court indicates that the valuation of $600 per ~uare metres is consistent with a general level of value applied on the southern frontage of Shute Harbour Road. I am inclined to the view that in an economic climate of declining values, the larger sites might be seen to suffer to a greater degree than the smaller standard size lots, as suggested by Mr Conroy. There is also no indication of any allowance for the disability of slope which Mr Whitfield agrees could be a problem. I have decided to adopt a valuation here based on $550 per square metre. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $690,000. Appeal AV91-567 - E.J. Hickox - Lot 19 on R.P. 709995, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $370,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $280,000. This is a rectangular shaped lot at the corner of Shute Harbour Road an,_ Harper Street. There is said to be a Council sewerage line within the site, adjacent to the eastern boundary. A power-pole and Telecom install ation have also been recognised by the Valuer-General as causing some disabi lity and records indicate that an indeterminable volume of fill has been at some time placed upon the site. This land is zoned Residential B. It is developed with a shop and office commercial building. Mr Whitfield says that the notes on file suggest that the structure was erected with consent of Council in 1985 without necessity of rezoning. The question of the intermix of Residential B and Commercial zoned main street lands and correct valuation procedure has been raised in other matters and will be 140 -- 140 of 177 -- discussed where it is considered to be a question of principle. It is mentioned Jwever that the Town Planning Scheme for the then Shire of Proserpine, as published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 26th January, 1985, contains within Column V (purposes for which buildings or other structures may not be erected or used or for which land may not be used), amongst a number of other "prohibited" uses, "Commercial premises ", and "Shops ". "Commercial premises" are described as "Any land, building or other structure or any part thereof used or intended for use as a business office or a professional office or for other business or commercial purposes .. .". It seems to me that the use of the subject premises is specifically prohibited within the zoning and the proposition put to me that such use was permitted by consent is in direct confl ict with the provi sions of the Town Plan. It is accepted that the use could have occurred as a "lawful - non-conforming use" had the use been established prior to th e Town Planning Scheme as gazetted, but that is not the evidence before me . The valuation of land used for lawful non-conforming purposes is provided for in Section 12(1 A) of the Valuation of Land Act which reads: Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, in determining the unimproved value of any land it shall be assumed that - (a) the land may be used, or may continue to be used, for any purpose for which it was being used, or for which it could be used, at the date to which the valuation relates; and (b) such improvements may be continued or made on the land as may be required in order to enable the land to continue to be so used. • This property is then quite correctly valued as if it was zoned "Commercial", in terms of the Act. Mr Whitfield's valuation which reflects his reduction of about 15% below the 141 -- 141 of 177 -- 1989 level is as fo ll ows: 607 square metres @ $650 square metres (including corner influence of 10%) Less fill and site disabilities as previously allowed @ $40 per square metre Adopt $370 ,000 $394,550 $ 24.280 $3 70 ,270 I accept that valuation as reasonable, reflecting the use, the advantages and disabilities of the site. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-568 - J.M. Chengody - Lots 1 and 2 on R.P. 721624 and Lot 14 on R.P . 709995 Parish of Conway, 1416 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $850,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $500,000. This property is situated at 382 Shute Harbour Road and is near the centre of the central business area. It is zoned Residential B and is developed with six motel style holiday units, a licensed restaurant and a guests swimming pool. Mr Conroy informed the Court that the licensed restaurant was a consent use within the Residential B zone, and he sees that, in this location, as being a matter which would influence the level of value. He maintains however, that Residential B zoned land is less valuable than Commercial, where location is similar. The Valuer-General, on the evidence of Mr Whitfield, has consistently valued this main street Residential B zoned l_and at the same level as Commercial and while he was not able to be specific with a reference, he believed that such procedure had received the approval of the Land Court. He says that historically Residential B zoned property in this location had fetched the same price as 142 -- 142 of 177 -- Commercial. Considerable discussion took place as to Council attitudes, which on the evidence, lack consistency as to the consent of uses in zones where they are stated to be prohibited. Mr Whitfield is of the opinion that no difficulties are presented by Council in obtaining "consent" or rezoning where the necessity arises. He tendered a copy of the relevant section of the minutes of a meeting of the Council where it was recommended that approval be granted (February 1992) for rezoning of part of the subject land from Residential B to Commercial, subject to fourteen conditions, none of which would be abnormal in terms of commercial use. I find it an untenable contention that the market place would accept that a prohibited use might be achieved readily by consent of Council, but I do accept that rezoning of Residential B land to commercial in this particular locality would be seen as readily achievable. The necessity to achieve the rezoning and the risks, even if minor, of unacceptable or expensive conditions being place on approval, should not, in my opinion, be ignored in terms of value. The situation where land is not being used for commercial premises as is the case in this matter, can be distinguished from the situation in the previous appeal (AV91-567) where Section 12 (1A) of the Act provides the valuation solution. Here Mr Conroy values the land as Residential B (with licensed restaurant consent use) at the equivalent of approximately $350 per square metre. Mr Whitfield's valuation, reflecting a 15% reduction on the 1989 level is the equivalent of $600 per square metre. With consideration to the size of the land (see also Appeal AV91-566) I see the market conditions indicating a greater discount than has been made for the standard sized lots. 143 -- 143 of 177 -- I do not accept the Valuer-General's contention that Residential B zoned rid would carry the same unconditional open market level of value in this main commercial area for the very reason that I see the highest and best use logically including some commercial content and the consequent need for rezoning procedure and the associated delays and costs. There is no specific evidence before me to confirm Mr Whitfield's contention that this main street Residential B zoned land would fetch the same amount as if zoned commercial. In an endeavour to recognise the zoning situation, together with consideration to the size of the land, I have decided to adopt a valuation relating more to a base $500 per square metre. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $700,000. Appeal AV91-569 - B. Eggers - Lot 10 on R.P. 709995, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $360,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $200,000. This property is situated at 364 Shute Harbour Road and also near the centre of the Central Business Area. As in the previous matter (Appeal AV91_-568) this land is also zoned Residential B. Its primary use is as a motel type "backpackers" accommodation complex but there is also a "tourist information centre/cruise booking office". While there is a component of commercial use, the evidence indicates that that component is secondary to the primary residential use although not necessarily incidental to it, and not falling within the consent use category. I see some parallel in a case such as this to the findings of the Land Appeal 144 -- 144 of 177 -- Court in GFM Investments Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 244, 1 .,ere the actual building and density of the lawful non-conforming use needed to be considered in terms of the valuation procedure to be adopted in the application of Section 12(1A) of the Act. In light of my findings in other appeals where the question of Residential B zoning is raised, I find that here the partial commercial use would allow valuation under Section 12(1 A) of the Act, but that the extent of that commercial use is a matter for consideration. I accept that as a Commercial zoned site a valuation of $600 per square metre as applied by Mr Whitfield is reasonable. Had the use been exclusively related to the Residential B zoning where rezoning to Commercial would have logically been necessary to achieve commercial levels of value, then I would find a value of $550 per square metre. This is in the absence of any cogent evidence to indicate that a greater disadvantage should apply. However, bearing in mind the secondary nature of commercial use which needs to be considered, I will find here a value related to a base level of $565 per square metre. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside, and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $340,000. Appeal AV91-570 - G.R. & P.E. Rudd - Lot 5 on R.P. 709995 Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General 's valuation $365,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $315,000. Situated at 354 Shute Harbour Road, this land is zoned Commercial. Mr Conroy says that originally the land rose with a gentle slope to the rear and its development has involved cut and terracing to two levels. His valuation is based 145 -- 145 of 177 -- on 520 per square metre. Mr Whitfield valued the land at $600 per square metre , .1d it is noted that this results in a reduction of about 18% below the 1989 level. No specific allowance has been made for any necessary site works. I find Mr Whitfield's valuation to be reasonable. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-571 - The Proprietors "PRD House" Building Units - Building Unit Plan 70742, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $365,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $267,500. This land is situated at 350 Shute Harbour Road and is zoned Commercial. Mr Conroy values the land at $500 per square metre then deducts at full value the area which he says is encumbered by two easements. The first involves an area of about 9 square metres, in favour of the Electricity Board and on which is an "Electricity Supply Control Box". He says the second easement of 63 square· metres encumbers a strip ~long the western boundary and is said to have been necessary to access the first easement. He then says that when adjoining property to the west was developed a reciprocal easement arrangement was negotiated. Mr Conroy states that the original plan of development on the subject site required amendment as a result of the Electricity Board easement requirements and in the end result one car parking bay was lost, requiring a contribution of $7,000 to be made to Council. Mr Whitfield had made no allowance for easement encumbrances. He sees the benefit of the easement arrangements along the common boundary between this land and the land to the west as at least equalising the encumbrance. He had no knowledge of the "electricity box" easement but felt if it accommodated a facility 146 -- 146 of 177 -- specifically for the development on the subject land then no allowance should be 1 ,ade. He agreed that if the works were of a public utility nature then some allowance would be warranted. The difficulty facing the Court is the lack of information provided to support any allowance being made for the Electricity Board "electricity box easement". I agree with Mr Whitfield's reasoning, that if the easement relates specifically to the development constructed on the subject land then it has no effect on unimproved value. On the state of the evidence I am not convinced that an allowance should be made. Shared access easement arrangements along boundaries are relatively common in commercial areas and it is generally conceded that the advantages of the benefit easement equalises the effect of the encumbering easement. On the state of the evidence I see no reason to alter the Valuer-General's valuation. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-582 - Donadelli & Co Pty Ltd - Lot 6 Plan A85917, Parish of Conway, 574 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $540,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $330,000. This land fronts Airlie Esplanade on the northern side near its intersection with Shute Harbour Road, and adjacent to a public carpark and the beach. Mr Conroy says that the location is near to the hub of the commercial centre. Mr Whitfield provides the following description: "Originally a gully passed through this site (since filled in). Property represents a good corner site with excellent exposure. .. ." Mr Conroy provided a "capitalisation valuation" of this property (which was 147 -- 147 of 177 -- not challenged). Based on a net rental of $112,829 per annum and a yield of 3.5%, a capital value of $835,770 was found. This was apportioned as building $460,500, paved parking $5750, and land $369,650. No evidence was given by Mr Conroy as to the relevant date of this rental approach, but based on the capitalisation rate employed and Mr Conroy's evidence as to adopted yields for valuation .purposes at various perio'ds, it would seem to be relevant to a date later than that in this matter. His valuation of $330,000 before the Court is calculated at $575 per square metre. Mr Whitfield's valuation is as follows: 574 square metres @ $950 per square metre Less allowance for fill - 480 cubic metres @ $10 per cubic metre adopt Adopt $540,000 $545,300 5,000 $540,300 While the site has an irregular shape, the value applied by Mr Whitfield appears not to represent an over-valuation, particularly when other valuations on the northern frontage of Shute Harbour Road are considered. Again it represents a fairly consistent reduction with other valuations, compared to the 1989 level. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-583 - A. Spilman & P.J. Tully - Lot 21 on Plan A8592, Parish of Conway, 640 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $560,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $330,000. Situated at the north-eastern corner of Shute Harbour Road and Airlie Esplanade, this is an irregular shaped site with wide street frontage of about 70 metres. The land is now level but it is agreed between the parties that it has been 148 -- 148 of 177 -- substantially ·filled to bring it to its present physical state. Mr Conroy values the nd as unimproved at $515 per square metre. He was not able to ascertain the actual volume of fill but had it not required fill said he would have valued it at $580 per square metre. He says it is located in the better commercial section and holds the opinion that its shape disability is equalised by its wide frontage. Mr Whitfield tends to agree conversely. He says the corner influence advantage is equalised by its shape disability. It is a high visibility corner but in his opinion it is not at the immediate heart of the commercial area. Based on Valuer- General's records he has allowed filling equivalent to 2 metres over the whole of the site. His valuation is as follows: 640 square metres @ $900 per square metre Less fill Adopt $560,000 $576,000 $13 ,000 $563,000 His valuation represents a reduction of 19% on the 1989 valuation and reflects his opinion as to the relative location of the site. In comparison with Mr Conroy's opinion as to the relative worth of this site compared with others, Mr Whitfield's valuation, once his general basis is accepted, might be seen to be conservative rather than harsh. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-584 - Silklock Pty Ltd - Lot 34 on Plan A8592 Parish of Conway, 789 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $570,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $300,000. This is a site on the northern frontage of Shute Harbour Road at the western corner of Coconut Drive. Mr Conroy says that being at the eastern extremity of the 149 -- 149 of 177 -- commercial area, but more importantly severed from the business heart by the )tel drive-in bottle shop, there is very low density pedestrian traffic passing the subject property. He assessed the location of the site as being the worst of the Main Street commercial properties. Mr Whitfield whilst agreeing that the passing pedestrian traffic is of low density, sees the site, through its wide frontage to Shute Harbour Road as being one of high exposure, particularly to vehicular traffic travelling from Shute Harbour direction westerly into Airlie Beach. He was impressed by its exposure to the degree that he assessed the corner influence as adding 20% to a base level of $600 per square metre. He sees a public carpark on the eastern frontage of Coconut Drive as advantageous to the subject property. In view of Mr Whitfield's opinion as to the lack of any corner influence due to the shape of the property at the corner of Airlie Esplanade and Shute Harbour Road (Appeal AV91-583) I find his opinion with regard to the corner influence advantage of this property somewhat conflicting. This site is not entirely free of shape disability, having a significant three chord corner truncation, but importantly there seems general agreement to the break in pedestrian traffic caused by the hotel element to the west. It seems that pedestrian traffic has weighed heavily (as it logically should with commercial/ retail property) with regard to the relativity of values between the northern and southern frontages of Shute Harbour Road to the west of this location. I am pe rsuaded by Mr Conroy's ev idence that at least some of the difficulties associated with the lettin~ history of this property relate to its location and re lative lack of pedestrian traffic, and the lack of significant commercial development in Coconut Drive. 150 -- 150 of 177 -- I have decid ed to fi nd a valuation based on $625 per square met re to elude the corner influence. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $490,000. Appeal AV91-572 - J.C. O'Neill - Lot 401 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway, 827 squ a re metres - Valuer-General's valuation $140,000 - Appellant's estimate $80,000. This appeal relates to a Residential A zoned site, used for single unit residential purposes, located at 14 Broadwater Avenue, Airlie Beach, about 200 metres from the Post Office. The site has corner position, Mazlin Street being on its north-western boundary. It is described as having an easy to moderate fall to Broadwater avenue from the rear. There is an open grassed drain adjacent and parallel to the Mazlin Street frontage. Mr Conroy describes the views as being "quite good" while Mr Whitfield says "excellent bay and ocean views are enhanced by the corner location". Mr Conroy's valuation before the Court was in the amount of $100,000. He tendered a schedule of four Residential A zoned sales in Airlie Beach, the details of which are as follows: (1) Lot 412 Shute Harbour Road, 541 square metres, 31.10.89 $75,000 (V.G. $106,000) - "sloping site, fair views although obstructed by house in front. Poor access from Shute Harbour Road to the block." (2) Lot 2 Shute Harbour Road and Airlie Crescent, 847 square metres, 18.12.89 $150,000 (V.G. $79,000) - "good sloping site, excellent sea views. All Council services, good access." (3) Lot 14 Airlie Crescent, 607 square metres, 20.3.90, $78,000 (V.G. $71,000) - "elevated sloping site - excellent sea views. Good access in quiet cul-de- sac." 151 -- 151 of 177 -- (4) Lot 20 Orana Street, 713 square metres, 5.9.90, $60,000 (V.G . $66,000) - "poor sloping site - falls into gully, poor sea views." Mr Conroy felt that the lands in Sales No. 2 and 3 were the most physically comparable to the subject land. He agreed that Sale No.2 was out of line with market levels being a high sale and that Sa le No .3 supported the Valuer-General's valuation of that site. Sale No.1 was out of line being a low sale but he had not placed reliance on it. Sale No.4 took place six months after the relevant date and he agreed that the sale reflected a falling market. Mr Whitfield's valuation was made having regard to six sales as follows: (1) Lot 85 Country Road, Cannonvale, 929 square metres 8.6.89 $59,000 (applied $50,000) "although considered to be a very good elevated executive site, the sale property is situated about 4.5 kilometres from Airlie Beach. Because of its steep nature, the sale land would be comparatively expensive to develop. The sale enjoys excellent water views. 11 (2) Lot 64 Country Road, Cannonvale, 826 square metres, 18.5.89 $67,750 (applied $62,000) - similar comments as in (1 ). (3) Lot 81 country Road, Cannonvale, 912 square metres, 14.4.89 $65,500 (applied $58,000) - similar comments as in (1). (4) Lot 68 Country Road, Cannonvale, 812 square metres, 5.4.89, $77,500 (applied $66,000) - similar comments as in (1 ). (5) Lot 608 Harbour Avenue, Shutehaven, 531 square metres, 1.5.89 $110,000 (applied $110,000) - "The sale property is situated 1O kilometres from Airlie Beach and represents a very good elevated site although its steep nature would make development expensive. The sale has only very restricted water views but is situated amongst executive development. 11 (6) Lot 3 Harbour Avenue, Shutehaven, 51 O square metres, 6.11.89 $140,000 (applied $140,000) - "the sale property is situated about 10 kilometres from Airlie Beach and represents a very good elevated site although its steep nature would make development expensive. Very good water views are available to the rear of the land which is situated amongst executive development." 152 -- 152 of 177 -- Mr Whitfield says Sales No. 1 to 5 are inferior to the subject land while Sale \o.6 is considered comparable. While he agreed that the sales in Country Road where not an ideal basis, he had endeavoured to isolate areas which had or were potentially capable of attracting "executive" style development. He saw the locality of the subject land although_ accommodating a mixture of development, being imminently suitable as a prestigious residential address. He did not agree with the proposition put to him by Mr Conroy that the Shutehaven residential land was more valuable than the subject site. He agreed that Shutehaven was a recognised elite address, with excellent quality development attracted by the features of that location, but felt that it suffered in comparison by its relative isolation and lack of amenities. While he recognised that the land in his Sale No.6 was not directly comparable with the subject land, the positive features, in his opinion did not outweigh the disabilities of the location, and he was satisfied that on an overall comparison the two lots would carry equal value in an open market. It is Mr Conroy's submission that the Shutehaven area is well recognised locally as being superior to Airlie Beach and while there may be potential for the locality of the subject land to become more select, that potential has· not expressed itself in the market place as being equal to the market for Shutehaven land. He contends that his Sale No.3 although inferior as land, is a useful comparison, suggesting that the valuation of the subject should be somewhere between that sale and Mr Whitfield's Sale No.6. There is evidence before the Court that the applied values at Shutehaven range from $92,000 to $180,000, based on a direct comparison with Mr Whitfield's Sales (5) and (6). Both valuers agree that the sales evidence put before the Court is not ideal. 153 -- 153 of 177 -- In the end result, the question of level of value becomes a matter of opinion. The 1 1in basis put forward by Mr Conroy has been adopted by the Valuer-General in the valuation of that land. I am not persuaded on the evidence before the Court that reasonable relativity, between the Valuer-General's valuations of the subject land or the sale lands, has not been maintained. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-573 - B.F. Lott - Lot 504 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $138,000 - Appellant's estimate $75 , 000. Nearby to the land involved in the previous matter {Appeal AV91-572), the land subject of this appeal is located at 8 Broadwater Avenue; Airli e Beach, about 300 metres from the Post Office . The street has a bitumen strip surface but is not kerbed ·or channelled. The land is described as having a steady or gentle slope to the street from the rear. It is above street level. Mr Conroy says it has "good sea views" while Mr Whitfield says the site "enjoys excellent bay and ocean views and overlooks Airlie Beach." Both valuers use the same evidence as in the previous matter. Mr Conroy sees this land being of equal value to that site (Lot 401) valuing this land also at $100,000. Mr Whitfield is marginally more generous in comparis on valuing this land $2,000 less at $138,000. The Valuer-General's basis was accepted for the reasons given in Appeal AV91 -572 and it follows that it should be accepted here as well. This appeal is also dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. 154 -- 154 of 177 -- Appeal AV91-574 - N. Biggs - Lot 502 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $138,000 - Appellant's estimate :J0,000. The land subject of this appeal is one lot removed to the north of the land in the previous matter (Appeal AV91-573), being situated at 4 Broadwater Avenue. The valuers' written descriptions of the land and the available views are similar to those of Lot 504 in that previous matter. Mr Conroy's valuation of the subject land here is $97,500, his reasoning being that while similar to Lot 504, the views are not quite as wide. For the reasons given in the decision in Appeal AV91-572, the Valuer- General's basis of valuation for these lands is accepted. I am not persuaded that the view from this land is inferior to the degree that the land would fetch any less than Lot 504. This appeal is also dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-575 - L.M . Henson - Lot 501 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway, 630 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $138,000 - Appellant's estimate $75,000. Adjoining the land in the previous appeal (AV91-574) to the north, the land subject of this appeal is a corner site at 2 Broadwater Avenue and Ocean View Avenue, Airlie Beach. Mr Whitfield describes the land as being above street level with a gentle to steady fall from north-west to south-east and enjoying excellent ocean, bay and town views. His valuation, using the same basis as in the previous matters was $140,000 less an allowance of $2,000 because of its proximity to the entrance and carparking facility of the complex known as Coral Sea Resort. the $140,000 base value included what he saw as the advantage of its corner position. 155 -- 155 of 177 -- Mr Conroy sees this land as inferior to the adjoining lots to the north, due to a oarrow depth, and proximity to the Coral Sea Resort. He holds the opinion that the corner influence is negated by the outlook over the carparking area of the Resort. It seems to me that Mr Whitfield has given consideration to the disabilities of the site as well as its advantages, finding in the end result that it is no less valuable than Lot 502 adjoining. I am not persuaded that the Valuer-General's valuation is proved wrong. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-576 - K.E. & M.J . Hill - Lot 803 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, 610 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $125,000 - Appellant's estimate $100,000. This land is situated at 5 Ocean Avenue, Airlie Beach, about 560 metres from the Post Office. It is described as having a gentle cross-fall from east to west and falls away to the rear near the northern boundary. Mr Whitfield describes the ocean views as excellent. Mr Conroy agrees that the views are impressive. He says the northern boundary fronts a 60 metre wide esplan ade which remains in its natural state, being "very steep, heavily timbered and strewn with large boulders." The Valuer-General's original va luation of this land was $131,000 but on objection the valuation was amended to $125,000. It appears that an allowance (or further allowance) for adjacency to a boat building shed was the reason for the reduction. Mr Conroy's valuation before the Court was $110,000. Both valuers rely on the sales evidence first discussed in Appeal AV9 1-572. Mr Conroy is of the opinion that while he maintains that the Shutehaven location is superior, the subject land does have some comparability with the sales evidence from that location, 156 -- 156 of 177 -- provided by Mr· Whitfield. He sees the proximity of the Marina and the Coral Sea 1 "esort as also taking something away from the exclusivity of the subject land. Mr Whitfield gave evidence as to the locaJ relativity of valuations with which he feels comfortable. I have found that while the basic sales evidence is not strong, his valuations on other Airlie Beach Residential A zoned lands have not been proved wrong and that remains the situation here. Indeed Mr Conroy's valuation of this land indicates that, of all the Residential A valuations in this immediate locality, which he has contested, this land is the most valuable site. Mr Whitfield's valuation indicates that whi le he does not see the land as the most valuable, he does recognise its disabilities. The appeal is dismissed an d the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-581 . - G.W .P. & S.E. Little - Lot 508 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway, 637 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $110 , 000 - Appellant's estimate $55,000. Situated at the corner of Hillcrest Avenue and Mazlin Street, Airlie Beach, about 250 metres from the Post Office , the land subject of this appeal is opposite {to the north-west) of the land involved in Appeal AV91-572. Hillcrest Avenue has a bitumen strip surface, not kerbed or channelled, while Mazlin Street has full width bitumen surface to concrete kerbing and channelling on the side adjacent to the subject property. Mr Whitfield describes the land as falling sharply from Hillcrest Avenue to the front boundary and then having a moderate cross-fall to the south-east. He says excellent bay views are available from the elevated site. He tendered a photograph depicting views from Hillcrest avenue. Mr Conroy does not disagree with Mr Whitfield's topographical description 157 -- 157 of 177 -- but says the views are interrupted and could be built out. Both valuers again rely on those sales discussed in Appeal AV91-572. In this matter Mr Conroy had relied principally on the Airlie Crescent sale but referred more specifically to the first sale (Lot 12 Shute Harbour Road, October 1989 for $75,000) which he had agreed in the previous matter was a low sale. He said the land in that sale had been on the market for a considerable period however, at an asking price of $105,000. He said while he did not place a lot of weight on the sale, that land also had views which could be affected by future building development on nearby presently vacant land. The Valuer-General's valuation of that sale land was $106,000. There is no evidence before me that that valuation is under challenge. Mr Conroy's valuation on the subject land is $75,000 (the amount it is noted for which Lot 12 had sold). I cannot accept that if the sale of Lot 12 was a transaction which was recognised as being low and one on which no great weight should be placed, the subject land (which is said to be fairly comparable) should be valued at the "low" sale price. Mr Whitfield recognises that differing building development below the elevation of the subject land (on Lot 507) may in the future affect the outlook to the north-east, but considers the valuation with existing excellent views is reasonable on a relativity basis. Having heard the evidence re lative to the valuation of other lands in Broadwater Avenue and on the opposite Mazlin Street corner, I am satisfied that reasonable relativity exists and having decided to affirm those other valuations, this appeal will also fail. 158 -- 158 of 177 -- The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91 - 578 - Stellaburn Pty Ltd - Lot 706 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, 608 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $103,000 - Appellant's estimate $70,000. This property is situated at 10 Summit Avenue, Airlie Beach approximately 400 metres from the Post Office. It is a Residential A zoned inside lot, rectangular in shape with frontage of 15 metres and depth of 41 metres. Mr Whitfield describes the land as having a gentle slope away from the frontage for about 15 metres then a moderate fall to the rear, with excellent water views to the west. Mr Conroy says that the site has been filled and levelled below the road. He values the land at $80,000. He sees the land as being very comparable with Sale No.3 (see Appeal AV91 -572) in Airl ie Crescent which sold on 20 .3.90 for $78,000 (V.G. $71,000). He says both lots slope steeply and while the sa le land is steeper, the subject land has been filled and terraced. He acknowledges that an open space buffer to the west of the subject land is beneficial but sees the views from the two sites as being comparable. Mr Whitfield relies on the same basis as in appeal AV91-572. He was aware of Mr Conroy's primary sale, which supported the Valuer-General's valuation on that sale land, and he, sees the relativity between the two lots as being reasonable. He does not see the two blocks or the locations as directly comparable, with the subject land enjoying superior location and wider views. While I tend to agree with Mr Conroy that, of all the sales evidence put before the Court, his · Sale No.3 is more readily able to be compared, although it again becomes a matter of opinion as to the degree of similarity. The evidence 159 -- 159 of 177 -- indicates a greater degree of superiority attaches to the location of the subject land comparison, than has been assessed by Mr Conroy. I have gained the impression that the grounds development of filling and retention has been over emphasised by Mr Conroy in terms of its effect on unimproved value. While there is no disputing that such work has been effected, Mr Whitfield suggests that the site was not restricted to development in such manner and alternative building design was available for land with the topography of the subject site. While the question of comparison remains a matter of professional opinion I have not been convinced that the Valuer-General's valuation has been proved wrong. Mr Whitfield was aware of Mr Conroy's primary sale and his evidence indicates that consideration has been given to the identified attributes as well as the disabilities of the subject land. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-579 - J.M. Chengody - Lots 704 and 705 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, 1214 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $138,000 - Appellant's estimate $100,000. Adjoining to the north the land involved in the previous appeal (AV91 - 578), this property comprises two surveyed lots situated at 8 Summit Avenue. On the descriptions by the valuers the physical nature of this land is similar. The land is exclusively used for the purposes of a single dwelling house and falls to be valued under Section 11 (1 )(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act, with "any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use ... " is to be disregarded. In other words this land is to be valued as if its use was restricted to that of a single homesite of 1214 square metres. I have affirmed the valuation of an adjoining single homesite of similar land 160 -- 160 of 177 -- quality but having area of 608 square metres as being $103,000. Mr Whitfield says 1e value of the site of about twice the size is $138,000 (or 33 and 1/3 percent greater than the 608 square metre site). Mr Conroy contends that the larger site would be 25% greater in value. Neither valuer has any specific basis other than opinion based on comparison _with smaller lots. The Valuer-General's valuation has not been proved wrong and is not seen to be unreasonable in terms of the benefit which is intended by the legislation. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91 - 580 - N.H. Stevenson - Lot 702 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, 607 square metres - Valuer-General's valuation $103,000 - Appellant's estimate $70,000. This land is situated at 2 Summit Avenue, a short distance northerly of the land involved in Appeals AV91-578 and 579. On the same basis as adopted in those appeals, Mr Whitfield has valued this land which is of generally similar quality, in the same amount (i.e. $103,000) as the similarly sized site in AV91-578. Mr Conroy's valuation is again $80 ,000. That appeal was dismissed for the reasons given and it follows that this appeal is also unsuccessful. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. Appeal AV91-591 - PF and LC Traynor - Lots 81 and 82 on R.P. 721870, parish of Conway; 1290 m 2 - Valuer-General's valuation $215,000 - Appellants estimate $180,000 . Situated at 6 Lamond Street, about 600 metres from the Airlie Beach Post Office the land to which this appeal refers, is zoned Residential B and is developed 161 -- 161 of 177 -- with the "Airlie Beach Motor Lodge", a nine unit motel and manager's residence. ~,e site has a two chord street frontage of about 51 metres suffering shape disability in that the depth of Lot 81 is severely reduced on its southern boundary. Mr Whitfield describes the land as having "a moderate cross fall to Lamond Street from the rear. Good water views, partly obscured by trees opposite, are available." More will be said of Mr Whitfield's description of the view later. Mr Conroy says that the land in its unimproved state would have been steeply sloping and has been extensively excavated and terraced to below the ·levels of the land adjoining to the west and south. He says the property suffer run- off water, particularly from properties to the west, to the degree that drainage problems exist and in heavy wet periods, some motel units have suffered water damage. Mr Conroy says that no sea vie ws are available from the site. He values the land in the amount of $180,000, based on $140/ m 2• He refers to a schedule containing two sales, brief details of which are: (1) Lots 28 / 29 Orana Street, 1942 m 2 , 15.4.89 $278 ,000, approved for 12 units - a steeply sloping elevated site with good sea views - shows $23, 160/ unit site or $142.40/ m 2• (2) Lots 15/ 17 Airl ie Crescent, 1821 m 2, 5.6.89 $282,000, approval for 12 units - access difficulties - f ai r sea views - shows $23,500/ unit site or $154.80/m 2 • The second sale was considered by Mr Conway to be a high sale. This sale property is the land involved in Appeal AV91-594 and the circumstances of the sale are discussed in that decision. Mr Whitfield has had regard to four sales being Mr Conroy's sales (1) and (2) both of which were unimproved as well as the fo ll owing: (3) Lot 3 Airlie Crescent, 658 m 2 , 26 .1.89, $143,500 analysed unimproved value $140,000, applied $135,000 ($205/ m 2) - "easy slope above street level with Bay views to the west." 162 -- 162 of 177 -- (4) Lot 12 Begley Street, 665 m 2, 12.3.89, $ 160,000 analysed unimproved value $159 ,000, applied $140,000 ($210/ m 2) - "elevated moderate to steep slope with fair sea views." Mr Whitfield had not been aware of an access easement attaching to Mr Conroy's Sale (2) and while he had not personally analysed Sale (4) he believed it to have been vacant when in fact, it was improved with a dwelling (a matter which he confirmed subsequent to further inspection during the course of these hearings.). He had agreed that if in fact there was a dwelling on the land and it formed part of the acquisition, then he would discard the sale as evidence of value. Mr Whitfield said that there had been a dwelling on Sale (3) but his enquiries had established that th~ structure did not pass with the land as a condition of the contract. Some evidence was given by Mr Whitfield relative to the difficulties in making comparisons of Residential B zoned sites on a unit of development potential basis. He said that not all developers had the same attitudes to optimum development in terms of the size of the residential units constructed and he saw difficulties in making comparisons on a "per unit" basis as had been part of the analysis process put forward by Mr Conroy. It is not the first time the question of basis of valuation of multi-unit zoned land has been raised before the court. As I see it, valuation is based on the principle of making comparisons on a "like with like" basis. The end result should not vary, provided the application of value relies on the same basis as has been derived from the sales evidence. As Mr Whitfield observes, it would be quite illogical for comparisons to be made on a "unit" of development basis, if the potential "units" were unlike - eg. if a one bedroom development was compared to a two or t hree or even mixed size unit development. In this matter, both valuers in the end result adopted a "unit of area" comparison basis and further discussion 163 -- 163 of 177 -- may be seen to be academic. It is observed, however, that it would be imperative ·hen adopting a unit of area basis that objective consideration be given to market influences on matters such as optimum permitted development in terms of the relevant town planning criteria. It would seem logical that optimum permitted development density, then factors affecting that density whether physical or economic would be very real considerations to a prudent developer. The manner in which that optimum development may be varied - eg. in terms of the number of bedrooms per unit, then becomes an individual perception of the marketability of the end product. In this particular case, the difference of opinion is caused by the comparisons with the sales evidence. There are circumstances surrounding the sale described as Mr Conroy's sale (2) relating to an access easement, which tend to cloud the reliability of the sale as evidence of value. It is accepted that there was a dwelling on Mr Whitfield's Sale (4) and in the absence of any evidence as to the influence of that dwelling on the sale price, no weight can be placed on that sale. This leaves the sale of the much larger site in Orana Street, with inferior topography but better views, showing $142/m 2 unimproved and the sale of the much smaller site in Airlie Crescent with superior topography and views showing $213/m2 but with application of $205/m2. Mr Whitfield's valuation of the subject property is as follows: 1290 m2 @ $200/m2 Less allowance for drainage and shape disabilities of 15% $258,000 Adopt$255,000 $ 38 ,250 $216,750 Adopt$215,000 Under cross-examination, Mr Wh itfield agreed that the "good water views" 164 -- 164 of 177 -- were, in comparison with the sales, very restricted. His broad evidence indicates a "3rception that the value of sites on a pro rata area basis, all other things being equal reduces with size. It follows that a valuation of the subject land at $200/m 2, (excluding shape disability or drainage problems) is not supported due to its size and " very restricted" views. After the arbitrary allowance of 15% for drainage and shape disabilities then the rounding processes in the calculations, the Valuer- General's valuation equates about $166/m 2, while Mr Conroy's valuation, with consideration to disabilities is $140/m 2• Mr Conroy says that there are no water views available from the subject land. While it may be that, if there are, they are "very restricted", Mr Conroy's evidence overall in this matter has been seen as more reliable. It may be that his valuation is too conservative in comparison with the larger Orana Street sale property, but his evidence that the existence of views is critical to value, in this locality, together with the state of the evidence overall, persuades me to accept his valuation without alteration. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $180,000. Appeal AV91-592 - LC Cridland - Lot 83 on Registered Plan 721870, parish of Conway, 607 m 2 - Valuer-General's valuation $115,000 - Appellants estimate $100,000. The land involved in this appeal adjoins that in the previous matter (AV91- 591), to the north-east being situated at 2 Lamond Street, Airlie Beach. This land is also zoned Residential i3 and is developed with 4 residential units known as "Lorikeet Lodge ". Mr Whitfield describes this land as having "a moderate slope to the street 165 -- 165 of 177 -- from the rear. Only fair views are available through trees oppos ite ." His valuation based on three of the four sales referred to in the previous matter - the Orana Street sale being deleted. For the reasons given in the previous matter, no reliance can be placed on two of the three sales, leaving him with the sale of the 658 m 2 site in Airlie Crescent, showing an analysed $213/ m2 with application of $205/ m2. His valuation of the subject land in comparison is: 607 m 2 @ $210/m2 Less allowance for retaining wall and shape @ 10% $127,470 Adopt$127,500 $ 12,750 $114,750 Adopt$115,000 The site has a wide frontage, reducing significantly in width to the rear. Mr Conroy, as in the previous matter, refers to the two sales of the larger sites in Orana Street and Airlie Crescent. He agrees that the smaller Airlie Crescent sale site referred to above is of assistance, but sees that land as being higher in elevation and with superior views. He values the subject land at $165/m 2 • Mr Whitfield sees the smaller area of the subject land as influencing a higher pro rata valu e, on a unit of area basis, than the sale property. His experience with the local market indicates to him that even if the sam e number of equivalent size units could be constructed on each of the two sites, the larger would sell for a higher amount (if for no other reason than provision of more extensive open space) but a lesser pro rata value. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the "all other things equal" value of $210/m 2 applied as the starting po int to the subject valuation, if based on the 658 m 2 Airlie Crescent sale, takes sufficient account of the inferior views available from 166 -- 166 of 177 -- the subject land. On the other hand, Mr Conroy's valuati0n is seen to be too 7nservative based on this smaller sale which is considered to be the best evidence placed before the Court. I have decided to adopt a value based on $180/m2, after allowance for the disabilities. The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $110,000. Appeal AV91-594 - IM and MM Johnston and Ors - Lots 15, 16, and 17 on Registered Plan 721280, parish of Conway, 1.821 m2 - Valuer-General's valuation $270,000 - Appellants estimate $215,000. This appeal refers to land situated at 14 Airlie Crescent, approximately 450 metres from the Airlie Beach Post Office. The land is zoned Residential B and was vacant at the relevant date. The land slopes steeply to Airlie Crescent, with a sharp drop to the footpath fror:n the frontage. Both valuers recognise that construction of vehicular access from the Airl ie Crescent would be difficult and expensive. Alternative access has been provided to the land by way of an easement from Lewis Stree! at the rear, encumbering land described as Lot 56 on Registered Plan 722312. Lot 56 is developed with a residential unit complex known as "Victoria Towers". The easement (Easement A) is surveyed from the Lewis Street frontage of Lot 56 adjacent to its south western boundary to the south-eastern corner of Lot 15. It is Mr Whitfield's evidence that he had no knowledge that the subject land .enjoyed the benefit of this easement. He had assumed that the only access available was from Airlie Crescent and he recognised that as being difficult. His basis of valuation has been established by having regard to the four sales of 167 -- 167 of 177 -- Residential B zoned sites referred to in appeal AV91-591. One of the sales was of ' ie subject property to the appellants on 5th June, 1989 as unimproved land for $282,000. The other sales are again mentioned as follows:- (1) Lot 3 Airlie Crescent, 658 m 2, 26.1 .89 $143,500, analysed unimproved value $140,000 - applied value $135,000. (2) Lot 12 Begley Street, 665 m 2, 12.3.89 $160,000, analysed unimproved value $159,000 - applied value $140,000. (3) Lots 28 and 29 Orana Street, 1942 m2, 15.4.89 $278,000, analysed unimproved value $278,000 - applied value $275,000. The first sale is of a much smaller site with not the same access disability and Mr Whitfield agreed that its inclusion in his basis is for little more than reference purposes. During the hearing of another matter it was found that the second sale was improved with a single unit dwelling and Mr Whitfield agreed that apart from it also being a much smaller site, if there was a house involved, the sale did not offer a sound basis of va·luation. He agreed that had the access problem from Airlie Beach to the subject land been overcome by the provision of the rear easement access then he had misinterpreted the evidence provided by the sale of the subject land. This left him with the Orana Street sale of land of generally similar size, with a steep slope from the road to the rear and with excellent views and overall in his opinion being a site readily comparable to the subject. The appellants' case as submitted by Mr Conroy is that the sale of the subject land should have provided good evidence of its value but always on the assumption that unfettered access was available via Easement A to Lewis Street. Mr Conroy said that it had never been intended by the appellants that development of the subject land would take place other than with access from the easement. The appellants were of the opinion that a "Letter of Undertaking" provided by the vendor in the transaction (a copy of which was tendered) confirmed their belief that 168 -- 168 of 177 -- there were no encroachments on the land. It is noted that what the document did -·· mdertake" was that there were "no encroaches upon the land of adjoining owners." When investigation of the proposed development of the subject land were made by the appellants subsequent to their purchase, they found that a swimming pool was partly constructed on the easement, in their opinion, reducing the effectiveness of that alternative access. Furthermore it appears that objection was made to the proposed development on the subject land on the grounds of the proximity of the proposed easement access to the swimming pool. Mr Conroy advised the Court that litigation of the matter of the encroachment was imminent. He tendered a letter from one of the appellants which contains the following paragraph: "At the time of negotiating for the purchase of these properties we were not informed of the encroachment over the Easement. Had we been aware of same, negotiations and subsequent purchase price of the property would have been considerably below the price concluded." Mr Conroy was loathe to provide an opinion as to just how much less valuable the property would be with the encroachment as it exists. I am provided with no evidence to indicate the effect of the encroachment on the availability of access. I interpret a tendered plan showing the encroachment, as also indicating that a concrete driveway is in fact laid on the remaining width of the easement apparently already serving th~ existing development on the servient tenement. It would appear that easement access is not denied to the subject land. There is also no evidence before me to indicate that any proposed development of the subject land will require amendment of the intended access as a resu lt of the objection on the grounds of proximity of that access to the swimming pool on the servient tenement. 169 -- 169 of 177 -- The Valuation of Land Act in Section 11 (iv) provides that: "A valuation of the unimproved value of any land made pursuant to this subsection shall take into account the existence and effect of any easement, registered under any Act, in respect of which such land is the dominant tenement on the servient tenement." While it may well be that the easement as encroached upon does not provide the full enhancement ·to the subject land as envisaged by the appellants when they purchased the land, it seems to me that its effect remains of enhancement unless it can be shown that development of the subject land is restricted to access being gained from Airlie Crescent. Some doubt has been cast on the weight which can be placed on the evidence provided by the sale of the subject land as a result of the encroachment. I am persuaded that, had the access easement not have been provided, Mr Whitfield's valuation would not have been supported by the sale in Orana Street, which on the evidence, would have enjoyed the superior access and arguably superior views and aspect. As the matter stands however alternative access, even if restricted, has been provided to the subject .land. The sale of the land was not applied by the Valuer- General with the same enthusiasm as was the Orana Street sale to that land. While the sale of the subject land was analysed by the Valuer-General in the absence of the full facts and the valuation also conducted under the same circumstances, I have not been convinced that it follows that the valuation has been proved wrong while so ever some access benefit remains. The valuation appears to me to be supported by the Orana Street sale. The appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's va luation affirmed. 170 -- 170 of 177 -- Appeal AV91-597 - AJ Jones - Lot 14 on Registered Plan 737075, parish of Conway, 2780 m2 - Valuer-General's valuation $350,000 - Appellants estimate - 100,000. Situated at 14 Hermitage Dr ive through to Shute Harbour Road, the land to which this appeal refers is zoned Residential B and is developed with a dwelling and older style accommodation uni t s. "Hermitage Drive Estate" is a fairly recent (about 1986) subdivisional development accommodating several modern motel and multi-unit residential complexes. The estate is easterly of the. Commercial area of Airlie Beach, about 900 metres from the Post Office along the busy Shute Harbour Road. Vehicular access to the property is presently gained off Shute Harbour Road although it is common ground between the valuers that due to the danger associated wi th Shute Harbour Road ingress and egress, vehicular access would be limited to the Hermitage Drive frontage upon any redevelopment. There is a moderate/steep fall from this frontage causing some access disability. Mr Conroy describes the land as rising with moderate slope above Shute Harbour Road and as having good sea views. H~ points out however, that the sea views are affected by the tides and at low tide a wide expanse of mud flats, with their fringing mangroves, becomes the dominant view. In terms of value, he sees the location of the subject land as being inferior to the similarly zoned areas of Air lie Beach, but superior to such zoned land further to the east at Jubilee Pocket. He refers to the sales of the two Residential B zoned sites of 1,952 m2 and 1,821 m2 in Orana Street and Airlie Crescent showing values of $142 and $155 per m 2 respectively, which have been discussed in previous appeals (see AV9 1-591). He also refers to three sales at Jubilee Pocket, all in Erromango Drive, being sites of 1,441 m2 (9.2.89), 2,847 m2 (10.2.89) and 2,135 (19.1.90) showing values of 171 -- 171 of 177 -- $41.60/m2 , $33.37/m2 and $46.80/ m2 respectively. None of these sale site have - ~a views. In his opinion, the level of value for the subject land should lie "somewhere between" the levels applying to Airlie Beach and Jubilee Pocket. His valuation is based on a pro rata value of $75/m 2 • Mr Whitfield uses the same four sales as have been discussed in other matters. For the reasons stated elsewhere two of those sales are not accepted as evidence of value. Of the remaining two, one is a 658 m 2 site with superior views - a sale considered by Mr Whitfield to have little comparability to the subject land. The remaining sale in Orana Street, Airl ie Beach, on Mr Whitfield's evidence is not directly comparable for a number of reasons associated with size, topography, location, views etc. He offered the opinion however, that, if the subject land and the sale land were of comparable size, there would be some marginal superiority attaching to the sale land. Mr Whitfield points out that the sales referred to by Mr Conroy, in each case, support the valuations applied to those sites by the Valuer-General. In essence, the argument is one of opinion as to .relativity between the three locations. Mr Whitfield sees Jubilee Pocket as being grossly inferior to the subject lands. On the evidence as a whole, none of which is directly comparable, I am not persuaded by Mr Conroy's opinion that the pro rata valuation of the subject land should be closer to the level of value shown by the Jubilee Pocket sales than the level shown by the Orana Street, Airlie Beach land. On the other hand, I accept his opinion that, had the subject land been of similar size to the Orana Street sale, then the location and physical .attributes of the subject land would be identifiably inferior to a greater degree than was suggested by Mr Whitfield, even though it is Mr Whitfield's evidence that specific reduction was made, subsequent to objection to 172 -- 172 of 177 -- the valuation, for access disabilities and the tidal affected view. It is then common .,round that the larger area of the subject land would influence a lower value. I have formed the opinion that the Valuer-General's valuation is too high based on the Orana Street sale, but not to the degree suggested by Mr Conroy. I will find a value based on $110/m 2 • The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's valuation set aside and the unimproved value determined in the rounded amount of $305,000. Appeal AV91-600 - Cannonvale Developments Pty Ltd - Lots 2, 4 and 5 on R.P.746300, Lot 57 on R.P.747705, Lots 59, 60 and 74 on R.P.747993 and Lots 66 and 69 on R.P.747994, parish of Conway, 34.97 hectares - Valuer- General's valuation $1,200,000 - Appellants estimate $750,000. The land subject of the valuation appealed against comprises nine surveyed lots, six of which are ·zoned Residential A being part of a residential subdivision at Jubilee Pocket, 2.5 kms from Airlie Beach Post Office. The remaining 3 lots are zoned Rural Residential and contain the bulk (34.145 ha) of the total area of the aggregation. Of the six smaller lots, four adjoin. At the outset it should be said that the Valuer-General's valuation put before the Court is now as follows: "Lot 57 Lot 59 Lot 60 Lot 74 Lot 66 Lot 69 Plus englobo parcels: Lots 2 and 5 Lot 4 11.885 ha 22.26 ha 173 $41,000 $40,000 $38,000 $41,000 $55,000 $43 ,000$258,000 $1, 100 .000 $1,358,000 -- 173 of 177 -- Less Bulk All owance: (9 @ 2.5%) 22 .5% Adopt $1,000,000 " $ 305 ,550 $1, 052 ,4 50 The existing Valuer-General's valuation is $1 ,200,000, the in globe parcels having originally been valued in the amount of $1,354,962 rather than the $1 ,100,000 before the Court. It should also be said that while Mr Conroy had valued the Residential A lots in the aggregated amount of $234,000 as opposed to Mr Whitfield's valuation of the these lots at $258,000, Mr Conroy advised the Court that the Valuer-General's valuations of these lots were soundly based. He provided no evidence as to the unimproved market value of the larger Lots 2, 4 and 5. It was his case that these latter described lands fell to be valued under Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act, as one site exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house. In support of this contention Mr Conroy called Mr J J Carey, a public accountant, who had su pplied Mr Conroy with a letter confirming that "the house" on the property had been rented as at March, 1990 having been occupied for "some time and continued to be occupied until mid 1990. It was vacated in anticipation of the land being cleared for the commencement of construction. However this did not eventuate and the house has fallen into disrepair." Mr Carey's verbal evidence related to the history of the acquisition of the land by the appellant company, and the proposal for development of the property leading to the house being vacated. He had little personal knowledge of the physical nature of the dwelling except that electricity had once been connected and the domestic water supply was obtained from rain water tanks and a bore. He had not been aware of 174 -- 174 of 177 -- the benefit wh ich was capable of be ing provi ded under the Valuation of Land Act when such property is exclusively used for the purpose of a single dwelling, but suggested that in light of the deferment of the intended development of the property caused by the economic recession, efforts would be made to make the structure once again habitable. On the evidence given by Mr R E Drew, a Bu ilding Inspector employed by the Wh itsunday Shire Council, that intention may well now be some task. Mr Drew was called by Mr Whitfield. He had inspected the structure on two occasions in 1992 and it is clear that it is presently unoccupied and unsuitable for human occupation. The Council had supplied Mr Whitfield with written advice which included a statement that the structure "would never have been suitable for human occupation." Nevertheless, it seems that the Council had knowledge that it had in the past been used as a dwelling although never registered as such. The parties wish to argue the question of whether the structure should have been regarded as a dwelling at th~ relevant date. The evidence before me reveals that this is not the deciding issue. The question is - whether the property was being exclusively used for the purpose of a single dwelling at the period relevant to the valuation. I accept that the structure was being rented for residential occupation at the date of valuation but during the period relevant to the valuation (ie. between the date of valuation and the date of the issue of the notice of valuation - (in this case by having been publicly displayed firstly on 29.1.91) - vide R G McMurray v. The Valuer-General - Land Appeal Court (1983) 9 QLCR 35) such residential occupation ceased. It is clear that it would be unreasonable for a rating or taxation benefit to apply from the date of effect, for a usage which did not continue during the relevant period, and I find that the submission for relief under 175 -- 175 of 177 -- Section 11 ( 1) (vii) of the Act fails . I am asked by Mr Whitfield to provide some indication as to my opinion of the status of the structure for future reference in cases where doubt may exist as to a structure being defined as a dwelling. Had it become necessary to decide that issue in this matter I would have been guided by the definition of "single dwelling house" is Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Act where paragraph (a) of the definition reads "a dwelling used solely for habitation by not more than one family". There is evidence here that the structure had been so used although as stated the use ceased during the relevant period. There is no evidence to suggest that Council had ordered such use to be discontinued. The necessary facilities existed to allow human habitation not uncommon to a Rural Residential environment and it seems to me that criteria such as the residential facilities provided to the structure would influence a decision more so than the physical nature of the particular structure. I make these observations in terms of my own appreciation of the intent of the legislation. Where doubt exists the circumstances of any specific case would need to be placed before the Court for determination. In the end result in this matter, Mr Conroy has submitted that the Valuer- General's valuations of the residential lots are supported by the evidence. The only challenge relating to the in globe land is as to its use in terms of the Act, and its consequent value excluding potential for use other than as a single unit dwelling house. It follows on my decision relative to such use that Mr Whitfield's amended valuation has not been proved wrong. It is also noted that some benefit has flowed to the appellant company (in terms of the quantum of the value of the land for rating and taxation purposes) through the Valuer-General's decision to exercise his discretion in not issuing separate valuations for those non-adjoining lots separated 176 -- 176 of 177 -- frbm the main aggregation by a public road. The appeal against the Valuer-General's decision in disallowing the objection ?-.gainst the valuation of $1,200,000 is allowed and the unimproved value determined in the amount of $1,000,000. The Valuer-General's existing valuation is set aside accordingly. 177 (R. E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 177 of 177 --