Coniston Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 197

_....... - Re: Determinations of Unimproved Value -' Shire of Whitsunday - Coniston Holdin gs Pty Ltd 3nd Ors V. The Valuer-General DECISION -LA~D COURT, - BRISBANE. 11th December, 1991 . A large number of landholders (183 in all) have appealed to this Court against the determinations by the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of their lands which are located within the Local Authority of Whitsunday. All these annual valuations have been determined as at a relevant date of 31st March, 1990. Practicing registered valuer Bevan John Conroy has prepared and filed the majority of the appeals (173). It was obvious that the Court did not have the capacity to hear and determine all of the appeals at any one sitting of the Court. The parties did not advise the Court that any agreement was to be made as to which of the cases were to be listed in the first instance. In the absence of such advice the Court selected, as best it could, from statistical information provided by the respondent Valuer-General, a series of twenty-five cases which emanate from Mr Conroy's series of appeals. Four cases were adjourned. The remaining 21 appeals, along with all appeals not filed by Mr Conroy (with the exception of three appeals which have been filed by Hamilton Island Enterprise Pty Ltd and Hamilton [1991] QLC 197 -- 1 of 52 -- - Page 2 - ·- Island Developments Pty Ltd) were ·heard at a seven day sittings of the Land Court - at Airlie Beach which commenced on 28th October, 1991. Separate decisions are to be handed down on appeals lodged by parties not represented by Mr Conroy. - Brief details of the appeals filed by Mr Conroy which were heard at - -the sittings are:- Case 4 - A V91- 71 0 .-: Lot 11 on RP 732624, Parish of Conway - 609 m 2 - appellant - Coniston Holdings Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $500,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $305,000 - Zoning "Commercial" - Situation 265 Shute Harbour Rd Airlie Beach. Case 9 - A V91-537 - Lot 35 on RP 739340, Parish of Dryander - 1090 m 2 - Appellant - D. Frego!a - Valuer-General's valuation $81,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $71,000 - Zoning "Light Industrial" - Situation Cnr William Murray Drive and Shute Harbour Road, Cannonvale. Case 10 - AV91-612 - Lot 192 on Plan HR 684, Parish of Conway - 1.649 hectares - Appellant - Mandalay Coral Gardens Pty Ltd - Valuer- General's valuation $495,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $330,000 - Zoning "Commercial" - Situation Mandalay Rd, Airlie Beach. Case 11 - AV91-551 - Lot 71 on RP 735095, Parish of Conway - 2.89 hectares - Appellant - C.H. Dorrough - Valuer-General's valuation $150,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $100,000 - Zoning - "Rural A" - Situation Border Drive, Cannonvale. Case 12 - A V91-560 - Lot 14 on RP 7337 48, Parish of Dryander - 3.105 hectares - Appellant - Ladroper Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $80,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $65,000 - Zoning "Special Facilities (Nursing Home)" - Situation Tropic Rd and Valley Drive, Cannonvale. Case 13 - AV91-490 - Lot 237 on Hr 1930, Parish of Tawvale - 2.819 hectares - appellants -· T and M Faust - Valuer-General's valuation $16,600 - Mr Conroy's valuation $3,000 - Zoning "Rural A" - Situation Bruce Highway south of Proserpine. Case 14 - A V91-641 - Lot 11 on RP 732260, Parish of Dryander - 1.996 hectares - Appellants - F.W. and N.L Pepper - Valuer-General's valuation $45,500 - Mr Conrois valuation $35,000 - Zoning "Rural A" - Situation Proserpine - Shute Harbour Road. -- 2 of 52 -- ' . - Page 3 - Case 15 - A V91-563 - · Lots 6 and 7 ori Plan A8591, Parish of Conway - 1219 m 2 - _f.ppellants - F"'! and Ml Ross ~ Valuer-General's valuation $1,000,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $610,000 - Zoning "Commercial" - Situation 267 - 269 Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach. Case 19 - AV91-577 - lot 807 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway - 604 m 2 - Appeilant - L.A. Perske - Valuer-General's valuation $150,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $100,000 - Zoning - "Residential A" - Situation 13 Oceanview Avenue, Airlie Beach· Case 20 - AV91-540 - Lot 87 on RP 746918, Parish of Dryander - 800 m 2 - Appellant - East Reef Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $27,500 - Mr Conroy's valuation $24,000 - Zoning "Residential A" - Situation Grace Avenue, Cannonvale. Case 21 - AV91-593 - Lot 55 on RP 723385, Parish of Conway - 615 m 2 - appellants - JC and CM Ryan - Valuer-General's valuation $72,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $55,000 - Zoning "Residential A" - Situation 55 Kara Crescent, Airlie Beach. Case 22 - AV91-552 - Lot 85 on RP 732263, Parish of Dryander - 863 m 2 - Appellant - Airlie Beach Data Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $52,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $44,000 - Zoning "Residential A" - Situation 19 Manooka Drive, Cannonvale. Case 23 - AV91-628 - Lot 4 on RP 721287, Parish of Tawvale - 921 m 2 - Appellants - AJ and BM Musumeci - Valuer-General's valuation $24,500 - Mr Conroy's valuation $17,000 - Zoning "Residential A" - Situation 30 Stanbury St, Proserpine. Case 24 - A V91-549 - Lots 89-102 on RP 747408, Parish of Conway - 4.643 hectares - Appellant - Nanders Pty Ltd - Valuer- General's valuation $530,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $370,000 - Zoning - "Residential B" - Situation Eshelby Drive, Cannonvale. Case 25 - AV91-557 - Building Unit Plan 70833, Parish of Dryander - 1003 m 2 - Appellant - The Proprietors "Tropic Villas" Building Units - Valuer-General's valuation $60,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $44,000 - Zoning "Residential B" - Situation - Tropic Rd, Cannonvale. Case 26 - A V91-608 - Lot 19 on RP 738220, Parish of Conway - 2659 m 2 - appellant - Airlie Magpie Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $100,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $74,000 - Zoning "Residential B" - Situation 11 Maeva St, Jubilee Pocket. Case 27 - A V91-613 - Lot 3 on Plan S9465, Parish of Conway - 602 m 2 - Appellants - JR and EH Etheridg,e - Valuer-General's valuation -- 3 of 52 -- ,. ' . - Page 4 - $162,500 - Mr Conroy's valuation $125,000 - Zoning "Residential A" - Situation Bay Terrace, Shutehaven. Case 28 - AV91-601 - Lot 1 on RP 744889, Parish of Conway - 7.684 hectares - Appellants - JR and CA Bell - Valuer-General's valuation $_115,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $80,000 - Zoning "Rural A" - Situation Shute Harbour Rd, Airlie Beach. Case 29 - AV91-603 - Lot 3 on RP 746300, Parish of Conway - 4.021 hectares - Appellant - Jayar Pty Ltd - Valuer-General's valuation $400,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $100,000 - Zoning - "Rural A" - Situation Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach. Case 31 - AV91-651 - SL 31796 - Lot 89 on Plan Hr 804261, Parish of Crystalbrook - 683 .1 hectares - Appellant - CR Davies - Valuer- General's valuation $118,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $61,000 - Zoning "Rural A" - Situation - 20 kms west of Proserpine. Case 32 - AV91-634 - Lot 16 on RP 744329 and Lot 2 on Plan HR 1298, Parish -of Dryander - 215 .5 hectares - Appellants - FW and NL Pepper and RF and CA Raiteri - Valuer-General's valuation $174,000 - Mr Conroy's valuation $72,000 - Zoning "Rural A" - Situation - Proserpine - Shute Harbour Road . I am writing a 'composite decision in respect of these appeals. Before proceeding to deal with each case on its individual merit, I should make some preliminary comments on what I could call the general evidence furnished by the parties. At the outset of the cases, Mr Conroy expressed the opinion that property values in the Shire of Whitsunday have fallen from former peak levels which operated during the first half of 1989. He says the catalyst for the fall in values was the pilot's strike in August, 1989 with a consequent and dramatic fall off in the volume of tourists visiting the Shire and in particular the Townships of Airlie Beach and Cannonvale, whose economy is directly linked to the Tourism Industry. Now Mr Conroy, who has been a resident valuer at Airlie Beach for some years now, says there is not a lot of sales evidence which illustrated the fall in values. In reality he suggests that some owners were put under severe financial pressure and this -- 4 of 52 -- - Page 5 - . has resulted in a number o( mortgagee in possession sales, all of which took place considerably after the relevant date for .this annual valuation of the Shire of Whitsunday viz 31st March, 1990. Coupled with this evidence Mr Conroy points to a recent fall in rents being paid by lessees of retail premises in the area and in some cases the inability of tenants to pay rent at alL One of the principal witnesses for the Valuer-General in the cases was registed valuer Stephen James Whitfield who is in the employ of the Department of Lands and whose responsibility it was to value the urbar-1 lands within the Cannonvale and. Airlie Beach precinct. Mr Whitfield told us that, after investigating sales evidence at or around the relevant date and after consideration of submissions made at an objection conference, a decision was taken to reduce the 31st March, 1989 relevant date values of urban lands within the precinct by a factor of 15% for the 31st March, 1990 valuations even though there was little, if any, reliable sales evidence to clearly demonstrate or quantify the extent of the fall in property values as at that time. In essence then, Mr Whitfield essentially relies upon the 1989 sale level of values applied conservatively for the 1990 relevant date valuations. During the hearing of the cases it became apparent that for the most part, the sales relied upon by Mr Conroy and the various valuers called by the respondent supported the unimproved values applied by the Valuer-General to the respective sale properties. Where there is divergence is in Mr Conroy's use of the sales evidence to value each of the appeal parcels. In most cases he pointed to some specific disability suffered by the subject parcels for which, he contends, the Valuer-General 's valuers have not made adequate allowance in applying the sales -- 5 of 52 -- - Page 6 - evidence. I propose to deal with this aspect of the evidence in the individual cases. I do not propose to comment in detail about the sates evidence in each case as all of this material is contained in the valuation reports which were tendered and - exchanged. This information is readily available to the parties for reference. I feel it best if I now deal with each individual appeal in case order:- Case 4 - AV91-710 This site is situated in the heart of the commercial -area at Airlie Beach some 50 metres from the Post Office. It is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 17.3 metres to Shute Harbour Road, and has excellent ocean views across an esplanade at the rear. The site is developed with two ground floor shops, 3 first floor offices and five beachfront units. Mr Conroy describes the site as being lower than the adjoining lots with a considerable quantity of fill having been placed on the - land. Disabilities suffered by the subject site include its flooding from the adjoining Lot 10 and noise emanating from a night club on the adjoining property. Mr Conroy says the current economic climate has resulted in shop and office tenants being unable to meet rental commitments and that this has resulted in a reduction in income to such a level that the capital value of the property is now only slightly higher than the Valuer-General's unimproved value. Mr Conroy has tabulated and analysed all of the sales in the main commercial area of Airlie Beach which took place since January, 1987. These have been scheduled. It is to be noted that the 1987 sales show unimproved values well below those applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites at 31st March, 1990 -- 6 of 52 -- - Page 7 - while the- 1988 sales tend to support the Valuer-General's valuations. For the 1989 and- early 1990 saies', unimproved values are above the standard applied by the Valuer-General but it is to be observed that one of these sales is a high sale - Lot 313 on Plan A8592, parish of Conway on 22nd September, 1989 for $620,000. This is an adjoining owner sale. Mr Conroy says that there can be no basis for the valuation of commercial property in the main street of Airlie Beach since there have been only 2 commercial properties sold between what he says is the boom period and the date of valuation and neither can be used as a comparable sale. Rather than look at sales, Mr Conroy has taken into account office rentals and sales in the recession/depression period and auctions since the beginning of 1990. He says that from September/October, 1989 commercial rentals have been falling with very few landlords having effected their CPI increases and many have negotiated new leases at a lower rental. Mr Conroy lists a sale of a property after the relevant date - Romeo's on 17th July, 1991 for $1,100,000 but this is a mortgagee in possession sale. He cites the auction of Blue Water Units where there was no bid. Mr Conroy says that the local banks' policy is that all property in Airlie Beach has lost 40%- 50% of its 1988 value and he submits that private valuers have recently adopted a similar standard of valuation. Mr Conroy has established that one of his sales is also a sale relied upon by the Valuer-General. It is known as the National Bank Building. Mr Conroy has analysed this sale t6 show an unimproved value of $638,500 ($1052/m 2 ). Mr Whitfield analyses it to show an unimproved value of $1,023,654 ($1686/m 2 ). Mr Conroy believes that the National Bank property is one of the best in Airlie Beach -- 7 of 52 -- - Page 8 - with long term leases and high rents being paid. It is to be noted that the Valuer- General has valued this site at $440,000 as at 31st March, 1990 which is a figure well below either valuers' analysis of the sale . Mr Conroy stressed in evidence that his valuation of $305,000 reflects the present value of the land. Mr Whitfield values the site at the rate of $850/m 2 and then has made a reduction as an allowance for stormwater runoff. He supports his valuation with the capitalisation of rents obtained for a property situated at 263 Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach known as "Mango Terrace". This shows a -developed value of $1,267,520 and an unimproved value of $754,494 or $1293/m 2 after making an allowance of $513,026 for the value of the recently constructed building on the site. Mr Whitfield observes that this property sold on 17th July, 1991 for $1,100,000. He has provided the Court with his analysis of the National Bank Building sale. Mr Whitfield commented that there was a scarcity of sales evidence at or about the relevant date. This is a difficult matter since there is such a scarcity of relevant sales evidence but I am not convinced that the market for land in the commercial area in Airlie Beach had fallen by relevant date to the extent contended by Mr Conroy. Certainly it appears there has been a considerable fall since that time but here we must find the value as at 31st March, 1990. It is, of course, important to remember that the onus is upon the appellant to show that the Valuer-General has erred in valuing the property. Upon my consideration of the matter I find that the Valuer- General's valuation is marginally excessive but mainly for the reason of the disabilities referred by Mr Conroy. I find that an unimproved value of $750/m 2 is more realistic. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer- -- 8 of 52 -- - Page 9 - General is set aside, and unimproved value of Lot 11 on RP 732624, parish of Conway is determined in the rounded off sum of $450,000. Case 9 - AV91-537 Mr Conroy describes this as an irregularly shaped allotment with a frontage of 65 metres to William Murray Drive. From the southern boundary the land falls gently then plateaus out with the bulk of the block level. There are no seaviews from the property. The site is developed with four groand floor shops. Mr Conroy says there are no physical disabilities with the land but points out there is a se_werage treatment plant situated in the same estate and on a northerly wind, the stench from the treatment plant settles over the entire estate making working conditions extremely unpleasant. Mr Conroy points out that at the present time one of the shops is vacant and that the tenants of the other shops are having difficulty meeting their rental commitments. Again this is a case where Mr Conroy suggests that the reduced rental, increased overheads, rates and valuations have severely reduced the capitalised value of the property. Mr Conroy has inspected and analysed all industrial sales which have occurred in the Whitsunday area since January, 1988. Details of these sales are scheduled within his valuation report. In the period after the boom in land values up to the valuation date one sale has occurred ie. Lot 7 on RP 748017, parish of Dryander containing an area of 1137 m2 on 25th October, 1989 for $95,000 ($83.55/m 2 ). This is described by Mr Conroy as being a low site and being water affected. It is to be noted that the Valuer-General has valued this sale land at -- 9 of 52 -- - Page 10 - -$75,000 and so the sale supports the level of the Valuer-General's valuation on that site. Mr Conroy says that this property has recently been valued by Richard Stanton Pty Ltd (a Brisbane based firm of valuers) at $55,000 and· this shows a decrease on the purchase price of 42%. Mr Conroy points to a number of auctions in the Blue Bay industrial estate over the past two years with no sales eventuating and in many cases not even any bids. Mr Whitfield describes the nature of the land as having a gentle cross- fall, being well drained and with excellent exposure to passing_ vehicular traffic on Shute Harbour Road. He has scheduled four sales of Light Industrial zoned sites which took place during the period commencing 12th September, 1989 and ending 25th May, 1990. All of these sales support the unimproved value applied to the respective sale sites. Notwithstanding Mr Conroy's submission with regard to the falling rentals I cannot find any sales evidence which would support his contention that the Valuer-General's valuation of the subject site is too high. Notwithstanding that there is little doubt that the owners of properties such as the subject one are having difficulties with tenants not having the capacity to presently pay rents set at former levels, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Conroy when valuing the subject land has been more influenced by current conditions than those pertinent to the date of valuation. In all the circumstances cannot hold that the onus resting upon the appellant has been discharged. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 35 on RP 739340, Parish of Dryander as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $81,000 is affirmed. -- 10 of 52 -- - Page 11 - CASE 10 ~ AV91-612 This land comprises an irregularly shaped site with a frontage of about 370 metres to Pioneer Bay at Mandalay Point. Mr Conroy says that the natural site has been extensively excavated and filled to create a gently sloping site falling to the waterline. In its natural state the land was quite high and steep in the northern and eastern parts of the site, falling to a mangrove frontage at the water. Mr Conroy describes the-views from this land as being impressive seaviews. The land is used for residential and industrial purposes. Upon it is erected a dwelling house, a jetty with fuel supply for boats, a slipway and dry dock, and five commercial t"!_uts. Due to the disabilities of the site, Mr Conroy explained that all commercial ventures failed some three to four years ago and the huts have since remained vacant. Mr Conroy says that the site is totally unusable as a commercial property. He points out that it has no services, a very poor access road and says that it is too far off the main Shute Harbour Road and too far from the main commercial centre of Airlie Beach. In addition Mr Conroy says that there are two other slipway /dry dock businesses in Whitsunday, which enjoy far superior position, access and services. Mr Conroy says that the subject land should be valued as a residential site with limited industrial potential. He submits that the commercial zoning of the land as part of the Council's blanket rezoning in 1983 is in reality a pseudo zoning. He says that if the site was to be developed as a commercial site then all services would have to be provided. These were costed in 1987 at 2.5 million dollars. Mr Conroy has valued the site as an industrial site (the slipway and -- 11 of 52 -- . ' - Page 12 - ietty are more of an industrial use than a commercial one). He says there have been no sales of industrial sites of the area of the subject land with its type of position and without services. He has based his valuation of the land by adopting the Valuer-General's square metre rates applied in the Blue Bay estate sites and in particular the valuation of Lot 11 on RP 748017 - a 1.218 hectare parcel which has been valued at the rate of $22/m 2 or $270,000. Mr Conroy values the subject site in comparison at the rate of $20/m 2 • Mr Whitfield describes the subject site as having absolute water frontage with gentle to easy sloping land along the southern edge rising to moderately steep elevated rocky country to the rear or northern boundary. He says the property is used for the purposes of boat re-fuelling, boat maintenance and a scuba diving shop. Mr Whitfield has valued the land at the rate of $30/m 2 as a large remote commercial site with very limited services and inferior access but has taken into account its absolute beach frontage and panoramic ocean views. He has valued the land on the basis of a sale of a 1.866 hectare "Rural A" parcel on 8th June, 1990 for $358,000 which upon analysis shows an unimproved value of $207,300. Mr Whitfield says that although this land is zoned "Rural A" and is valued as a site, the property has many of the features of the subject land. Access other than by boat is very difficult and no services apart from electricity and telephone are available. Both properties enjoy superb ocean views and both have absolute beach frontage. However the subject land is only 6.5 kms from Airlie Beach where the sale property is situated approximately 50 kms from the nearest commercial centre ie Proserpine or Airlie Beach. Mr Whitfield points out that the sale land is considerably smaller than is the subject land especially as only 5,000 m 2 of the sale -- 12 of 52 -- " ' • r - Page 13 - land is considered useable. Mr Whitfield also schedules the sale of the National Bank Building property in the main street of Airlie Beach. I am convinced on the evidence that the subject site is reasonably unique in that it is zoned "Commercial" yet it is well removed from _any established commercial area. I am also inclined to adopt Mr Conroy's opinion that the site shoulc:l not be valued as zoned. However there is really no satisfactory basis for the valuation. Certainly the Valuer-General's sales are not comparable and Mr Conroy's approach in comparing the subject site with the values applied by the Valuer-General in the Blue Bay estate seems to be the best approach in the circumstances. However his applied value of $20/m 2 to the subject land does appear somewhat low. I find that a fair unimproved value for the subject land taking into account its uniqueness is $25/m2• Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the determination made by the Valuer-General is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 192 on Plan HR 684, Parish of Conway is determined in the rounded off sum of $410,000. Case 11 - AV91-551 Mr Conroy describes this as an irregularly shaped site with an easement access. The land generally remains in its natural state. It is steeply sloping heavily timbered broken with deep gullies strewn with large boulders and rocks. The site has impressive seaviews and is used as a single unit residential site. Assess to the property is via Border Drive which is a dual lane bitumen sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling and a private road over an easement -- 13 of 52 -- - Page 14 - for the last 500 metres. There are no services available. Mr Conroy has valued the -- land having regard to its disabilities including the steepness of the site, there being no services and no gazetted access and to the fact that the site does not enjoy the peace and tranquillity of a rural site as it is close to existing · residential development. Mr Conroy points out that in recession times a site without services and with the disabilities of the subject lancj would never sell for $150,000. Mr Conroy has scheduled seven sales of rural residential sites, all but one of the sales supports the level of value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. The valuation was made on behalf of the Valuer-General by registered valuer Robin Joy Merritt. Mrs Merritt describes the access to the property as being via a steep bituminised easement which adjoins Border Drive. She confirms that it comprises a moderate to steeply sloping block with tropical vine scrub falling to coastal forest and that the site offers excellent water and island views. Mrs Merritt has had regard to some eight sales of Residential A, Rural Residential and Rural A zoned sites. In addition Mrs Merritt tendered a schedule of 81 sales of rural homesites in the Shire which took place between 8th November, 1988 and 27th February, 1990. The Residential A zoned sites are of course much smaller than is the subject land but most enjoy water views. Some are regarded by Mrs Merritt as being relatively expensive to develop due to the steepness of terrain and in this respect they offer some comparability with the subject land. But in all other respects particularly in size they are lacking in comparability. Again this is a rather unique site because of its size, steepness and proximity to urban development. Again we have no really comparable sales evidence especially as the rural residential sites referred to by Mr Conroy are well removed from the subject land. -- 14 of 52 -- r , - Page 15 - Nonetheless it does seem- that some allowance should be made for the difficult access to the subject land. The evidence suggests that the roadway over the access easement was put in at the expense of a company associated with the appellant's husband. The appeal is allowed, the determination made by the Valuer-General is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 71 on RP 735095, Parish of Conway is determined in the sum of $125,000. Case 12 - AV91-560 Mr Conroy describes this site as an irregularly shaped block with frontage of 230 metres to Tropic Road and a frontage of 115 metres to Valley Drive. The land is mostly undulating with a slight rise to its southern and eastern boundaries. It is lightly timbered and has no seaviews. Mr Conroy says that a nursing home was to be developed on the property and the appropriate re-zoning was approved. The owner then acquired a more suitable site for a nursing home and applied to reverse the re-zoning decision. He was then granted approval to build a dwelling on the site. Mr Conroy points out that the land has no physical disability and that the privacy and seclusion of the site will be destroyed by a dense residential development which has been approved on the golf course site to the west of the land and also on land north of Tropic Road. Mr Conroy has based his valuation of this land at $65,000 upon sales of what he calls comparable properties in Timberlands Road and Wildlife Heights Estate. He says the Timberlands Road properties are comparable to the subject in terms of the nature of the land, lack of -- 15 of 52 -- #. I l J - Page 16 - seaviews, lack of coun¢il ·services and good access but the subject . property is marginally closer _to shopping and educational facilities. The Wildlife Heights' blocks are elevated arid steep but lack views and services. These sites are also in close proximity to amenities a~d facilities at Airlie Beach. Mr· Conroy regards the subject site to be inferior to all the sale properties principally due to the residential A subdivisional approvals over properties adjoining it to the northern and the west. All his sale properties are well timbered and private. It is to be noted from Mr Conroy's schedule that the later sales in his schedule all support the level of value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. This valuation was made on behalf of the Valuer-General again by Mrs Merritt. She describes the subject land as easy sloping with some elevation. Mrs Merritt suggest the property enjoys good rural views and has what she describes as an advantage of overlooking the golf course. The site has been valued under the provisions of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act at $80,000. Mrs Merritt schedules two sales of rural residential and rural A sites as a basis for her valuation of the subject land. Both sales took place in January, 1990 and are therefore close to the relevant date for valuation. It seems to me that the principal reason for Mr Conroy placing an unimproved value of $65,000 on the site is due to the subdivisional approval on nearby land. While this no doubt would be a factor influencing the privacy of the subject land when the development goes ahead, J cannot find that it would have had any deleterious effect on the value of the subject site as at 31st March, 1990. It may well be that the development will never proceed and if the valuation of the subject land is reduced because of the pending development then it would have -- 16 of 52 -- I t - Page 17 - been reduced in error. It seem to me that it is better to await the subdivisional event when its affect, if any, on the value of the subject land can be gauged. I am not convinced on my examination· of the relevant sales evidence that an unimproved value of $80,000 for the subject site as a large single unit parcel is excessive or unreasonable. It follows that the appeal be dismissed and that the unimproved value of Lot 14 on RP 733748, Parish of Dryander as determined by the Valuer-General be affirmed. Case 13 - AV91-490 This site is an irregularly shaped block with a frontage of 41 O metres to the Bruce Highway. The land is even and level with the highway and has no distinguishing features. Mr Conroy says that it has been cleared and cultivated in the past and is used to grow feed for horses and stock. Lucerne and sorghum are grown on the land and baled as stock feed. It is used in conjunction with a larger parcel across the Bruce Highway. Mr Conroy says that the land, being adjacent to the highway and totally devoid of vegetation, would make a hot and noisy block without any privacy whatsoever. He claims that the land has been valued on the wrong basis and that it should be valued as rural grazing land at the rate of $1000 per hectare. Mr Conroy says that the appeal was lodged purely on the basis that the land has been valued as a residential site yet it is used for primary production purposes. Once again Mrs Merritt made the valuation on behalf of the respondent Valuer-General. She informed the Court that the property was not -- 17 of 52 -- . ' - Page 18 - valued as a residential site -but was valued as a small pri_mary production parcel under the provisions of Section 11 {1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. Mrs Merritt has relied principally upon the sale of .an 11 hectare parcel in September, 1989 for $50,000 which she analyses to show an unimproved value of $40,000 or ·- $3,626 per hectare. This sale property comprises gently undulating creek flats rising to vine scrub ridges and is situated about 15 kms north of Proserpine. Mrs Merritt's enquiries with the purchaser lead her to believe that the land was purchased to live on and to farm small crops. It is clear that Mr Conroy is in error in suggesting that the subject site has been valued as a residential site. It has in reality been valued for the purpose for which is it used ie the business of primary production. Further to this there is simply no basis or foundation for Mr Conroy's valuation at the rate of $1000 per hectare. He does not rely upon or refer to any sales evidence and accordingly is not in a position to discharge the onus resting upon the appellants. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 237 on HR 1930, Parish of Tawvale as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $16,600 is affirmed. Case 14 - AV91-641 Mr Conroy describes this site as a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage of 280 metres to Shute Harbour Road. The rear boundary fronts a cane farm owned by the same owners. Mr Conroy describes the land as falling with a gentle slope towards its rear boundary. He says the site is prone to flooding and ponding particularly in the northern half. He describes the site as having been -- 18 of 52 -- - Page 19 - cleared of all timber and as being a low hot and unattractive parcel of land. As a residential site Mr Conroy points to the disabilities in that half the site rs low and wet, a sugar tramline· runs through the centre of the higher country and the site has exposure to passing traffic on Shute Harbour Road. In addition Mr Conroy suggests that the underground water supply is saline and not fit for human consumption. The site has r10 seaviews. Mr Conroy has inspected all comparable - rural residential sales in Cannonvalley. He scheduled 15 sales of rural residential sites which took place during the period commencing 10th May, 1988 and ending 2nd February, 1990. Most of these sales once again support the level of unimproved value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. Mrs Merritt again has valued the land for the Valuer-General. She describes the subject sites as being generally level land with an easy slope to the rear of the property. She also says that the rear section of the property tends to be low lying and may experience minor flooding problems. Mrs Merritt has scheduled six sales of rural residential sites which have been used as a basis for valuing rural homesites in the area. She claims to have recognised the disabilities outlined by Mr Conroy when valuing the land, all of which she was aware of except for the saline water problems. I have examined the evidence and in particular the sales used by both valuers. Once again I cannot conclude that an unimproved value of $45,500 for the subject land is excessive or unreasonable given all the disadvantages outlined by Mr Conroy. I am inclined to regard the saline water problems as having a minimal affect on the value of the site as a rural residential block. The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 11 on RP 732260, Parish of Dryander as -- 19 of 52 -- . ' - Page 20 - determined ·by the Value·r-General in the sum of $45,500 is affirmed. Case 15 - AV91-563 This is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage of 34.5 metres to Shute Harbour Road in the commercial area of the Town. The rear boundary of the site fronts a council controlled esplanade to Airlie Bay. Mr Conroy describes the land as falling with a gentle slope towards the Bay. From the rear of the site there are excellent ocean views. Erected on the site are two ~round floor shops, one first floor shop, 12 motel units and three first floor residences. Mr Conroy says the site has no physical disabilities but once again points to the current economic situation resulting in shop tenants having difficulty meeting rental commitments. He says that occupancies are well down on past years due to the depression resulting in reduced income from the property. As with Case 4 (AV91-710) - Appellant Coniston Holdings Pty Ltd - Mr Conroy suggests that these affects have resulted in a reduction in income to such a level that the capitalised value of the property is only slightly higher than the Valuer-General 's unimproved value . Mr Conroy once again has not had regard to any sales as a basis of his valuation; Rather than look at sales he has taken into account office rentals and sales of properties in the recession/depression period and auctions since the beginning of 1990. He lists three mortgagee in possession sales during 1991. Abortive auctions include; Tropical Isle, Blue Water Units. Once again Mr Conroy refers to the policy of the local banks in that all property in Airlie Beach has tost 40%-50% of its 1988 value. He again tells us that private valuers have adopted a similar policy. -- 20 of 52 -- . ' - Page 21 - Mr Whitfield describes the land has having a gentle cross fall from southwest to northeast with a grassed esplanade and a6 attractive beach adjoining the rear boundary of the property. Mr Whitfield has valued the land at the rate of $850/m 2• Once again he has relied for his valuation on the capitalisation of the rents being paid at "Mango Terrace". This valuation exercise discloses an unimprqved value of $1,293/m 2 for the "Mango Terrace" land which is situated at 263 Shute Harbour Road, Airlie Beach. Mr Whitfield once again produces the analysis of the sale of the National Bank Building. Unlike the case presented by Mr Conroy on behalf of Coniston Holdings Pty Ltd, the subject site here does not appear to have any disabilities and is situated virtually in the heart of the commercial area of Airlie Beach. I have already dealt with valuation trends in this area in Case 4 and there would be no useful purpose in repeating my considerations here. It is sufficient I think to say that Mr Conroy really has not provided the Court with a satisfactory basis for his valuation of the subject land at the rate of $500/m 2 • Certainly no sales have been relied upon by him and although it can be said that the Valuer-General's basis of valuation does have deficiencies, the onus is upon the appellant under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act to satisfy the Court that the assessment under appeal is excessive or unreasonable. Certainly on the evidence before me I could not come to that conclusion notwithstanding that property values certainly appear to have fallen considerably since the relevant date. It follows that the appeal be dismissed and that the unimproved value of Lots 6 and 7 on Plan A8591, Parish of Conroy as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $1,000,000 be affirmed. -- 21 of 52 -- - Page 22 - Case 19 - AV91-577 Mr Conroy describes this land as a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 18 metres to Oceanview Ave. He says the northern boundary of the ·site fronts a 60 metre wide council controlled esplanade to Pioneer Bay and that the esplanade remains in its natural state being steep heavily timbered and strewn with large boulders. The site falls with a regular slope towards its northeastern boundary and has impressive seaviews. Mr Conroy says that the highest and best use of the site is as it is used as a single unit dwelling site. He says there are no physical disabilities with the land but points out that it is located in an old Lands Department subdivision and _as with most old Lands Department subdivisions the blocks are smaller than most and the subdivisional roads do not have kerbing and channelling. Mr Conroy points to the small size of the subject property and the limited area available for building when set backs from the boundaries are considered. Mr Conroy has scheduled six sales of Residential A zoned sites as a basis for his valuation of the subject land. Four of these sales were at their respective dates of sale improved with dwelling houses and Mr Conroy has analysed them to show the unimproved values tabulated in his report. I should here say that these sales do not provide a reliable valuation basis for determining unimproved value. There seems to be a lack of unimproved sales in the area within which the subject land is situated. However one of Mr Conroy's sales is Lot 512 on A 78593 in October 1988 for $95,000. This is a vacant site with good seaviews and I note that the Valuer-General has valued it at $100,000 as at 31st -- 22 of 52 -- > I - Page 23 - - March, 1990. It can therefore be said that this sale supports near enough the level of value applied to the saie site. Another vacant sale referred to by Mr Conroy is lot 412 on Plan A8593, Parish of Conway containing 541 m 2 on 31st October, 1989 for $75,000. It is to be noted that the Valuer-General has valued this site at $106,000. Mr Conroy describes it as a sloping site with fair views although partially obstructed by the house in front. There is poor access from Shute Harbour Road to the block. Mr Whitfield describes the subject land as having. a moderate cross fall from west to east and is an elevated site with very good ocean and bay views. He has valued the land at $150,000 having regard to some six sales of Residential A zoned sites two of which are at Shutehaven. Detatls as to the description of the nature of each of the sale sites and the comparison between them and the subject land are within Mr Whitfield's report. He has not used any sales in the subject area and informed the Court that it was initially his view that the sale of Lot 412 as furnished by Mr Conroy was not a vacant sale but a property improved with a dwelling house. Subsequent investigations have shown that this is not the case. Mr Whitfield told us that he is of the opinion that although there are no unusual circumstances about the sale, it does show less than fair market value at sale date and he accordingly does not think it would assist the Court. This certainly appears to be the case especially when the price for which it sold ($75,000) is compared with the price Lot 512 fetched 12 months earlier. The evidence leads me to conclude that the subject land is an excellent residential site with no disabilities and an excellent outlook. Really the only sale of vacant land in the vicinity of the subject property which can be relied -- 23 of 52 -- > I - Page 24 - upon as evidence of value is that of Lot 512 on 26th October, 1988 for $95,000. Mr Conroy points out that this block is one removed from the esplanade and is a vacant sloping site with good seaviews. He considers it to be inferior to the subject land but what has to be decided is that degree of inferiority. Taking an overview of .. all of the sales evidence and having in mind the excellent quality of the subject land which has been valued in the upper range of valuations in the area, I cannot conclude that if it was vacant and offered for sale as at 31st March, 1990 it would not achieve a value of $150,000 in the market place. Accordingly I cannot come to the conclusion that this valuation is excessive or unreasonable especially taking into account the sales evidence relied upon by Mr Whitfield and in particular that of Lot 3 on Plan S9464, Parish of Conway at Shutehaven which site has an area of 510m 2 and which sold on 6th November, 1989 and sold for $140,000. The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 807 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $150,000 is affirmed. Case 20 - AV91-540 Mr Conroy describes this site as being rectangularly shaped with a frontage of 20 metres to Grace Avenue. It slopes from its frontage to low lying swampy land at the rear. There are no seaviews from the site. Mr Conroy refers to the disabilities suffered by the subject site which are its low lying nature, and its very wet water-logged nature during wet seasons. Mr Conroy says that the land is located in the hollow which does not get any breeze and has a reputation for being -- 24 of 52 -- - Page 25 - hot and wet and .therefore difficult to market. Mr Conroy says that the only sales comparable -to the subject -site are situated in the eastern side of Grace Avenue. He schedules some 11 sales in his tendered valuation report and once again it is to be noted that these sales, prima facie, support the level of value applied by the Valuer-General to these sale sites for his 31st March, 1990 valuation assessments. Mr Whitfield describes the site as sloping gently from the frontage to the rear boundary and is situated ori the lower side of the street. He confirms that the land has no views but represents a good building site. Mr Whitfield relies upon four sales of Residential A zoned sites in Grace Avenue. Details as to his description of the sale lots and their comparison with the subject land are set out in his tendered valuation document. Although the subject site suffers from the disabilities outlined by Mr Conroy it seems that these have been taken into account when Mr Whitfield fixed a value of $27,500 for the subject land. Certainly this value is below the level of values disclosed by each of his sale blocks and again below the level of value disclosed by all of the sales placed in evidence save for that of Lot 39 on RP 742188, Parish of Dryander which sold in August, 1988 for $26,000. This is a relatively early sale. I cannot see in the circumstances that the appellant has made out a case for a reduction in the valuation under appeal. It follows that the appeal be dismissed and that the unimproved value of lot 87 on RP 746918, Parish of Dryander as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $27,500 be affirmed. -- 25 of 52 -- - Page 26 - Case 21 - AV91-593 Mr Conroy describes this site as being rectangular in shape with a frontage of 20 metres to Lewis street. It is slightly higher than the road level for approximately half its depth and then it falls steeply towards its western boundary. The land has limited seaviews these being -mostly built out by structures to the west and to the north. The land is used as a single residential site. Mr Conroy points to the disability with the site that the western half of the land is steep falling away to Airlie Crescent making full utilisation of it impossible. The seaviews to the west and north have been built out leaving the subject only glimpses of views. Adjacent to the site is Victoria Towers which is an 18 unit complex. The noise and traffic congestion (Lewis St is a narrow street and most tenants park their cars on the street in front of the units) at times is unbearable for the owner of the subject land. The tenants who do park within the unit complex gain access via a lane on the common boundary with the subject property. Approved for the site adjacent to the west is a 26 unit development which when completed will leave the subject in the middle of 44 strata titled residential units. Mr Conroy says that the majority of Residential A zoned sites in Airlie Beach proper do enjoy fair seaviews. He has scheduled sales in his report as comparable as either having no seaviews or very limited seaviews. There are 8 such sales scheduled, 2 of which are after the date of valuation and indicate a marginal reduction in value by comparison with the 1988 and 1989 sales. Mr Conroy has included a second schedule of sales in his report which he says are superior sites to the subject land in terms of seaviews yet which he says have been -- 26 of 52 -- . ' - Page 27 - valued at a lower figure than has the subject land. Once again we have the situation where all of the sales scheduled by Mr Conroy (save for one which sold after the relevant date on 5th September, 1990) support the unimproved values applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. Mr Whitfield describes the site as being almost level to about a depth of 15 metres and then slopes steeply to the rear boundary. Mr Whitfield is somewhat at odds with Mr Conroy in that he says excellent water views are available to the northwest. Mr Whitfield has relied upon six sales of Residential A zoned sites to value the subject land. He set out his idea as to the comparison between each of the sales and the subject block. I feel that the valuation of this parcel is somewhat excessive and does not reflect the problems associated with the adjoining unit development, I also indicate that I am influenced in this decision by the evidence of Mr Conroy about the limited rather than excellent seaviews. The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer-General is set aside and the unimproved value of Lot 55 on RP 723385, Parish of Conway is determined in the sum of $60,000. Case 22 - AV91-552 Mr Conroy describes_ this property as being a rectangularly shaped allotment w[th a frontage of 20 metres to Manooka Drive. He describes the land as falling with a uniform slope from north· to south with limited· seaviews currently obscured by vegetation.. Mr Conroy says that the property is affected by water draining from the adjacent lot to the south :- Mr Conroy has scheduled four sales of -- 27 of 52 -- - Page 28 - Residential A zoned sites in Cannonvale which he says are slightly superior to the subject land in that they have seaviews. Mr Whitfield describes the subject as having a moderate cross fall from southwest to northeast and representing a good building site with very limited ocean views. He has valued the subject land on the basis of three sales scheduled in his report and once again his view as to the comparison between the sale lots and the subject property is set out in his report. Mr Whitfield is strongly of the opinion that a value of $52,000 provides sound relativity with the values applied to each of his sale allotments and takes account of the disadvantages attributed to the subject block. It is to be noted that sale no. 2 and sale no. 4 land as listed in Mr Conroy's report had the valuations reduced at objection time from $42,000 to $36,000. This is to accord with the sales evidence. Once again there seems no reason to conclude that the unimproved value under appeal is excessive or unreasonable. Certainly the weight of the sales evidence supports it and in these circumstances the onus resting upon the appellant has not been discharged. Accordingly the appeal fails and the unimproved value of Lot 85 on RP 732263, Parish of Dryander, in the sum of $52,000 as determined by the Valuer-General is affirmed. Case 23 - AV91-628 This is a residential lot situation in the Town of Proserpine. The land is described by Mr Conroy as being level and even with no distinguishing features. It has- only urban views. The land is used as a single dwelling site. Mr Conroy -- 28 of 52 -- I • - Page 29 - points out that two streets removed from the subject land is the main Queensland Northern Railway Line and a branch line used as part of the shunting area for Proserpine Station. It is not uncommon to have trains shunting on the line at all hours of the day and night. Associated with trains is a noise problem. Another difficulty is that one street removed from the subject land is a fuel storage depot. Mr Conroy suggests that this depot has created a potentially dangerous situation in its own right, however, coupled with this, the rail line and the possible derailment of a train, this situation is potentially highly explosive. He points to an instance in 1988 when a potentially dangerous situation did occur and resulted in the evacuation of all nearby streets, including the subject Stanbury Street. Mr Conroy stresses that another disability suffered by the subject land is its proximity to the Proserpine High School sports ground across the street. He says that this ground is used at least two nights per week and at weekends all year round for football, cricket training and games. Associated with these activities are noise, diminution of privacy, the problems associated with traffic congestion experienced by the- residents of Stanbury Street. Mr Conroy has considered the disabilities of the subject property and contends an allowance in the order of 25% (of the scheduled sale prices) should be made to arrive at a comparable value for the subject land. Mr Conroy has scheduled six sales of residential sites in Proserpine. Once again these sales support the level of value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. The valuation under appeal was made by Mrs Merritt who describes the property as being generally level nature. She has arrived at the valuation on -- 29 of 52 -- - Page 30 - the basis of three sales scheduled in her report. Mrs Merritt sets out her idea of the comparison between each of the sale properties and the subject land. Mrs Merritt does not consider that the disabilities outlined by Mr Conroy warrant the land being down valued by a factor of 25%. Indeed she is of the opinion that having the high school ground across from the subject land is an advantage since it provides an area of open space and its use for sporting activities does not, in her opinion, result in a reduced value. The sales referred to by Mr Conroy are all situated in a residential estate to the west of the railway line which divides the township. In close proximity to some of the sale lots is an open drain and across Anzac Road there is an industrial estate. Mrs Merritt has scheduled two sales to the east of the subject land while a third sale is one of the sa les referred to by Mr Conroy. Mrs Merritt does not consider the subject land to be close enough to the railway line or the fuel depot to warrant making an allowance in its valuation. I do not think that the evidence about the disabilities suffered by the subject land is strong enough to warrant a reduction in its value which prima facie is in line with the sales evidence. The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 4 on RP 721287, Parish of Tawvale as determined by the Valuer- General in the sum of $24,500 is affirmed. Case 24 - AV91-549 Mr Conroy called in evidence Christopher James Dorrough who owns the appellant company and has been a property developer in the Whitsunday area -- 30 of 52 -- . ' - Page 31 - for 18 or 19 years. Mr Dorrough told us that he has developed most of the land from Airlie Beach towards Proserpine and has built about 100 units near the subject property. Mr Dorrough says that the value of residential B land, as are the subject parcels, is determined by the capacity of the sites to yield units and the market value is determined at a rate per unit. Mr Dorrough told us of the depressed market for unit sites at Airlie Beach for the last 18 months to 2 years. Not even speculators are interested in buying property at the moment. Mr Dorrough provided the Court with a price list for the subject sites which has been put together some time ago. Most of the land is priced at $15,000 and $20,000 per unit. The aggregate listed price for the lots is $5,685,000. This evidence is really not of any use to the Court because the value under appeal is only $530,000. Mr Conroy describes the nature of the land as comprising 14 Lots in - subdivision. The lots are irregular in shape and the only access being from Eshelby Drive which enters the site midway along its western boundary and severs the property. That part of the land in the northern severance is generally even with a gentle fall from the new road to its northern boundary. The southern severance rises gently from the new road for a depth of 40 - 50 metres. From that point the land rises very steeply. Steeper country is broken by gullies and_ much of it is unavailable. Approximately one-third of the subject land has excellent seaviews but this is steep land and difficult to develop. Mr Conroy suggests that the balance of the land has glimpses of the sea. Mr Conroy is of the opinion that the highest and best use of the subject sites is for multi-unit residential development. He points to the ·disabilities -- 31 of 52 -- . ' • I - Page 32 - suffered by the land in that it is steep and broken by gullies and very difficult and costly to develop. Mr Conroy suggests that the Valuer-General's valuation is totally unrealistic. He says that the unimproved valuation should be close to the selling price of the land yet the appellant has not been able to market this land at any price for two years and as there has not been one single offer made, this is a definite sign that the land has no commercial value. Mr Conroy suggests that the position of this land adjacent to some 400 strata titled units, and a caravan park does not inspire potential unit owners to come forward and purchase. Mr Conroy has valued the lots individually except for Lots 93 and 98. These have been dedicated to council for creek and drainage reserve. This suggests the land drains a large portion of adjoining property and in places could be flood affected. He had relied on two sales scheduled in his report to derive his lot values. Neither the developer nor any potential purchaser have calculated with any degree of accuracy the number of units which each site can accommodate and accordingly Mr Conroy has not valued the land on a unit site basis. The other reason why he has -not used this method of valuation is because the land could be put to a higher use if a development were to take place over a -number of lots. Each lot has been valued individually and an allowance for bulk ownership and difficulty of sale of 50% has been made to arrive at his unimproved value of $370,000. Details of Mr Conroy's valuations are:- Lot 89 Lot 90 Lot 91 Lot 92 Lot 94 Lot 95 Lot 96 2746 m2 at_$25/m 2 2595 m2 at $25/m 2 2409 m2 at$25/m2 2409 m2 at $25/m 2 2266 m2 at $25/1Ti 2 3409 m2 at $20/m 2 2947 m2 at $20/m 2 $68,650 $64,875 $60,225 $60,225 $56.,650 $68,180 $58,940 -- 32 of 52 -- . ' . ' Lot 97 Lot 99 Lot 100 Lot 101 Lot 102 - Page 33 - 1.153 ha at $75,000/ha 3238 m2 at $15/m 2 3837 m2 at $15/m 2 2973 m2 at $20/m2 2813 m2 at $20/m2 Less allowance 50% Valuation Adopted $370,000 $86,475 $48,570 $57,555 $59,460 $56 ,260 $746,065 $373,032 $373,033 = == ==== The sales scheduled by Mr Conroy once again support the level of value applied to the sales sites. They reflect unimproved values of $21.80/m 2 and $31.40/m 2 respectively and both are 1989 sales. Mr Whitfield describes the nature of the subject land as varying from easy sloping to moderately sloping to steep with gullies. The valuation was made under the provisions of Section 11 (D) (i) of the Valuation of Land Act at the rate of $115,000 per hectare. Mr Whitfield has taken into consideration 13 sales of Residential B zoned sites to provide him with a basis for his valuation. These sales are scheduled in his report. In considering the application of Section 11 (D) (i) of the Valuation of Land Act in so far as it requires the calculation of a statutory minimum value, Mr Whitfield has assigned the following values to the individual sites:- Lot 89 Lot 90 Lot 91 Lot 92 Lot 93 Lot 94 Lot 95 Lot 96 Lot 97 $35/m 2 $35/m 2 $35/m 2 $35/m 2 Fwture Drainage Reserve $35/m 2 _ · $32.50/m 2 $35/m 2 1?.so;rii 2 $ 95,000 $ 91,000 $ 84,000 $ 84,000 $ 1,000 $ 79,000- $110,00ff $103,000 $200,000 -- 33 of 52 -- . , Lot 98 Lot 99 Lot 100 Lot 101 Lot 102 - Page 34 - Future Drainage Reserve $22.50/m 2 $30/m 2 $30/m 2 $35/m 2 $ 1,000 $ 72,000 $115,000 $ 89,000 $ 98 ,000 $1,222,000 ====== Mr Whitfield calculates that the statutory minimum value is $436,429. He therefore applies the higher assessed unimproved value of $115,000 per hectare. Mr Conroy did not apply his mind as to whether the provisions of Section 11 (D) (i) of the Valuation of Land Act applied to the subject valuation. As I have said in my remarks in other decisions I am satisfied that the market for Residential B land has receded, perhaps even considerably, since the relevant date. But what has to be determined here is the value as at the 31st March, 1990 and there certainly is no sales evidence which would lead me to conclude that the market was ~eriously affected _by the downturn in the tourism industry as at that date, Now there is a significant difference in the valuations of the individual sites. I have closely examined the sales evidence and the weigl)t of it certainly supports values well in excess of those attributed to the individual blocks by Mr Conroy. In reality I cannot see that the individual valuations made by Mr Whitfield are not consistent with the sales evidence and I must therefore prefer his valuation of the individual lots to that provided by Mr Conroy. In addition another problem for Mr Conroy is that he has maae a 50% allowance~for bulk holding and difficulty of sale. There is re.ally no basis or foundation fo"r this estimate. -- 34 of 52 -- ' ' - Page 35 - On my consideration of all of the evidence I cannot find that an unimproved value of $530,000 for the subject lots is excessive or unreasonable as at the relevant date of 31st March, 1990. It follows then that the appeal be dismissed and that the unimproved value as determined by the Valuer-General in that sum be affirmed. Case 25 - AV91-557 Mr Conroy describes this site as being an irregularly shaped block with a frontage of 60 metres to Tropic Road. He says the site is generally even with a gentle slope towards its rear boundary with the site offering very limited seaviews. The land is improved with a 4 unit multi residential complex and Mr Conroy says that this represents the land's highest and best use. He says that the land has no physical disabilities but points to the shape of the site which severely restricts its development with a seven metre setback to Tropic Road and a three metre setback to the northern and eastern boundaries. Approximately 624 m 2 of - the land (62% of the site) cannot be built upon. Mr Conroy has assessed the value of the land as _a 4 unit site at $11,000 per unit or $44,000 based on comparable sales scheduled in the valuation report. Ten sales have been scheduled these being the only Residential B sales in Cannonvale with an area of 2000 m 2 or less. Mr Conroy has been reluctant to use sales of larger sites as they can be put to a higher use than unit development for example a resort or motel. Mr Conroy says that five of his scheduled sales are direc!IY comparable to the subject land and he - says that it is interesting to note that every property sold between $8,900 and -- 35 of 52 -- I ' . ' - Page 36 - $13,400 per unit site and every property sale scheduled has been valued by the Valuer-General's department at between $10,000 and $11,800 per unit site. Mr Conroy has noted that on the basis of a four unit development of the subject land the Valuer-General's valuation equates $15,000 per unit site, a figure which he claims is out of relativity with the other residential B site valuations, out of line with the analysed sales and generally excessive. Mr Conroy carries the comparison exercise further and points to the Valuer-General's valuation of the 2987 m 2 Club Crocodile Resort (Lot 2 on RP 715539) at $80,000. He says this property at date of valuation had approval for 25 serviced units and an unimproved value of only $3,200 per unit site. This property is larger than the subject land and has seaviews and in Mr Conroy's opinion is definitely superior. Mr Conroy stresses that residential B sites should be valued on a unit site basis as any prudent builder or developer looks at residential B land in the market place as such, and he says the development constraint upon the subject land limiting it to four units was caused by the shape of the site. Mr Whitfield describes the subject land as being slightly below street level with a gentle fall to the rear. His valuation of it equates $60/m 2• Mr Whitfield lists iri his tendered valuation document 13 sales of Residential B zoned sites. These sales took place during the period commencing 25th June, 1988 and ending 19th January, 1990 and reflect unimproved values ranging from $21 /m 2 to $240/m 2 • Mr Whitfield does not feel that Mr Conroy's sales are as useful as are his as they all took place during 1988 and one as early as 28th March, 1988. Mr Whitfield did no_t Vplue the subject land oil a rate per unit basis but derived his rate per square metre directly from the sales evidence. He acknowledges that the -- 36 of 52 -- . ' - Page 37 - subject land is a bad shape and was aware it was developed with four units, but he did assume that a purchaser of the site could have obtained more units but this depends upon the size of the units. There seems no doubt that the value of the subject land is affected by its shape being virtually triangular and this, with the setback requirements as suggested by Mr Conroy, does affect its market value as a residential B site. I have considered all the sales evidence and this problem with the block in particular, and find that an unimproved proved value of $50/m 2 is appropriate. It follows then that the appeal be allowed, that the determination of the Valuer-General be set aside, and that the unimproved value of Building Unit Plan 70833, Parish of Dryander be determined in the rounded off sum of $50,000. Case 26 - AV91-608 Mr Conroy describes this site as an irregularly shaped block with a frontage of 14 metres to Maeva Street. The rear boundary of approximately 90 metres fronts Campbell Creek. Mr Conroy says that from Maeva Street the site falls gently towards Campbell Creek then falls steeply into the creek. The site has no seaviews nor any rural views. It is vacant. Mr Conroy considers that the highest and best use of the site is as a 12 unit residential B development. He points to disabilities including that the frontage country to Campbell Creek is steep and broken requiring extensive earthworks prior to development and it is also flood affected. The shape of the site makes development difficult - 518 m 2 is lost in the access road and 225 m 2 is lost in the narrow tongue of the land in the south and 3 -- 37 of 52 -- j ' . . - Page 38 - metre setbacks apply from all other boundaries. Mr Conroy says that the site has been partially filled with approximately 2000 m 3 of material placed upon it. He believes that any units developed on the land would not attract high sale prices due to limited unit floor areas assuming optimum development. Mr Conroy has valued the land on a unit site basis upon which he claims is the same basis upon which residential B land is purchased, at $7,000 per unit site. He so values it on the basis of three scheduled sales of Residential B zoned land which are scheduled in his valuation report. These sales took place during 1989 and once again support the level of unimproved value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. Mr Whitfield describes the nature of the land as being slightly above street level at the frontage with a gentle fall to Campbell Creek at the rear. He agrees that part of the site has been filled. Mr Whitfield has valued the land at the rate of $40 /m2 and has made an allowance for 1540 m3 of fill at the rate of $4 /m3 . Mr Whitfield has scheduled 13 sales of Residential B zoned sites in his valuation report. During- the hearing of the matter Mr Whitfield informed the Court that the site was approved for 21 units in 1988. He also said that the present owner purchased the land in July, 1988 for $120,000. This sale was not introduced in evidence as it was regarded by Mr Whitfield to have been an old sale. He claims that it is difficult to value residential B sites on a unit value basis. Perhaps his views have some support when it is considered that in this case Mr Conroy says the potential of the site if for 12 accommodation units whereas the consent for 21 units was given shortly after the site was purchased in what appears to be a party related transaction. -- 38 of 52 -- . . - Page 39 - have considered all of the evidence and find that the unimproved value under appeal is marginally excessive especially in view of the awkward shape of the subject land and its limited road frontage. I find that an unimproved value of $35/m 2 is more appropriate. After adopting Mr Whitfield's allowance for fill on the site, I find that a rounded off determination in the sum of $87,000 is more appropriate. It follows then that the appeal be allowed and that the determination of the Valuer-General be set aside and that the unimproved value of Lot 19 on RP 738220, Parish of Conway be determined in sum of $87,000. Case 27 - AV91-613 This is a Residential A zoned site which Mr Conroy describes as being rectangularly shaped with a frontage of 21 metres to Bay Terrace, Shutehaven. He says that the land in its natural state fell steeply from Bay Terrace to a council controlled bay esplanade to Shute Harbour. The site has been extensively cut, excavated and filled. The Crown esplanade remains in its natural state being rough, heavily vegetated and strewn with large rocks. Mr Conroy describes the site as having seaviews only over Shute Harbour and not exte_nding beyond Shute Island, Tancred Island and Repair Island - the three islands that form a barrier across Shute Harbour. He says that it is one of the lowest sites in elevation in Shutehaven. The property is used as a residential house site with two -self-contained flats enclosed below. Mr Conroy points to the disabilities as being the steep nature of the land requiring extensive earthworks prior to any construction and that the site is situated on the access road to th~ Whitsunday -- 39 of 52 -- - Page 40 - Rent-a-Yacht jetty and operations centre, Whitsunday Rent-a-Yacht carpark and Jeff Godbey's slipway. He says that all these operations generate noise which in their own right is not loud but combined is continual, irritating and occasionally loud - particularly vehicles from the carpark negotiating the hills. Mr Conroy says that the properties on the ridge line at Shutehaven have far superior views than the subject land either in a northerly, easterly or southerly aspect over Mole Island, Whitsunday Passage and the Whitsunday Islands. He has scheduled three sales of residential A sites at Shutehaven which once again support the unimproved value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale sites. Mr Whitfield describes the site as being below street level and falling steeply to the east. He says the site enjoys very good harbour and island views. Although the land is zoned Residential A it is used as a multi-residential unit site with the residence and the flats and has been valued by Mr Whitfield under the provisions of Section 12 (1) (a) of the Valuation of Land Act at the rate of $270/m 2 • Mr Whitfield has scheduled 13 sales of Residential B zoned land in his valuation report. None of these sales is situated at Shutehaven which is really a Residential A zoned locality. The subject land has been valued by Mr Whitfield at a rate per .. square metre considerably in excess of his sale no. 13 which reflects the highest unit area rate ($240/m 2 ). There is clearly a difficulty with this valuation in obtaining sujtable comparable sales evidence. I agree with the approach of Mr Whitfield in valuing · the site under the provisions of Section 12 (1) (a) as a residential ~ B site in accordance with its use. However there is simply no sales evidence of residential B land at Shutehaven. Doing the best I can, and taking into account the evidence -- 40 of 52 -- . . - Page 41 - about the seaviews and the disabilities suffered by the subject land as outlined by Mr Conroy, I find that a fair unimproved value for the site results in the application of an unimproved value of $225/m 2• It follows that the appeal be allowed and that the determination of the Valuer-General be set aside and that the unimproved value of Lot 3 on Plan S9465, Parish of Conway be determined in the rounded off sum of $135,000. Case 28 - AV91-601 Mr Conroy describes this property as having a frontage of approximately 400 metres to Shute Harbour Road. The site is irregular in shape and from Shute Harbour Road tapers back to a narrow point some 450 metres from its frontage. Mr Conroy describes the land as rising gently from Shute Harbour Road to a high point on its southern boundary. There is a heavily timbered creek running through the eastern part of the site - an attractive feature but rendering this part of the site unusable. From the rear of the site there are - quite good seaviews over Muddy Bay. Mr Conroy describes the use of the subject land as being for residential and r~ral purposes. The owners reside on _the property and grow mangoes and exotic fruit trees on the land. He says that as a rural residential site there are no disabilities but as a rural site part ofthe land, ie the timbered gully in the east and the high country in the south, is unusable. Mr Conroy has looked at a number of rural sales to form a basis for his valuation but due to their situation and use he has been reluctant to say they are comparable. In all the cases the sales are far removed from the Whitsunday -- 41 of 52 -- t • . . - Page 42 - coastal area predominantly in areas of sugar cane and have been purchased for sugar cane production or for cattle grazing. Due to the lack of comparable rural sales in close proximity to the coast Mr Conroy has relied on sales of rural and rural residential sites and has adjusted them where necessary to arrive at the valuation of the subject land. He schedules five sales in his report. Once again each of these sales supports the unimproved value applied by the Valuer-General to the sale lots. Mr Whitfield describes the nature of the land as being all above road level and rising towards the rear with an easy slope at the road increasing to a moderately steep slope at a point about 150 metres from the road. He estimates that about one-third of the property ranges from "difficult to develop" to "rough and inaccessible". Mr Whitfield confirms that the property is presently used for fruit growing purposes and has been valued at $115,000 as a primary production unit with no potential for a higher use ie for further subdivision or commercial development. Mr Whitfield relies ·upon the analysis of the sale of Lot 1 on RP 744890, Parish of Dryander containing ~n area of 11.03 hectares which showed him $40,900 unimproved value ($3626/ha) and _he sets out his idea of the comparison between the sale land and the subject land in his tendered valuation report. There is in reality no basis for Mr Conroy's valuation. He is reluctant to rely upon_ the sales schedule and virtually relies upon his experience, considerable as that may be, for -his valuation of the subject land in the sum of $so;ooo. While Mr Whitfield's basis of valuation may not be ideal it does _provide some foundation for his valuation of the subject land at the rate of $15,000 per -- 42 of 52 -- . , - Page 43 - hectare. Bearing in mind that the onus in appeals of this nature is upon the appellants, I cannot find in these circumstances that this onus has been discharged. It follows that the appeal fails and that the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 744889, Parish of Conway as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of $115,000 be affirmed. Case 29 - AV91-603 Mr Conroy describes this Rural A zoned site as having a frontage of about 400 metres to Shute Harbour Road and approximately 40 metres to Jubilee Pocket Road. He says the land is level, even and with no distinguishing features and has very limited seaviews. Mr Conroy says that the land is used for residential purposes and values it as a single unit residential site at $100,000. He has schedul~d five sales which he says supports his valuation of the subject land. Mr Whitfield describes the land as being generally level to easy sloping with a long !rontage and excellent frontage to Shute Harbour Road. In his tendered valuation report he says that there are two single unit dwellings erected on the subject land and the property is not being used for any other purpose. Mr Whitfield has valued the site at $400,000 as englobo land having regard to its potential for either residential or commercial development. He did this since he considered that the land did riot fall to be valued as a single residential site under the provisions of Section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. It became clear during the hearing of the matter that it Would be desirable for the valuers to see if they could resolve the position in respect of whether there was one dwelling house -- 43 of 52 -- . . - Page 44 - or two dwelling houses on the subject land. They inspected the land together and Mr Whitfield informed the Court that it had been established with reasonable certainty that there was only one dwelling on the subject land. On this basis it is submitted by the Valuer-General that the land should have been valued as a rural homesite. Mr Whitfield says that on reviewing the situation and checking with relativity that the valuation of $100,000 as applied to the land by Mr Conroy is fair and reasonable. It follows then that the appeal be allowed, that the determination of the Valuer-General be set aside and the unimproved value of Lot 3 on RP 746300, Parish of Conway be determined in the sum of $100,000. Case 31 - AV91-651 This is a rural property used for grazing. Mr Conroy describes the access to the property as comprising a total of about 21.5 kms of narrow gravel road and narrow bitumen sealed road without formed shoulders. He describes the country as comprising predominantly forest country with a broken frontage to Happy Valley and La-Di-Da Creek. Mr Conroy told us that the country has been mostly pulled in 1989 with some 100 -to 150 hectares of timber stands left for shelter. He says that the soils are mostly shallow grey clays, with stone ridges - throughout and stone and ironstone subsoil. This is naturally grassed country. Mr Conroy estimates the carrying capacity of the block to be 120 heifers in the heifer paddock and 150 breeders in the Spring Creek paddock. He describes the water supply in Happy _Valley Creek- as being semi-per01anent. There is a spring in Spring Creek paddock which lasts about 9 months while the natural water in La-Di- -- 44 of 52 -- .. I ., 1W - Page 45 - Da Creek lasts from 6 to 9 months. In the heifer paddock there is an unequipped dam and an unequipped bore with provides brackish water. There is an unequipped dam in Spring Creek paddock as well as an unequipped bore. Stock are watered on the block from troughs from Rangemoore Holding which is an adjoining property owned by the same family. In valuing the property at $90/ha Mr Conroy has had regard to a number of disabilities including the phosphate deficient nature of the country, the flooding from the creek frontages, soil erosion problems, the need to use licks, molasses and hay as supplementary feed each year, the cocky apple regrowth and the poisons in the country, zamia, poison peach, rubbervine, sicklepod and wild cotton. He also points out that there are 40 to 50 hectares of inaccessible country. Mr Conroy has analysed two sales of similar type country but of larger areas and these sales show unimproved values of $28 .20/ha and $56/ha respectively. Details of his analyses are included within his tendered valuation report. One of the sales is of a 1860 hectare block situated on the Bruce Highway ($56/ha) the other being the sale- of Dittmer Holding containing an area of 2587 hectares on 21st February, 1989 for $350,000 ($28/ha unimproved). It is to be noted that Mr Conroy's analyses of these sales come close to supporting the level of unimproved value applied by the Valuer-General to the respective sale properties. This valuation was made by registered valuer Owen Leslie Efsenmenger who is employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Eisenmenger describes the nature of the land as comprising 550 hectares of undulating forest -- 45 of 52 -- - Page 46 - country timbered with poplar gum, moreton bay ash and ti-tree with scattered harder ironbark ridges and watercourses. The balance comprises rougher country in the southwest and northeast timbered with mainly ironbark and poplar gum with areas of scrub in the southwestern corner. Mr Eisenmenger says there is no permanent natural water on the property and water is obtained from artificial supplies from dams. He also says there is an unequipped bore on the property and there are shared water facilities with the adjoining Rangemoore Holding. Mr Eisenmenger values the subject land at the rate of $172.50/ha on the basis of two analysed sales. The first is of Dittmer Holding which Mr Eisenmenger analyses to show an unimproved value of $70,110 or $27.38/ha. He says that the sale property is much larger than is the subject and has a far inferior country type than the subject land. The majority of Dittmer is described by him as being rough ridge and mountain whereas the majority of the subject land comprises easy undulating ridges and flats. The second sale referred to by Mr Eisenmenger is of a 1546 hectare parcel located in the Pioneer Shire which analysed to show an unimproved - value $74.80 per hectare. This property is again larger than that subject parcel and comprises a country type far inferior to that on the subject land. The valuers are very close to one another in their derived unimproved value from the common sale of Dittmer Holding, although it is to be noted that Mr Conroy's analysis seems to be defective in that he has omitted interest on the -improvements on the property and development interest against the gross unimproved v_?lue of the land in his analysis. Mr Eisenmenger has included allowances -for interest and as ·a result his analysis is to be preferred. Really the sale of Dittmer Holding is hardly comparable to the subject property in view of its -- 46 of 52 -- It • .. • - Page 47 - much greater size and I am satisfied that the subject land should be valued at a very much higher rate per hectare than that disclosed by the sale of Dittmer Holding. In addition there is evidence before the Court of valuation relativity in the area and this was provided by Mr Eisenmenger. On this evidence it seems that his valuation of the subject land is relative to other blocks in the area and of course it is to be assumed that the valuation of other properties which are not the subject of an appeal to this Court are to be presumed to be correct vide Section 13 (7) of the Valuation of Land Act. I am however concerned about one aspect of the subject property which may not have been sufficiently addressed by Mr Eisenmenger and that is the question of the erosion prone soils which was stressed in evidence by Mr Conroy. I propose to make a minor adjustment in the valuation under appeal to make allowance for this problem. The other disabilities referred to by Mr Conroy appear to be rather common to similar type country in the area. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer-General is set aside, and the unimproved value of SL 31796 - Lot 89 on Plan HR 804261, Parish of Crystalbrook is determined at the rate of $150/ha in the rounded off sum of $102,000. Case 32 - AV91-634 This appeal is against the valuation of a cane farm situated about 20 kms r)Ortheast from Proserpine and about 4 kms from Cannonvale. The farm has a - gross assigned area of 112. 1 hectares and a farm peak of 6,100 tonnes of average quality cane. It has been valued by Mr Eisenmenger as follows:- -- 47 of 52 -- - Page 48 - 112.1 ha of assigned land@ $1,570 Less allowances (working, stone drainage flood and salinity) Add balance 103.4 hectares unassigned @ $200 Adopt $174,000 Mr Conroy's valuation of the farm reads:- 112.1 ha of cane land@ $1,100/ha Allow 50% for disabilities 103.4 ha balance@ $100/ha Valuation Adopted $72,000 $175,997 $ 22 ,800 $153,197 $ 20 ,680 $173,877 $123,310 $ 61 .655 $61,655 $ 10,340 $ 71,995 ==== Mr Conroy does not actually describe in his tendered valuation document the nature of the land but points to a number of disabilities suffered by the farm. They include soda problems, salinity problems, that the farm is broken by Bullock and Crofton Creeks and is flooded therefrom, and that the farm is low lying - at the bottom of the drainage basin for the area and drainage is inadequate. Mr Conroy says that there are no prospects of improving the drainage. Mr Conroy has relied upon the analyses of three sales of cane farms, one in Crystalbrook Road, one in Upriver Road and one in Lethebrook Road. He has included within his valuation document his analyses of the three sales which show him assigned -- 48 of 52 -- _. · :. __- ..: -·- . -· ,_ - Page 49 - unimproved values ranging from $1,100 to $1,300 per hectare. Mr Conroy says that the farm in Crystalbrook Road which shows an assigned value of $1,300 per hectare was run down at date of purchase and has poor drainage and also saline underground water supply. The Upriver Road farm showed an unimproved value of $1,150 per hectare and was well presented and drained at sale date and fully irrigated. It is on the bank of the Proserpine River. The Lethebrook Road sale property showed an unimproved value of $1,100 per hectare and is described by Mr Conroy, as being undulating and cut by Lethebrook Creek. He says it is not a good farm and it is severed by a tramline, has flooding from the O'Connell River and salt intrusion. Mr Conroy says that the irrigation supply is not good and soils dry out quickly. Mr Conroy who had the conduct of the case for the appellants, called three witnesses. Keith Alan Holmes who is a cane farmer by occupation and who has the farm next door but one to the subject property told us that he has been working the subject farm since June, 1991 and describes much of the cane as being salt affected with some small patches in good order but patches where there was no crop at all. A whole block had to be ploughed out and replant~d arid Mr Holmes feels that this was due to the salt problem. 49 acres (20 hectares) of the crop this year was so poor that it was cut by Mr Holmes and Mr Raiteri using a small harvester as the contractor wouldn't harvest it due to the paucity of the crop, It yielded about 300 tonnes of cane (about 15 tonnes per hectare). If there was no- salt affect on the crop then Mr Holmes suggests the yield should have been 1700 - 2000 tonnes on that part of the farm. Robert Francesco Raiteri who is one of the appellants, was also called -- 49 of 52 -- - Page 50 - in evidence. He has been farming the subject land for 15 years. Mr Raiteri presented the Court with a mill farm plan of his property and spent some time indicating the blocks which are salt affected. He says that of the assigned area 67.49 hectares is severely affected and 37.77 hectares partially affected. He tendered the production figures from the farm which indicate a big fall off in production for the 1991 year as opposed to the say 1989 and 1990 years. Mr Raiteri says that one of his neighbours has a salt and soda and salinity problems with his soil but there are no other farms so badly affected in the area. He says that his farm is notoriously known for its salt intrusion within the Proserpine mill area. Robert Edward Ry:land Bedford who is an agronomist in the employ of a firm known as Incitec and area manager for the Proserpine district also gave evidence. He pointed to the sodacity and the salinity problems with the farm and described their affect on the working of it. Suffice it to say that he does not see any means whereby these problems can be cured on the land within economic bounds. Mr Eisenmenger describes the assigned la0 nd as comprising dark creek loams along Crofton Creek rising to lighter grey /brown clay loams on the low ridges. He says the assigned area is generally to easy sloping along the creek with steeper slopes along the Proserpine - Shute Harbour Road frontage and the eastern part of the farm along Riordanvale Road. The balance of the property is described by Mr Eisenmenger as being mainly lower country timbered with ti-tree - and Pandanus palm. It is generally flooded wet country which would require a significant drainage scheme in order to develop it. Mr Eisenmenger has had -- 50 of 52 -- - Page 51 - regard to the analyses of two cane farm sales as a basis for his valuation. Details as to his analyses of them and the comparison, as he sees it, between the sale farms and the subject property are included within his tendered valuation report. It is to be observed that these sales analysed and relied upon by Mr Eisenmenger have been also analysed by Mr Conroy but with vastly different analysed unimproved values. Lot 67 on Plan HR 1044, Parish of Crystalbrook containing 63. 19 hectares which sold on 24th August, 1989 for $341,300 has been analysed by Mr Eisenmenger to show an unimproved value of $93,680 whereas Mr Conroy analyses this sale to show an unimproved value of $68,994. Lot 16 on Plan K214173, Lots 19 - 20 on RP 703075, SL 05/33082A - Lot 58 on Plan HR 1301 and SL 05/33082 C - Lot 62 on Plan HR 1301, Parish of Bonaventura containing an area of 100.5 hectares sold on 20th March, 1990 for $457,500. Mr Eisenmenger analysed this sale to show an unimproved value of $131,388 while Mr Conroy analysed it to show an unimproved of $87,220. Now one reason for the large discrepancy in the analyses is that Mr Conroy included within his analysis of Lot 67 on Plan HR 1044 an allowance of $55,000 for plant whereas Mr Eisenmenger does not include any plant within the sale. On the evidence before me, including a notification of change of ownership form I am prepared to find that Mr Conroy's analysis is in error in that there w~s no plant included in the sale of the property for $341,300. As for the sale of the farm in the parish of Bonaventura, Mr Conroy includes a value of $79, 150 for crop in his analysis whereas Mr Eisenmenger did not include any crop. Once again I am led to a finding that no crop passed with the sale and accordingly Mr Conroy's analysis of it seems defective. A further problem for Mr Conroy in his analyses of both - sales is that once again he has not made any allowance for interest on value of the -- 51 of 52 -- ,. .). - Page 52 - improvements nor for an appropriate development period on the gross unimproved value of the land. Bearing all this in mind I prefer to rely on the analyses provided by Mr Eisenmenger. There is no doubt that the subject farm suffers sodacity problems of a very severe nature. Apparently it is one of only two farms so badly affected in the Proserpine mill area and it appears to be a problem with grave consequences for cane growing. There seems on the evidence to be no means of improving the situation with respect to sodacity within economic bounds. This being the case I am prepared to hold that the valuation of the subject farm should reflect this peculiar disability and I am prepared to make a significant allowance against the valuation made by the Valuer-General to allow for this problem. However I cannot adopt Mr Conroy's valuation of the farm for the reason that his analyses of the sales are defective and further his approach to making a 50% allowance for the - disabilities has no basis or foundation. In all the circumstances I find that a fair and reasonable valuation of the subject property results from the application of a value of $1,000 per hectare for the assigned land (this value to include allowances for working, stone, drainage, flood and salinity) to which is added the value of the balance area as applied by Mr Eisenmenger at the rate of $200 per hectare. This results in a determined value at the rounded off figure of $132,000. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Valuer-General is set aside· and the unimproved value of Lot 16 on RP 744329 and Lot 2 on Plan HR 1298, Parish of Dryander is determined in the sum of $132,000. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 52 of 52 --