Day & Ors v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 128

LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 3rd October, 1991. Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Shire of Woongarra. (AV91-69). C.D. Dav & Ors v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Bundaberg) DECISION M at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General has assessed the unimproved value of land described as Lot 17 CK1084, Parish of Barns, in the sum of $42,000. The land contains an area of 3642 square metres and is situated in the small beach township of Coonarr about 22 km from Bundaberg. Telephone is available but there is no reticulated water supply or electricity. The last 9 km of the access is via gravel roads. The appellants contend for a valuation of $35,000 and Mr C.D. Day attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of a tendered statement, enlarging on the grounds of appeal. Firstly it is suggested that the valuation is excessive in comparison with land sales in the area, the most recent of which was a 1990 sale of land on the esplanade for $55,000. This land was improved with a house and Mr Day says that a land value of $15,000 is indicated. He refers to two previous land sales at $32,000 but says these purchasers had the incorrect belief that electricity was to be supplied. The subject property including the house was purchased for $41,000 in 1987 when the house was insured for $45,000. [1991] QLC 128 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Mr Day is concerned that, although not presently affected by eros10n, the - subject land is within an erosion prone area as identified in a Beach Protection · Authority survey (June 1989) with the possibility of existing beach erosion presently 1.8 km to the north extending south. Mr Day tendered photographs of erosion of the frontal dunes both to the north and south of Coonarr. Other matters which Mr Days says affect the value of the land are its low elevation compared with other nearby lots, inundation of the rear section from Coonarr Creek, inundation of access road at high tides, lack of services, poor access to the area and uncertainty of existing access through a Scenic (Wild Flower Conservation) Reserve remaining in the future. Mr Day pointed out that he has been advised that the beach from Coonarr Creek to the Elliott River is zoned as a Bathing Reserve - "an antiquated zoning" which if taken seriously would limit recreational activities - fishing and boating being technically prohibited. Finally Mr Day is concerned that the increases in valuation, amounting to 527% in a two year period are unrealistic and excessive when compared with other coastal areas. Mr L.W. Hoult, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands had carried out the valuation for the Valuer-General. He sees the township of Coonarr as being somewhat unique in the district, with exclusivity provided by the very small number of surveyed lots. Within this environment, he sees the subject lot as being individually unique because of its large size (3642 square metres) compared with the other surveyed lots which are mainly 516 square metres. He said the valuation as at 31st March, 1989, for this area had been set by the sale of the vacant Lot 7 C7772 of 516 square metres for $31,000 (analysed unimproved value $30,500) in March 1989. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 In comparison, at that date, the subject land although lower in elevation had been valued at $35,000. He agrees that this had reflected a substantial increase over the earlier valuations, probably because with the lack of sales evidence, the earlier valuations were conservative. Then, as at 31st March, 1990, a further 20% increase in value had been applied, in line with the increases applied to urban land throughout the Shire, based on the trend as indicated by sales evidence. His enquiry indicated that a price of $80,000 was being sought for the resale of Lot 7. He had analysed the sale of Lot 5 C7772 which took place in June 1990 for $55,000, improved with an "old weekender", to show an unimproved land value of $37,500. This had more than supported the 20% increase up to $36,000 which had been applied to that land and confirmed to him that the trend throughout the Shire had also been experienced at Coonarr. He had inspected the "weekender" on this sale land and could not agree that its added value was anywhere near $40,000 as suggested by Mr Day. He tendered several photographs of the area including the structure on the sale land. On the evidence before me, Mr Hoult's approach to the assessment of the added value of this structure is preferred to that of Mr Day. Mr Hoult agreed that the sale lands in Coonarr were more elevated than the subject land from which ocean views were available only from the upper level of the two storied dwelling. He was aware that the back section of the subject land was affected by tidal creek waters, but still saw the much larger available site area as making it more valuable than the smaller more elevated sale lots. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 On the evidence before me, I have concluded that the Valuer-General's valuation has not been proved wrong. The parti~ar disabilities and advantages of the subject land have been given consideration by Mr Hoult. The disabilities associated with Coonarr itself, again, as well as the positive features, would be reflected in the prices paid for land in this location. The market perception of any problems associated with beach erosion would also be reflected in the sales evidence. Should particular problems emerge in the future then they should be addressed in valuations relevant at that time. In the end result the appeal is dismissed and the Valuer-General's valuation affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) _ ' Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --