Dahl & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 239

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, City of Gladstone - AV91-203 J.A, V.R. & R.C. Dab) v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Gladstone) DE C ISI O N IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 14th June, 1991. The Valuer-General has determined the unimproved value of land situated at the corner of Boles and Breslin Streets, Gladstone in the sum of $87,000, as at 31st March, 1990. The land at the relevant date was zoned "Local Business" and was used for the commercial purposes of a service station and several shop and "consent use" tenancies. The real property description is Lot 1 on RP 611892, Parish of Gladstone, County of Clinton and contains an area of 5744 square metres. Mr R.C. Dahl appeared at the hearing and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. He said that while the estimate of value as contained in the Notice of Appeal was $50,000, being a minor increase over the previous valuation he felt that in reality the valuation should have decreased. It is his submission that the valuation should not be more than $45,000. Mr Dahl said that the site, in its unimproved condition, had a natural fall of 15 metres from the rear of the block to a short gully in the front of Boles Street. The gully had taken 1500 cubic metres of compacted gravel to fill and while the site had been excavated and levelled in terraces in exchange for the fill material won from the site, there had been significant expenditure ($1,696.85 in 1967) by the owners for the blasting of rock in the development and excavation work. The site is the balance area of a larger parcel from which a road resumption had taken [1991] QLC 239 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 place for the Breslin Street diversion. It is of irregular shape and Mr Dahl said the shape had precluded the existing buildings from being erected "square on" to the street alignments. A plan produced by Mr Dahl showed the roadwork resumption together with the original contour lines which confirmed his description of the unimproved topography of the land. The original development of the site, as··a service station, had-- taken place in 1968 and had been influenced by the population density of the locality which had then included a large caravan park opposite. This caravan park no longer exists. Original parts of the service station workshop and a showroom had since been subdivided as shop tenancies. Mr Dahl felt that the importance of Breslin Street as a major traffic route was declining as was the potential of the site, even though he agreed that as at the relevant date the existing service station and small retail tenancies would reflect its highest and best use. Because it was adjacent to existing residential property, difficulties were experienced in establishing other than "as of right" zoned usage of the tenancy areas. As a shopping site, the location was, in his opinion, too close to the central city area and also the large Kin Kora suburban shopping centre. The surrounding topography, flood influences and relatively low population density in the area lessened the demand for retail space. As a consequence, a number of businesses which had operated from the site had been unsuccessful and as the scaled down service station was only just viable a lack of lessee interest in that business had been experienced. Finally, run-off water from surrounding elevated lands on to the site created stormwater inundation of the buildings. Valuation evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mrs P.A. Quinlan, the registered valuer who was responsible for the valuation appealed against. Mrs Quinlan said that subsequent to objection to a valuation of $114,000, and specifically as a result of information supplied by the appellants as to the 1500 cubic metres of gravel fill -- 2 of 5 -- 3 having been imported for compaction of the gully area in the original development of the site, the valuation had been reduced to $87,500. The original valuation represented $20 per square metre and included 10% allowance for the enhancement resulting from the corner position. The reduction for filling of the gully had been calculated as 1500 cubic metres at an estimated cost at the relevant date of valuation of $18 per cubic- - metre including compaction. In her tendered report Mrs Quinlan described the land as "irregular in shape and falls moderately from a rocky ridge on the eastern boundary to a gully on the western boundary. The block has been cut and finished to three (3) levels and the gully has been filled to utilise the site." Mrs Quinlan had not sighted the contour plan of the land in its original condition until that plan had been tendered by Mr Dahl, who disagreed with her description of an original "moderate" fall. Mrs Quinlan said that, even at the relevant date, it was not unusual for sites in Gladstone to have cut and levelling earthworks performed in exchange for the fill material won. This evidence was not challenged. There is no evidence or est~mates before the Court as to the relevant date cost which might be expected to improve the site from its original contour to its now benched condition as developed (before the filling of the gully), except for the 1967 cost of blasting the rock as expended by the appellants. Mrs Quinlan adopted her basis of valuation from the evidence provided by two sales, the first of which was a 5998 square metre site at the corner of Chapman Drive and the Dawson Highway, sold in May 1989 with, as I understand the evidence, approval for "local business" rezoning, to show an analysed unimproved value of $203,000. At the relevant date a valuation of $180,000 or $30 per square metre including corner influence had been applied to this sale site. Mrs Quinlan says that the site is superior in contour and shape, but similar in area and location (both the sale and the subject site being located in large residential areas). Due to the shape, contour and drainage disabilities -- 3 of 5 -- 4 of the subject land she sees the sale as being superior. She offered the opinion, that had it not been for these disabilities, she would have seen a valuation of $27.50 per square metre for the subject land, (before filling of the gully) as being a realistic comparison. Mr Dahl was unable to agree that the comparison was fair, as he sees the development potential of the sale land and its desirability for local business- use in a developing-- location rather than a stagnant or declining location such as that of the subject land, as being superior. The second sale was of a much larger site of 1.864 hectares in Dixon Drive, in July 1989, showing an analysed unimproved value of $198,500 with an application of $185,000 or approximately $10 per square metre including corner influence. While, as a larger site, Mrs Quinlan sees it as possessing greater total value than the subject land, she is of the opinion that the larger area reduced the unit of area value comparison. The sale land requires considerable earthworks for development, but still has superior contour and shape, although its location is, in _Mrs Quinlan's opinion, inferior to the subject. Mr Dahl says that the sale land has area sufficient for a large scale development for which the subject site is not suitable, but also sees the location of this sale land as being superior. On the evidence before me I lean to the view that the subject site may not, at the relevant date, have been as well located for local business type development as Mrs Quinlan has found and not of a nature capable of cogent comparison with the second sale. The subject land had significant development disabilities when considered in it unimproved state. Mrs Quinlan has considered and made allowances for these factors, but again I have some doubt that the original slope has been fully recognised in these deliberations. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 Giving the benefit to the appellants in areas where doubt exists, I find an unimproved value before the allowance for fill of $17.50 per square metre including corner influence, then make the further allowance of $27,000 as at the relevant date for the compacted filling of the gully. The following calculation results: 5744 square metres @ $17.50 per square metre unimproved, including corner influence - say $100,000 Less cost of consolidated fill 27,000 $ 73,000 The appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's determination set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land as at 31st March, 1990, determined in the sum of $73,000. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 5 of 5 --