Channer v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 230

i IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 21st December, 1990. Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General, Maroochy Shire. A V90-470 DJ. Channer v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Maroochydore) DECISION The Valuer-General has determined the unimproved value of land described as Lot 21 on RP 118374, Parish of Maroochy, County of Canning, as $540,000 at 31st March, 1989. The vacant land has an area of 3.276 hectares, is zoned "Residential A" and is located at 27 Greenoaks Drive, Coolum Beach. The registered valuer responsible for the valuation is Mr C.J.E. Eaton, employed by the Department of Lands, Division of Valuations and Land Services. He describes the land as follows: The property is above road level. It is a well elevated block consisting of easy to steep scrub forest slopes falling in a north to north western direction. The subject land has two ridges located in the north-east and south-west parts of the block respectively which are separated by a wide depression. The north-east ridge provides expansive 180+ degree views over the ocean, foreshores to Noosa and the western ranges. The south-west ridge provides views of the foreshore to Noosa and rural views to the west and south-west. Sewerage, town water, electricity, and telephone are available to the subject. The appellant contends for a valuation of $400,000 the grounds of appeal being: (1) The valuation is out of relativity with other properties. (2) The valuation does not properly reflect the use of the land. (3) Special disabilities have not been fully considered. [1990] QLC 230 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Evidence for the appellant was given by Mr M. Stephens, a registered valuer, who appeared, not in the capacity of a valuer, but as agent for the appellant. The appellant resides in North Queensland and was unable to attend the hearing. He had however wished the Court to consider certain sales evidence in the general locality as well as the circumstances surrounding his own purchase of the property then his appreciation of the difficulties which the land would present for development. Mr Stephens' task became somewhat formidable. He had apparently been given insufficient time nor the instructions to carry out a full valuation exercise, but had been provided with the sales evidence Mr Channer wished to be considered. He had attempted to inspect as many of the sale properties as he could to gain some appreciation of the comparability and to provide assistance in its delivery to the Court. He had inspected the subject property externally but had not physically been on the site. While he acted ably as the appellant's agent, his own evidence turned out to be of little assistance. The Court was advised that of the total subject site, one area of 5011 square metres has sweeping ocean views and was intended to be excised for the owner's future residence. The balance area then was said to have "limited aspects and a difficult building contour" and was intended to be sold as land for subdivision, although such potential depended on an improved economy and real estate market. The land was said to have poor foundation conditions and drainage problems and a large spring affected one location. Access was steep and would be costly to construct. The owner, who is a consultant engineer, bad advised Mr Stephens that the balance area after excision of the homesite might produce some 25 lots of approximately 650 square metres. After consideration of the need to- stabilise the slopes and spring, and the difficult access, present development costs could reach $25,000 per lot. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 The evidence of value which Mr Channer wished the Court to consider was as follows: (1) Lots 25 and 26 Grandview Drive - 4.689 hectares - sold April 1989 - $330,000 - Valuer- General's valuation (31.3.89) $280,000. (2) Lot 150 Lagoda Drive - 10.28 hectares - zoned "Rural B" adjacent to Hyatt development, sold February 1988 for $195,000 - an unimproved parcel much of which is reedy swamp. (3) Sub 3 Portion 11- a 2.3 hectare parcel zoned "Residential A" situated in Warren Road near the new Hyatt development - sold in June 1988 for $90,000. (4) Lots 1 and 2 on RP 202694 and Lot 7 on RP 193459 comprising 20.9132 hectares of "Rural A" land - sold in March 1988 for $1,015,000 - property is bounded by Mudjimba Beach Esplanade and David Low Way at M~djimba and is opposite the ocean foreshore. (5) Re-Sub 1 of Sub 2 of Portion 201V at Point Arkwright comprising 1.502 hectares of "Residential B" land - sold in May 1988 for $190,000. Mr Stephens said this property enjoys magnificent views northerly along Coolum Beach through to Noosa Heads and southerly along the coastline through to Point Arkwright. (6) A 2.5 hectare site of "Residential B" land on the Corner of David Low Way and Sunshine Beach Drive, Marcoola - land sold for $365,000 in August 1988. The property is situated just to the south of the new Hyatt development. The property was sold by the Mortgagee exercising its power of sale. (7) Lot 1 Grandview Drive, 599 square metres - sold in June 1988 for $125,000. (8) Lot 21 Grandview Drive, 690 square metres - sold in June 1988 for $85,000. (9) Lot 109 Grandview Drive, 620 square metres - sold in May 1988 for $52,000. (10) Lot 7 Millen Court, 723 square metres - sold in July 1988 for $45,000. (11) Lot 15 Grandview Drive, 675 square metres - sold in January 1988 for $65,000. This site had sold previously in December 1987 for $45,000. (12) Lot 20 Grandview Drive, 2734 square metres - sold in November 1987 for $50,000. Mr Stephens commented that while all of the sales mentioned indicated that a valuation of $540,000 for the subject was excessive, he saw Sales (1), (5) & (6) each to be superior to the subject. Under cross-examination however, it was revealed that Mr Stephens had encountered some difficulty in identifying Sale 1 on the ground and had not fully inspected Sale 5, its description as contained in his evidence being that of others. While Sale 6 was not comparable physically to the subject he was of the opinion that it had better potential because of its proximity to the Hyatt development and its ease of access. He had not been aware that Lot 14 in Grandview Drive had sold for $103,500 in January 1989. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 The subject property had been purchased by Mr Channer in September 1988 for $600,000 but in Mr Stephen's submission this sale could "not be considered as evidence of market value as it does not fit the definition of market value as defined by the Spencer case. The price paid for the land (with the benefit of hindsight) was well in excess of the market and this is confirmed by the sales evidence as presented." Mr Stephens understood that a valuation carried out by an unnamed valuer for Mr Channer at some time subsequent to the purchase did not support the purchase price. Mr Stephens said that the property had been listed for sale for the last two years and no offers and been received. Mr Eaton had inspected the subject property and tendered a number of photographs taken from various positions both on the proposed 5011 square metre excision and the proposed balance areas. He had made contact with the appellant subsequent to his purchase of the subject land. From his sales research in the area he saw the sale of the subject property as being good evidence of value. It was lightly improved (clearing and fencing $5,000) - showing an analysed unimproved value of $595,000, with what he saw as a conservative valuation of $540,000 being applied at the relevant date. In carrying out his valuation he had been aware of the spring on the property and had taken into consideration the steepness of some slopes and the difficulties which might be envisaged in subdivisional development. His enquiries indicated that only part of the property was listed for sale subsequent to its purchase - the proposed balance area after excision of the 5011 square metre site at an asking price of $650,000. Sale prices of vacant developed lots in the vicinity of the subject at about the relevant date and with similar outlook and topography as that provided by the subject range from $125,000 to $100,000 then down to $50,000 for lots with poorer restricted views. -- 4 of 6 -- ( 5 Mr Eaton had also used the sale of Lots 25 and 26 in Grandview Drive (April 1989 - $330,000) which was the appellant's Sale 1. His description of this land was as follows: Lot 25 falls moderate to steeply from north and western sides to a gully in the rear south- eastern comer - hatchet access only - views to south-east and southern coastline available from more elevated areas. Lot 26 falls steeply from north, west and southern sides into easier gullies in the eastern side - most areas only have views to ocean in the east with a small area in the north-west corner where some restricted east north-east views maybe available. In globo land - some subdivision in north-western corner since sale - views, location, topography, shapes and services inferior to subject - access is superior to subject. Sale prices of vacant allotments in the vicinity and/or of similar topography outlook range from $45,000 to around $25,000 for poorer lands. Mr Eaton agreed that he had applied $280,000 to this land in comparison and felt comfortable with that relativity. The best evidence of value in this matter seems to me to be the sale of the subject property. It was attempted by the appellant, to introduce reasons for that evidence to be seen to be unreliable. It is suggested that the appellant acted hastily and imprudently under some pressure to obtain the preferred homesite, and had further research been carried out he would have realised the purchase price was excessive. Mr Eaton however, has in fact researched the sales evidence in the locality, and is of the opinion that the purchase price of the subject reflected the market at the relevant date. He has applied a valuation which on that purchase price is seen as suitably conservative. It may be that a more difficult market has since emerged but the matter at hand is the question of the value of the land as at 31st March 1989. Subsequent events may be relevant had they been reasonably capable of prediction at that time, but I am not convinced that that is the case here. If a different market has emerged then the opportunity will exist with annual revaluation for that to be proved. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 In this matter I prefer the overall evidence of Mr Eaton and the appeal will fail accordingly. The appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General is affirmed. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. I -- 6 of 6 --