Anderson v Director-General, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 107

.. LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 27th August, 1993 . Re: Appeal against Annual valuation, Valuation of Land Act 1944 Shire of Beaudesert, (AV93-35) Matthew ANDERSON V. Director-General , De partment of Lands (Hearing at Beaudesert) DECISION Mr Matthew Anderson is the owner of Lot 1 on Registered Plan 131839, Parish of Perry, County of Stanley, containing an area of 4.065 hectares. In accordance with the provisions of section 168(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Valuer-General determined the unimproved value of the subject land as at 31st March, 1992 at $45,500. Mr Anderson objected to this valuation and by letter dated 25th January, 1993 he was advised that his objection had been disallowed and the valuation remained unaltered at $45,500. Mr Anderson then lodged an appeal to the Land Court against the Valuer- General's decision on his objection, advising that his estimate of the unimproved value is $28,000. Mr Anderson's grounds of appeal are as follows: "There are high voltage power lines crossing my property. As a result I cannot (a) sell my property, (b) subdivide. The increase from $35,000 to $45,500, an increase of 30% is totally unreasonable as according to Real Estate Agents, values in this area have hardly risen at all." Between the issue of the Valuer-General's decision on objection and the [1993] QLC 107 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 hearing of this matter, the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 substituted the statutory office of chief executive for the statutory office of Valuer-General. Section 11 (4) of the Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988 and Schedule 1 to that Act provides that the chief executive of the Department of Lands, is the Director-General. For present purposes, therefore, it is appropriate that the Director-General be the respondent in this proceeding in place of the former Valuer- General. The subject land is situated at 325 Teviot Road, Greenbank-Munruben, about 6.6 kilometres south west of the Park Ridge Post Office. Access is via Teviot Road, a bitumen sealed road. Electricity and telephone are connected to the property. The land is zoned "Rural" under the Shire of Beaudesert Town Planning Scheme and comprises undulating forest country falling to the west from the road frontage, then rising again to the rear of the western boundary . The block is subject to an easement in favour of the Queensland Electricity Commission which occupies about 1.433 hectares (35%) of the block. The easement area is fully cleared and is maintained by the QEC. The property is used for rural residential purposes. Mr Anderson gave evidence that his main concern about the valuation is the fact that the high voltage power lines crossing his property have made it very difficult to sell. He has had the property on the market for some time and as soon as prospective purchasers see the power lines they lose interest in it. The house is constructed about 80 metres from the power lines. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 Because of the combined effect of the power lines and an area which is subject to flooding, Mr Anderson also feels that he would be unable to subdivide the property into two hectare sites. However, evidence on behalf of the Department of Lands was that the valuer has valued the property as a single rural residential site and has not taken into account any subdivisional potential. Therefore, this ground of appeal has no relevance in these proceedings. Mr Anderson's other ground of appeal is that the valuation is excessive, as Real Estate agents have told him that there has been no real increase in valuations in the area. However, although Mr Anderson knew one of the sales used by the Department of Lands, he was unable to otherwise assist with sale prices in the area. Therefore, the real argument in this case is the effect on the valuation of the high voltage power lines crossing the property. Evidence on behalf of the Director-General was given by Mr D R McKinnon, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr McKinnon was not the valuer who applied the valuation of $45,500 to this property. That valuation had been applied by a valuer who had since left the Department. However, Mr McKinnon had made himself familiar with the subject land and the three sales which comprised the basis of valuation. The first of these is the sale of a property situated in Andalusian Drive, some distance east to the subject property, containing an area of 2 hectares. This land is zoned "Rural" and sold in November, 1991 for $41,500, which Mr McKinnon -- 3 of 6 -- 4 analysed to show an unimproved value of $41,200. A valuation of $40,000 had been applied to this land in the 1992 valuation. Mr McKinnon explained that the reason for choosing this property as a basis is that the same high voltage power line and easement that affects the subject land also affects this land. Mr McKinnon said that the this property is even more adversely affected than the subject land, as a greater proportion of its area is subject to the easement. A house has been constructed on this land since the sale. This basic property comprises elevated, gently sloping cleared forest country. Although Mr McKinnon considered that it is superior in country type and location to the subject land, it is smaller and has a larger proportion of its area affected by the power line easement. Therefore, Mr McKinnon considered it to be inferior to the subject property. Mr McKinnon's second basic sale is situated in Teviot Road in close proximity to the subject land. It has an area of 5.296 hectares, zoned "Rural" and sold in August, 1991 for $85,000. It was analysed to show an unimproved value of $80,300 and in the 1992 valuation, $74,000 was applied to this property. Mr McKinnon describes the land of comprising gently undulating forest country, falling gently to the south, with a watercourse bisecting the block at the rear. He considered this property to be superior to the subject land, as it is larger and not affected by a power line easement. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 The third basic sale is situated in Leanne Court, which is some distance to the north of the subject land. It has an area of 2.005 hectares and is zoned "Rural". It sold in August, 1991 for $77,000 and was analysed to show an unimproved value of $74,000. A valuation of $68,000 was applied in the 1992 valuation of the Shire. Mr McKinnon describes the land as comprising gently undulating cleared forest country falling gently to the west. Although it is smaller than the subject, he considers the sale property to be superior to it as it is not affected by a powerline easement. Mr McKinnon considers that the valuation of $45,500 on the subject land to be well supported by these sales. He said that if it was not for the powerline easement, Sale 1 and Sale 3 would be somewhat similar. However, the difference in sale prices indicates the difference that was made in the market because of the powerline. He said that this difference had been carried into the applied values. He also said that the subject land and Sale 2 were similar except for the easement. The relative applied values of $74,000 to Sale 2 and $45,500 to the subject land reflects the difference that was made for the effect of the easement. In answer to the concern expressed by Mr Anderson that he was unable to sell the property because of the presence of the power line, Mr McKinnon said that although he realised that it was a deterrent and cause for concern to some purchasers, other properties which were affected by the same power line have sold, although at somewhat reduced prices. In addition to Sale 1, Mr McKinnon referred to a later sale of the property adjacent to it, Lot 13, which sold in July 1992 -- 5 of 6 -- 6 for $40,000. These blocks and others in the area which were subject to the power line easement have sold and have since had houses constructed on them. While there is no doubt about the disadvantage of having a power line easement on the property, Mr McKinnon feels that this has properly been allowed for in the subject valuation. From this sales evidence it is clear that there is a market for rural residential properties which are affected by power line easements. It is also clear from the evidence that such properties sell and at prices which are less than those which are unaffected by such easements. In the present case I feel that Mr McKinnon has properly allowed for the effect of the easement on the subject land and that the unimproved value which has been applied is reasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Director- General is affirmed at $45,500. J J TRICKETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 6 of 6 --