Dwyer v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 93

.......~-··~ Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - Shire of Fitzroy. AV93-79 T J Dw yer V. The Chief Executive , De partment of Lands (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 13th August, 1993 The respondent Chief Executive has determined an unimproved value of $30,000 for Lot 1 on RP615696, parish of Nicholson containing an area of 19.23 hectares. This is a "Rural Residential" zoned site situated in Ridgelands Road about 13.5 kms north-west of the City of Rockhampton. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 31st March, 1992. The appellant contends within the Notice of Appeal for an unimproved value of $11,000. Trevor James Dwyer explained to the Court that his land is in a crisis situation every time it rains. Mr Dwyer says that his land is in a flood path from catchment rain and in fact every time it rains his property is substantially inundated. Water passes mainly through the middle of the property. After the Transport Department carried out certain roadworks in Ridgelands Road, the consequent diversion of water means that in times of heavy rain, run-off water even flows [1993] QLC 93 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 beneath the house on the property. Mr Dwyer says that there is a 17 acre (6.8 hectare) powerline easement through the property but there has not as yet been a powerline erected on the easement. Mr Dwyer's advice from officers of the Department of Lands is that the effect of the easement will not be taken into account until the power lines are constructed. Mr Dwyer enclosed with his Notice of Appeal a series of documents concerning the flooding and problems he has had with the Central Queensland Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals concerning livestock standing in water on his property for extended periods. None of this material is relevant to the determination of the unimproved value of the land. Mr Dwyer would like the determination of the unimproved value of the land to be delayed pending an inspection of his land by an officer of the Department of Lands in times of flood. The Court does not propose to delay its determination of the unimproved value for this reason. Although Mr Dwyer raised many issues in the presentation of his evidence the case really is in short compass. The Court has really only one central point to consider, and that is whether the extent of the flooding as exacerbated by the roadworks and ·the effect of the easement, are such as to warrant a reduction in the valuation of the land. The valuation under appeal was made by Gordon Graham Kelsey who is a registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands. Mr Kelsey describes the nature of the land as comprising near level gumtop box, blue gum and ironbark forest flats. Mr Kelsey acknowledges that the property has flooding problems. He also recognises that the site is disadvantaged by the Queensland Electricity Commission easement which severs the property. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Mr Kelsey has made the valuation of the land having regard to three sales of "Rural Residential" zoned sites. Lot 420 on Plan LN 401241, containing 24.23 hectares situated at the corner of Ridgelands Road and Hunt Road sold on 14th August, 1991 for $60,000. Mr Kelsey describes this as being a corner site, near level, and low lying at the rear. It has bitumen strip access. Mr Kelsey sees this site as being similar to the subject land in country type but better drained, larger in area and further from Rockhampton. Overall, Mr Kelsey sees this sale site as being superior overall to the subject land. He has applied an unimproved value of $48,000 to Lot 420 as at 31st March,, 1992. Lot 1 on RP 610364 containing 7563 m 2 sold on 20th March, 1992 for $21,500. Mr Kelsey has applied an unimproved value of $13,800 to this land. It is a near level forest site with bitumen and formed gravel access and it is severely flood prone. Mr Kelsey sees the sale site as being considerably inferior to the subject land as it is smaller and has inferior access. Lot 187 on RP 614688 containing 7.313 hectares sold on 27th March, 1992 for $29,000. This is a gently sloping site, slightly elevated and not flood affected. Mr Kelsey values this site at $24,500 and considers it overall to be inferior to the subject land due to inferior location within inferior access and it is smaller. The sale site is not subject to flooding. Mr Kelsey informed the Court that the easement encumbers an area of 5.602 hectares. It is 100 metres wide. The house is located in the extreme north-west corner of the site at the highest point of the land and well removed from the easement. Mr Kelsey explained that he has made a 25% allowance in the valuation for the effects of the easement and particularly for the flooding problem. Had the -- 3 of 4 -- 4 site not been disadvantaged by the easement and flooding, Mr Kelsey says he would have valued it at $40,000. An allowance at 12.5% was made for the easement encumbrance. On the evidence before the Court I simply cannot conclude that the valuation furnished in the Notice of Appeal by Mr Dwyer in the sum of $11,000 is to be preferred to the valuation of $30,000 under appeal. I am satisfied that an adequate allowance has been made by Mr Kelsey for the flooding and easement problem. There is one remaining matter and that is a suggestion by Mr Dwyer that the transmission of power in the high voltage lines when constructed could cause a health risk. This matter has been dealt with by one of my colleagues, the learned Mr Neate in Re: Baldwin v. The Chief Executive (AV91-731). He considered this matter at length and concluded that the appellants failed to prove that ground of appeal. I am in agreement with his finding. In all the circumstances, I cannot find that the onus resting upon the appellant under the provisions of Section 16J(3) of The Valuation of Land Act of 1944 has been discharged. The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 615696, Parish of Nicholson as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of $30,000 is affirmed. (C.H. Carter) Member of the Land Court. -- 4 of 4 --