Baxter v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 150

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Brisbane City Council - Moggill. AV91-896. Margaret Elizabeth Baxter V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 1st November, 1991 The appellant resides upon a parcel of land situated at 121 Gem Road, Kenmore, which is described as Lot 4 on RP 88827, parish of lndooroopilly. The lot is of rectangular shape with an area of 1.046 hectares. The land has frontage to Gem Road on the eastern boundary, the southern boundary is the Brisbane River, whilst the remaining boundaries are in common with an adjoining hatchet shaped lot. For the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990, the lot has been valued by the Valuer-General in the sum of $340,000. Mrs Baxter values the lot at $300,000. This estimate is not based on market evidence but rather upon the opinion that problems with erosion of the river frontage is such that the value of the lot should be that much less than the applied value. This submission assumes that the matters she raised have not been considered by the Valuer-General or if considered were not given sufficient consideration. The relevant part of her statement of evidence is as follows: II 1. The river bank was affected by the January 1974 flooding, particularly the rapid drawn-down phase (caused by sec closure of Somerset Dam gates). River bank instability is evidenced at approximately 300 locations between College's Crossing and Coronation Reach. [1991] QLC 150 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 2. Subsequent to 1974, progressive erosion has produced further steepening of slope. The waterline has eroded by up to 10 metres, the upper bank steepened and water level access is no longer possible. Concentrated erosion has occurred in a critical gully zone with several tributaries. Contributors to erosion include a. Wave erosion from passing vessels. b. Gravel barge dredging, deepening river channel. 3. Extensive repair measures have been carried out at considerable effort and expense, but the problem is of such magnitude that control has not succeeded. 4. Indications are that further loss of ground can be expected, resulting in a. loss of use of steep bank. b. loss of available area of present crest zone. 5. As part of responsible land care management approximately 100 trees have been planted on and above the river bank. We recognise that this will virtually eliminate any river vista in the near future, a desperate measure to slow loss of land. " Mrs Baxter said that the river bank is principally soil except for the western area where it possesses rock formation which continues on the frontage of the lot adjoining. The result of the continued washing and erosion of the bank has turned part of the frontage into an inlet. Further erosion has occurred through river wash and runoff water from the western alignment of Gem Road. She said that she has been planting trees on the frontage area over the last 30 years in order to retain the land. The valuation was written on behalf of the Valuer-General by Mr Uday Singh, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands. He based the valuation on sales. A sale of an area of 5351 square metres which is six lots away from the subject lot sold in October, 1989, for $400,000. This lot is valued at $375,000 for the purposes of this Annual Valuation. Notwithstanding the size of the sale lot and its hatchet shape it is seen by Mr Singh as a superior lot to the subject -- 2 of 3 -- 3 lot because of the elevation of the site and the panoramic views available therefrom across the river. He accepts the state and condition of the river frontage of the subject lot as described by Mrs Baxter. The loss of land itself would not, in his opinion, and I agree, affect the value of the lot in the marketplace due to the size of the lot. He said that in his experience the disabilities mentioned by Mrs Baxter are common and that river frontage is predominantly used as an amenity to the site. In his opinion if a pontoon was desired to seNe the subject lot, a spiral staircase might be used (which he has seen used in other areas) in lieu of cutting into the bank. I can fully appreciate the evidence of Mrs Baxter but I cannot lightly put aside the opinions of Mr Singh who has spoken with experience on developments and erosion seen elsewhere. His opinions also have the support of market evidence of lots with river frontage. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded to alter the valuation he has applied. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --