Babodin Ptv Ltd v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 105

.~-c, .C f;·h:,..t~:;.;•,:·;.,- t~'~:;.:···· r: ·_A ::· ,--:. :i. Re: An appeal against a decision by the Valuer-General, City of Rockhampton. (AV91-164) Babodin Pt v Ltd v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 13th September, 1991. As at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of land described as Lot 7 on R.P. 605822, Parish of Archer, containing 809 square metres and situated at 141 Thozet Road, Rockhampton, in the sum of $17,000. As a result of an objection against the valuation it was reduced to $16,600. This appeal is against that decision. Mr W. Robinson appeared for the appellant company of which he is a director. The grounds of appeal refer to the disabilities which the subject land suffers from storm-water drainage. Mr Robinson advised that the problem had not existed until alteration of the street drainage system by the Rockhampton City Council. He had agreed to allow the Council to construct an underground stormwater drain through the property, believing it would be sited along a side boundary. Instead, in his absence the pipe was laid diagonally across the allotment, in close proximity to the rear of the house. At first it appeared the flooding problem had been alleviated by the underground drain but over time, with increased subdivisional development in the area, and increased stormwater run-off, the drain became inadequate to cope with the [1991] QLC 105 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 flow of water. When the capacity of the drain is reached, the water backs up into the street then overflows through the subject property. Considerable water damage has ~ been suffered to the property over the years. Garage doors need to be left open so as not to impede the flow of water. Electrical equipment under the house has to be placed on blocks. Although the Council has provided additional inverts, Mr Robinson is convinced that the only solution to the problem would be to increase the size of the pipe drainage. The position of the existing pipe has caused problems with extensions to the rear of the house. The garage is sited over the pipe, necessitated by the location of a sewerage manhole also on the property. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr T.O. Hansen, registered valuer with the Department of Lands in Rockhampton. He explained that the valuer responsible for the writing of the valuation was unavailable for the hearing. Mr Hansen tendered a statement by the valuer then advised that he had himself researched the matter and agreed with the conclusions in the report. The valuation had been based on sales, the details of which were provided, the overall evidence reflecting a 10% increase over the previous annual valuation. Although this increase had been applied to the subject valuation initially, further consideration had been given to the drainage problem which had resulted in the reduction from $17,000 to $16,600. The valuation report contained details of valuations applied by the Valuer- General to nearby properties. Mr Hansen said that had it not been for the drainage and flooding disability a valuation of $21,000 would have been supported by the evidence. In effect an allowance of 21 % had been made for the disability. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 It was Mr Hansen's opinion that while there was no evidence to provide a basis for the allowance, he felt that it should reflect a reasonable market perception - of the problem. He said that although the problem is not evident except after heavy rain, a prudent purchaser would, on proper enquiry, be alerted to the drainage works but not necessarily to the extent of the problems which are caused. It is clear that the property suffers a disability of some magnitude while the existing Council stormwater system remains. Mr Robinson's evidence is that he has also found the necessity at his own expense, to clear the drainage outlet, when permitted, on adjoining private lands. Then there is the diagonal crossing of the property to be considered. I am satisfied that the Valuer-General has endeavoured to respond to the problem, but as Mr Hansen fairly admits it is difficult to quantify and while some doubt exists I will extend the allowance to 25% to include both the effect of the flooding and the location of the drain. Based on a "standard" value of $21,000 which I accept on the evidence, I will allow the appeal and determine the unimproved value in the sum of $15,700. The Valuer-General's valuation is set aside accordingly. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --