Anderson & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 95

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 6th September, 1991 Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Caboolture Shire Council. AV91-244. Colin C. Anderson and Patricia M. Anderson V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Caboolture) This is an appeal against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 1O on RP 204068, parish of Canning, in the sum of $52,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990. The appellants value the land at $40,000. The appeal is brought on grounds that the value applied by the Valuer-General is too high as the 16.7 metres wide drainage easement across the block does not contain all flood water in periods of heavy rain. Mr C.C. Anderson appeared on behalf of the appellants and spoke to this issue. The subject property has an area of 2 hectares and is situated about 6 kilometres north-west of Caboolture with frontage to Old Gympie Road on the eastern boundary and Breadsell Drive on the northern boundary. The land is zoned "Rural Residential A" and was bought by the appellants in 1986. In 1987 a home was constructed in the northern area of the block. When purchased, Mr Anderson said that when he signed up for the block the easement was made known to him. The easement traverses the block in the southern area and takes [1991] QLC 95 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 water from Old Gympie Road. It links up with an easement running north to south through Lot 11 adjoining. Mr Anderson said that he intended to grow small crops on the site and that in periods of heavy rain, water coming through the easement spreads beyond the area defined by the easement and hence has placed limits on the area intended for cropping. He said that he has dug a trench through the area in the hope of confining flood water within the boundaries of the easement. At present two small areas have been ploughed - one to the north of the easement and a small area in the south. He admits that the area has a recreational usage and that flooding would not constitute a disability were his interests in running livestock for a hobby. Mr D.R. Lucas gave evidence on behalf of the Valuer-General. He based the valuation on sales and compared the land directly with three sales each of which was affected in some degree with an easement. All sales were zoned "Rural Residential A" and all are in the general locality. These sales fetched unimproved values in the marketplace of $61,500 (S1), $52,000 (S2) and $45,000 (S3). In the last sale the evidence of Mr Lucas is that the block has a power line easement down the western boundary and a drainage easement across the property. The thrust of his evidence is that the subject land and the sale lots are in a rural residential market where usage varies - thus, whilst in retrospect Mr Anderson may feel that his block is worth less to him because of the use he intended, that disability would have no effect on the mind of a purchaser who desired tb use the additional area for recreational pursuits, running a pony or - merely as open space. I find that there is much force in this argument. The sales of Mr Lucas are of blocks encumbered by easements so the foundation upon ,_ -- 2 of 3 -- \, 3 which his valuation rests is solid. From my appreciation of the evidence and the arguments as advanced by Mr Lucas, I find that the valuation should be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --