Cassells & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 90

! LAND COURT, BRISBANE 28th August, 1991 Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Brisbane City Council - Division of Enoggera. AV91-232. Dou g las Neil Cassells and Susan Patricia Cassells V. The Valuer-General DECISION This appeal is brought against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 18816, parish of Enoggera, in the sum of $45,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990. The appellants are contending to a value of $35,000. The appeal is brought on grounds that the existence of an ex-Telecom facility adjoining the subject land depreciates the value of the land to an extent not allowed for by the Valuer-General. The subject lot has an area of 809 square metres and is situated at 58 Pascoe Street, Mitchelton. Mr D.N. Cassells said that when the land was purchased five to six years ago with a high-set single unit residential dwelling upon it, the Telecom facility (as it then was) was one lot removed. Subsequently the adjoining land was acquired and the carpark adjoining the facility extended to the boundary. In his opinion, the aspect from this side of the subject land has been affected aesthetically. He is of the opinion that the area could not be effectively screened by vegetation and after making -some enquiries of agents as to whether the existence of the carpark and facility would have an effect on a prospective buyer of the property and having received replies in the affirmative, he concluded that if the adjoining properties which are unaffected by the facility are valued at [1991] QLC 90 -- 1 of 2 -- V-::· :.: ··:. <''.: ~- ,, 2 $46,000, the subject land should be valued at $35,000. Mr A.T. Albiston, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, spoke to the valuation applied by the Valuer-General. He said that prior to the objection the lot had been valued at $46,000 and was reduced on objection to $45,000. He concedes that the existence of the facility would have an effect on value but only a slight effect - hence the reduction on objection to $45,000. In coming to that conclusion, he is of the opinion that the area could be effectively screened with trees and that the aspect in that direction is over open space which he sees as a factor counterbalancing to some extent the depreciatory effects. All in all he concluded that the depreciatory effects added up to a slight preference for a home on that side rather than the facility. In that reasoning which, prima facie, may appear as a token gesture in valuation form, is an element of his expertise as a valuer in that he has found that where land in Brisbane is priced in this valuation bracket (around $45,000) purchasers pay little attention in buying power to the existence of facilities or works which would otherwise be seen as having a distinct effect on value. This obviously comes about through buyer pressure. Thus, I have before me two opinions of the depreciatory effects of the facility, one of which (Mr Cassells') is primarily an opinion without a market indicator, other than that some allowance should be made and the other having both a practical and market foundation derived from an appreciation of buying pressures for lots in this price bracket. In the circumstances, I niust lean to the evidence of Mr Albiston who has the formal c:jualifications and is trained in making these assessments. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. F::;·.1· ---- -· -- - -7 i)~: ; ·: .~~-- M! White \ Member of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --