Demp Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustees for Peel Family Trust v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 263

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane. AV90-210. LAND COURT, BRISBANE 8th May, 1991 Demp Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustees for Peel Family Trust V. Th e Valuer-Gen eral DECISION In the annual revaluation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General under Valuation Roll No 16723 valued a 1.955 hectare parcel of land situated at 320 Hellawell Road, Sunnybank Hills, owned by the abovenamed at $135,000. An objection to this valuation was allowed. The valuation was amended to $127,000. The appellant has exercised the right of appeal against this decision to the Land Court. The land is zoned Future Urban under the relevant Town Plan and is used for a single unit dwelling. It is encumbered by three easements which intersect the land diagonally from south-west to north-east. Contained within the one area is an easement in favour of S.E.Q.E.B. for high voltage electric power transmission and there are overhead high voltage power lines. They are also two underground pipelines - one for the Moonie Pipeline Company and the other for Associated Pipeline Limited. Evider:1ce was given by Mr David J. Peel who speaks of the dangers of the high voltage wires. They are unsightly in appearance, give problems with television and radio reception and noise is generated during and after each rain period by wires shorting out on the insulators. The pipeline easements have been [1991] QLC 263 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 subject to subsidence along where the pipes have been laid and periodically strong odours of gas have been detected by his family. There is an electronic · rust detector located above ground. It is his complaint that the restrictions imposed by the easements virtually renders the area of the easements useless to all activities other than grazing and virtually renders useless the rear triangular section of the parcel. He speaks of potential health risks to people underneath the high voltage lines. He says the amended valuation still results in an increase of some 69.3 percent in one year which is unrealistic comparing it to similar properties in the local area. He believes it should not be considered as a large luxurious acreage block but rather as a housing allotment located next to high voltage power lines, a high pressure gas line and an oil pipeline and that the appropriate valuation is $105,000. He believes that values in the area have increased by approximately 50 percent. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr R.B. Cranstoun, who says that the valuation of the Valuer-General as at 30th June, 1985, was reduced by the Land Court. That valuation was based on relativity and he has endeavoured to maintain relativity with the values which have been placed on lands on the northern side of Hellawell Road. He acknowledges the disability of having the easements crossing the land and says this has been allowed for in the valuation. He tenders a map showing the valuations which have been placed on parcels on the northern side of Hellawell Road to support his submission that the valuation is in relativity with those valuations and makes appropriate allowance for the disabilities. I have considered the evidence in this matter and I am unable to find any sound basis on the evidence before me to adopt the valuation of $105,000 contended for by the appellant. While the existence of the easements does create -- 2 of 3 -- 3 problems there is a substantial area and frontage to Hellawell Road in which a home can be sited. The valuation is lower than the valuations of the lands on the northern side of Hellawell Road and I must find on the evidence that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation and the appeal must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --