Arthur & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 122

... -- Re: Determination of unimproved value:- Shire of Fitzroy. (AV90-358) J,R, and R, Arthur -v- The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 7th December, 1990. This is an appeal against the determination by the Valuer-General of an unimproved value of $23,500 for Lot 74 on Plan PL641, Parish of Nicholson containing an area of 21.04 hectares. This land is situated on Laurel Banks Road at Alton Downs, about 11 kilometres from the City of Rockhampton. The relevant date for the valuation is 31st March, 1989. The respondent Valuer-General has valued the land on the basis of its use for rural residential purposes. Raymond Arthur furnished evidence in support of the appeal. He says the unimproved value of $23,500 is excessive when compared with the same value applied to the adjoining Portion 75 on the northern boundary since the subject land is a smaller site. Portion 75 contains an area of 22.85 hectares. In addition there are easements or powerlines and a water pipeline which tend to decrease the value of the subject land as they would inhibit the sale of allotments in the event of future [1990] QLC 122 -- 1 of 3 -- - Page 2 - subdivision. When the powerline is constructed the only trees on the block will be flattened, although Mr Arthur says the exact position of the pylons is yet to be determined. Evidence for the respondent was given by Brian Thomas Coe, a Registered Valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands. Mr Coe describes the site as being regularly shaped parcel of low forest ridges and flats. Mr Coe describes Easement A (2.264 hectares) as being a 100 metre wide power transmission easement approximately 488 metres from the eastern frontage of the property running north to south. Easement F (8316 square metres) is a 29 metre wide water pipeline easement running 375 metres from the eastern frontage on the northern boundary to 468 metres from the eastern frontage on the southern boundary. The pipeline is to be buried and will supply water to the Stanwell Power Station site. Mr Coe says he has taken into account the affect of the easements when striking the valuation under appeal. If there were no easements, then Mr Coe would have valued the land at $26,000. Mr Coe does not believes the slight difference in area between the subject land and Portion 75 materially affects the respective valuations of the sites since both are valued as rural homesites. Other sites in the area not affected by easements are valued at $26,500 to $27,000. I must agree with Mr Coe in that the small difference in area would not affect the value of the subject and adjoining rural homesites. The market for such land is based on a site basis, not on a rate per hectare. There is no doubt that the easements have a deleterious affect on the value of the subject land, and Mr Coe says he -has made sufficient allowance for them. The problem is that he has no sales evidence to directly reflect or quantify the allowance. Notwithstanding, I cannot conclude that the appellants valuation of -- 2 of 3 -- - Page 3 - $20,000 should be preferred to that made by Mr Coe who is, of course, best placed as an expert to value the land. The valuation, having been made on the basis of a rural homesite, does not take into account any potential for future subdivision and accordingly the claim that any future subdivision would result in fewer lots due to the easements is not a tenable ground of appeal. In these circumstances, the appeal fails and the unimproved value of Lot 74 on Plan PL 641, Parish of Nicholson as determined by the Valuer-General in the sum of twenty-three thousand five hundred ($23,500) dollars is affirmed. ( C.H. Carter) Member of the Tand Court. -- 3 of 3 --