Estate Ellen Stancombe (deceased) v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 283

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Herberton Shire Council. AV90-137. Estate Ellen Stancombe (deceased) v. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Ravenshoe) 1AND COURT, BRISBANE 7th September, 1990 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of a parcel of 15.176 hectares (Lot 242) which is situated at Allen Road, Tumoulin, for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of .the Area as at 31st March, 1989. The unimproved value of the area has been determined at $40,000. The owners value the lot at $18,000. Mr Arthur Edward Stancombe appeared on behalf of the Estate. The land has been in the ownership of the family for many years, has two homes on it and is partly cleared. It is bounded on the east and south by The Millstream. The land is situated about 8 kilometres from Ravenshoe. The property has gravel access (the degree of gravel being a matter which Mr Stancombe would dispute) to the bitumen road at Tumoulin which leads to Ravenshoe. The property is described by Mr R.C.L. Jarred, who wrote the valuation on behalf of the Valuer-General, as comprising a low flooded easy river flat broken by an overflow rising to easy to moderately sloping forest ridges. In his opinion the property has a secluded rural aspect which appears to be confirmed by the fact that it is surrounded by State Forest except for Portion 241 on the western boundary. Adjoining Portion 241 on [1990] QLC 283 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 the south is Portion 287 of comparable size to Portion 241 and the subject land. Between Portion 287 and the Tumoulin-Ravenshoe Road there appears to be small rural-type subdivisions. The appeal is made on grounds going to the nature of the access road which Mr Stancombe says is graded perhaps once a year; that the lower area of the block is flooded on average every 10 years; that in accessing the block the owners have to pass a smelly tip set up beside the road and about 1 kilometre from the subject block; that the Council has a quarry within the State Forest to the south which is accessed by a route winding down the eastern boundary of the block and then along the southern boundary; that a private quarry is operated on Portion 241 quite close to the boundary of the subject bnd and that the value does not stand up when compared with a value of $8,600 on a parcel of 25.12 hectares nearer Tumoulin. Under s. 21 of the Act an appellant is limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal. It should also be said that the onus is on the appellant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the determined value is incorrect. In summary, then, the submission of Mr Stancombe is that the disabilities mentioned would deter a would-be purchaser of the land for residential purposes from paying the sum determined. He agreed that the Council quarry is operated intermittently for a total period of about three months in a year. Nuisances emanating from this use include dust and noise pollution. He said that the operation of the private quarry has resulted in over-burden being pushed up against his boundary and that wash from the area builds up on the flooded area of the subject land leaving it in a gravelly state. All these disabilities were known to Mr Jarred when he made the valuation. He said that the comparison block referred to by Mr Stancombe had been -- 2 of 3 -- 3 valued as land exclusively used for the purposes of the business of primary production and consequently (correctly in law) could not be used to test relativity in value. He based the valuation on sales and compared the subject land directly with two sales which were of land well away from the subject land but gave an example of the application of the sales evidence in the immediate vicinity of the subject land in the value applied to Lot 287 (Genever). This lot has an area of 13.76 hectares. It has access by a gravel road, the same services as are available to the subject land, is of similar type country, has the Council quarry to the east of it and the private quarry to the north of it but does not share the access past the tip and does not have the private quarry up against the boundary. On the other hand it is of smaller area. The value placed on that land is $40,000. In balancing up these issues I have to have regard to the fact that Mr Jarred is a valuer. Mr Stancombe is not. Mr Jarred has considered the market for various sized rural residential lots in the Shire with varying access and varying disabilities. I must accordingly lean in favour of his opinion. I find that the onus has not been discharged. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General affirmed. (Signed) D.M. White Acting President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --