Baldwin v Director-General, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 62

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General City of Brisbane AV91-731 Ronald W Baldwin and Dianne B Baldwin V The Director-General, De p artment of Lands DECISION LAND COURT BRISBANE 7 May 1993 The appellants, RW and DB Baldwin, own Lot 4 on RP 37949 and adjacent Lots 33 and 34 on RP 37952 in the Parish of Yeerongpilly, County of Stanley. The lots have a combined area of 1 .058 hectares and are located at 52 Ortive Street, Yeronga . The Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as at 31 March 1990 to be $1,500,000 . On objection the assessment was reduced to $1,150 , 000. The appellants have appealed to the Land Court against the Valuer-General's valuation. In their Notice of Appeal, the appellants estimated the unimproved value of the land at that date was $400,000. A preliminary issue in this case is who is the proper respondent. The valuation of the land and the decision on objection were made by the Valuer-General. On 26 March 1993 the office of Valuer-General ceased to exist. By operation of the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 (Act No 64 of 1992) a new section 6 was inserted in the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the "Act"). It provides: "A reference in any Act or document to the Valuer-General is a reference to the chief executive". That section commenced to operate on 26 March 1993. Other references in the Act to the "Valuer-General" were omitted and references to the "chief executive" were inserted in their places. By section 16B of the Act it is now the chief executive who makes annual valuations of land, and by section 16J an appeal may be brought to the Land Court against the valuation of the chief executive. Those [1993] QLC 62 -- 1 of 34 -- 2 changes also took effect from 26 March 1993. Pursuant to Administrative Orders published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 12 March 1993, the chief executive of the department administering the Act is the Director-General of the Department of Lands. For present purposes, therefore, it is appropriate that the Director-General be the respondent in these proceedings in place of the defunct Valuer-General. Grounds of A ppeal The appellants' Notice of Appeal contains the following grounds of appeal: 1 . The valuation is excessive and contrary to law. 2. The valuation is excessive when compared with the valuation of other land in the area. 3. The valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the following facts: {a) The subject land was totally inundated to a significant depth during the 1974 flood. {b) The subject land is subject to a major electricity distribution easement which severely limits the use and enjoyment of the land by the owners. This easement divides the land almost in half. {c) The subject land is bordered by a major storm-water drain which severely reduces the attractiveness of the river aspect. {d) The subject land in its "unimproved" state was extremely undulating and unusable and required major expenditure to bring it to its present state. (e) The subject land in its "unimproved" state constituted a major maintenance expense. {fl The subject land abuts the river in an area where the river silt is 5 metres deep and access to the river required major expenditure. -- 2 of 34 -- (g} 3 The subject land is adjacent to the Department of Primary Industry's Research Station (the "DPI Research Station"} and is subject to noise, smells and pollution and to the visual effect of the power station. (h) The subject land is an irregular shape with a relatively small river frontage and a large area with no view of the river. (i) The subject land is severely affected by high voltage cables situated in the easement and may be unsuitable in the future for any residential use. The Act provides that the appeal shall be limited to the grounds stated in the Notice of Appeal and that the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner of the land. At the hearing, Mr RW Baldwin appeared on behalf of the appellants and Mr R Paterson appeared on behalf of the Director-General, Department of Lands. Valuation evidence in support of the Valuer-General's valuation was given by Mr IG Savage, the registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands who prepared the valuation under appeal. Before considering the grounds of appeal, I will describe the land which is the subject of the appeal. The sub ject land The subject land is an irregularly shaped block comprising Lot 4 on RP 37949 (a block with an area of 9,515m 2 with a river frontage of some 19 metres at its west and extending eastwards to Ortive Street} and two adjacent, narrow rectangular blocks immediately to its east, namely Lots 33 and 34 on RP 37952, each of which has an area of 534m 2 • The land was zoned "Residential RB3" under the City of Brisbane Town Plan effective at the date of valuation . The land is used as a single unit residence and, pursuant to section 11 (1 }(vii) of the Act, the land was valued as one block used as a single unit residence. -- 3 of 34 -- 4 Access to the land is by way of Ortive Street which is a full width bitumen street with concrete kerbing and channelling on the northern side and formed earth on the southern side. Easy access is available. Electricity, water, sewerage and telephone services are available to the subject land. The land rises from the road to a ridge on which a dwelling is situated. The building site is RL8 metres (AHO) to RL 10.4 metres (AHO). There is a moderate fall to the river. In 1974 the land was flooded to RL 10.6 metres (AHO). That flood was a 1 in 55 years flood. Since the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam, the Brisbane City Council has adopted 1 in 100 years flood level of RL7. 7 metres (AHO) for this area. A drainage depression runs from the Ortive Street frontage diagonally across the centre to the southern boundary and then along the southern boundary to the river. A 1.2192 metres diameter stormwater pipe runs through the property within that natural watercourse. An electricity easement also follows the depression, running due west from the Ortive Street entrance and then south-west to the southern boundary and in a westerly direction along part of the irregular southern boundary until it crosses to the DPI Research Station. I turn now to the grounds of appeal. Grounds 1 and 2 The first ground of appeal is a general one. Because of the way in which the case was argued, it can only succeed if the appellants can prove part or all of the other grounds of appeal. As their second ground of appeal the appellants contend that the valuation of the subject land is excessive when compared with the valuation of other land in the area. The subject land is one of a series of riverfront blocks of similar size in that area. Each block has an area greater than 6,000m 2 • The subject land is the most westerly of those blocks and, according to Mr Baldwin, is "by far the worst of the six allotments and for many reasons is not comparable with the other five." -- 4 of 34 -- 5 The distinguishing features nominated by Mr Baldwin at the hearing were the extent to which the various blocks were inundated in the 1974 floods, the shape .of the subject land compared with the other blocks (particularly the narrow river frontage), the detrimental presence of the stormwater drain on the subject land, the extent and depth of silt on the subject land compared with the rock base of neighbouring blocks, the location of the electricity easement on the subject land, and the proximity of the DPI Research Station and the Tennyson Power Station to the subject land. Those matters were also nominated in the third ground of appeal as items of detriment which should have been taken into account in valuing the land. Rather than consider each matter twice, I will assess the evidence relating to each item (following the order of items in ground 3) then consider the grounds of appeal in light of that assessment. 3 {a) Susceptibilit y to floodin g The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land was totally inundated to a significant depth during the 1974 flood. According to Mr Baldwin the highest point of the subject land was more than 1 metre under the flood water, and other parts were covered with water to a depth of 5 to 10 metres. By comparison, nearby allotments received some flooding in 1974 but were not completely covered. For example, most of the homesite on the neighbouring property immediately to the north (the "Siganto land") was flood free in 1974. There are two answers to this ground of appeal. First, the post-Wivenhoe Dam predictions of a 1 : 100 flood level of RL 7. 7 metres (AHO) show that the house site of the subject land in its unimproved state would be flood free during a flood event of greater intensity than the 1974 flood. For present purposes, Mr Savage disregarded the 1974 flood in assessing the value of the land, preferring to rely on -- 5 of 34 -- 6 the as yet untested post-Wivenhoe Dam predictions. He was aware of and took into account the susceptibility of the land to flooding. Second, there was evidence from both Mr Baldwin and Mr Savage that since 1974 the effect of the 1974 flood on the market for land has diminished, so that there is now much less difference in the market value of flooded and unflooded land. Mr Baldwin estimated that in 1990 there would have been a 25-40% difference in price. He referred to sales of flood prone homes in Oriana Crescent, but did not provide any market details in support of that estimate. Mr Savage said that his inquiries of purchasers of flood prone land had revealed that purchasers now consider locality, riverfront aspect and amenity of a block when deciding whether to buy the block, and pay little regard to its susceptibility to flooding. In other words, if a block is thought to have desirable attributes then the fact that it might be flooded once in 50 or 100 years does not deter a purchaser or deflate the purchase price. Although the appellants have established that the valuation failed to take into account the effect of the 1974 flood, they have not established that the Valuer- General ignored the susceptibility of the land to partial flooding or that he gave insufficient weight to that factor in making the valuation. 3(b) Presence of electricity easement The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land is subject to a major electricity easement which severely limits the use and enjoyment of the land by the owners. The electricity easement runs due west from the Ortive Street entrance and then south-west to the southern boundary and in a westerly direction inside part of the irregular southern boundary until it crosses to the DPI Research Station. Its location is clearly shown on Exhibit 16. It is 9.235 metres wide at its widest part and follows the course of a natural gully or depression. It is at least 50 metres from the river bank. As the plans of the subject land indicate, the electricity easement divides the property into 2 main sections and 2 other smaller units, namely: -- 6 of 34 -- 7 (a) an area of 6,686m 2 (or 63% of the subject land) to the west or river side of the easement, which includes the building site; (b) 3, 136m 2 to the eastern side of the easement (including the 2 rectangular blocks); (c) a 25m 2 elongated triangular portion between the easement and the irregular southern boundary of the subject land; and (d) the 733m 2 of the easement. Mr Baldwin gave evidence that the South East Queensland Electricity Board ("SEOEB") has a right of access to the easement which is exercised infrequently but with great disturbance to the land. He described two instances of such disturbance. First, an apparently unmarked water main in the easement was damaged in 1986 by construction workers engaged by the appellants and it took some days to repair the damage to the pipe and the land. The nature and extent of the water damage and repair work are indicated in photographs tendered by Mr Baldwin (Exhibit 6). Although there was s ome disagreement about who is responsible for the water main, I accept that the water main is within the electricity easement, is unrelated to household water supply, and is the responsibility of SEOEB . Second, when the 110,000 volt circuit was placed in the easement land in 1989, an excavator and cable layers were on the land for about one week with consequent disturbance to the land and the appellants. There have been approximately six other occasions since 1986 on which SEOEB employees have come onto the land to conduct surveys or tests. On those occasions persons are present for a day or so and they bring equipment (such as theodolites, sensors and scanners) onto the site. On the basis of experience to date and in the expectation that more cables would be placed in the land, Mr Baldwin submitted that more disturbance could be expected. Mr Nuttall (an employee of SEOEB) stated, however, that SEOEB -- 7 of 34 -- 8 currently has no plans to install further circuits on the easement. I conclude that, with the location of the water main known and the absence of any plan for other installations on the land, there is {and was in March 1990) little, if any, prospect of significant disturbance to that or adjacent parts of the subject land arising from the existence of the easement. I am satisfied that Mr Savage took into account the existence of the easement when the valuation was prepared. He described the easement as "a blot on title" and "a liability to the block", which has an effect on the value of the land. In his view, however, the electricity easement is a minor blot on the land in its unimproved state because the easement is located mainly in a gully where a prudent developer would not consider building a house or garage or other substantial structure. The appellants have failed to prove this ground of appeal. 3 (cl Effect of stormwater drain The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land is bordered by a major storm water drain which severely reduces the attractiveness of the river aspect. -The drain is part of a natural watercourse and was originally a creek running diagonally across the land (where the electricity easement is located) and then from the western end of the easement along the southern boundary of the land to the Brisbane River. It drains an area above the subject land, in particular the DPI Research Station land. Mr Baldwin said that, by comparison, only one of the other neighbouring blocks to the north has a stormwater drain running through it, and that block has a river frontage more than twice the length of the subject land. It must be remembered that the valuation in dispute is the valuation of the subject land in its unimproved state. Mr Savage considered the drain and the gully to be -- 8 of 34 -- 9 interlinked, and suggested that the drain and the fill provided by the Council had modified the gully and so was an improvement to the block. The fill provided by the Council, however, could be considered as part of the land in its unimproved state (see section 12(2)(c) of the Act). The drain was a factor which had to be considered because of the natural flow of water through the subject land. But, as Mr Savage said, the presence of the drain on the property is not a significant factor in determining the unimproved value of the land because it would not be possible to build a major structure in that part of the land. The appellants have failed to prove this ground of appeal. 3 (d) and (el Contours and maintenance ex penses The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land in its unimproved state was extremely undulating and unusable, required major expenditure to bring it to its present state, and constituted a major maintenance expense. Mr Baldwin relied on photographs (Exhibits 6D and 6E) to demonstrate the degree of filling and reclamation that was undertaken to make the land suitable for residential purposes, in particular to allow ready traversal of the land. The DPI filled that part of the gully on its adjoining land. A document headed "Cost of Land Improvement" (Exhibit 7) shows, among other things, that some 20,000 m 3 of fill was placed on the subject land in the period 1986-1988. Part of the open drain was bridged and pipe extensions were installed to form the last section of the drain leading to the river. Rocks were placed to form a sea wall. The total expenditure was $78,470.00. Mr Baldwin pointed out that the most suitable location for a house did not change after the fill was put on the land. Rather the fill overcame the maintenance problem posed by the gully traversing the subject land. According to Mr Baldwin, the stretch of gully leading to the river was "an open unsightly drain". The effect of filling the land was, he said, to "vastly change its character, appearance and suitability as a home site". -- 9 of 34 -- 10 The fill was not necessary for the building of a residence or for the use of the land for residential purposes. Although the fill may have enhanced the value of the block, it is the value of the land in its unimproved state that is in issue in this case. I am satisfied that Mr Savage knew of and had regard to the contours of the land in its unimproved state (with the fill provided by the Council in association with the stormwater drain) and that the location and extent of the depressions were taken into account when determining the unimproved value of the land. The appellants have failed to prove these grounds of appeal. 3 {f) Presence of river silt The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land abuts the Brisbane River in an area where river silt is 5 metres deep and access to the River required major expenditure . There was evidence to show that, unlike other blocks in the neighbourhood which have a rock base (and some which have rocky abutments to the riverfront), the subject land lacks a rock base but is comprised of unstable wet river silt to a depth of up to 15 metres. The concentration of silt is a result of the site being a regularly flooded bend in the River. The deposit of silt extends at least 50 metres back from the riverfront and includes the building site. The appellants contend that, in order to build a house on the land, it is necessary to locate piles to a considerable depth. The construction of the appellants' two storey house with a basement involved the use of 27 Frankipiles to a depth of approximately 80 feet where river gravel was located. A substantial reinforced concrete bearer structure was placed on the Frankipiles to support the house. Mr Baldwin agreed, however, that there was a wooden Queenslander farmhouse on the site from 1988. Apparently that house did not require piles. The appellants have erected a concrete ramp across the mud along the river -- 10 of 34 -- 11 frontage to provide boat access. Mr Baldwin attributed part of the mud problem at the subject land to dredges in the Brisbane River, and said that the situation has deteriorated in the years since he described it to the Land Court in 1988. He agreed that there is a developing mud problem on the Siganto land, but there is much less mud there. Mr Savage recognised that there is a build up on mud along the river frontage of the subject land and the Siganto land. But he said that market evidence available in 1990 showed that the market was not influenced by the presence or absence of mud at the riverfront. He tended to downplay the significance of the measures which the owners have taken, and the expense which they have incurred, in making maximum use of the land. In his opinion, the important starting point is that the subject land is a quality block of land in a row of quality blocks. One would expect quality homes and other improvements to be constructed on the land. The owner chooses what type of improvement will be constructed. The use of such things as piers to facilitate such improvements is a detail relating to that choice. It is not essential for developing the site for residential use and was not something which influenced Mr Savage's valuation. Although there was no dispute about the presence of mud and silt, it is unlikely that the disabilities are confined within the boundaries of the subject land. While they may influence the type of development on the land, they do not prevent or impede substantial improvements being made without major modification of the site. Accordingly, even though the presence of mud and silt may have had little, if any, effect on the valuation, there was no direct evidence that a reduction in the unimproved value of the land was necessary or appropriate. This ground of appeal does not assist the appellants. 3 (g) Proximity to the DPI Research Station and Tenn yson Power Station The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land is adjacent to the DPI Research -- 11 of 34 -- 12 Station (and so is subject to noise, smells and pollution) and that the land is subject to the visual effect of the Tennyson Power Station. The DPI Research Station land abuts the eastern, southern and south western boundaries of the subject land. According to Mr Baldwin, a piggery, a poultry shed, cattle yards and a high temperature incinerator are all located within 50 metres of the subject land. Mr Savage was aware of the presence (if not the purposes) of the various buildings, which he described as "not all madly attractive". Some trees have been planted on the DPI land to modify the views across that land. The DPI runs the poultry shed as an experimental operation, using lights and music in the shed during the night. The sound of roosters crowing during the night some 50 to 80 metres from the appellants' bedroom is "highly audible". Mr Baldwin argued that the sound could not be categorised as background noise, but is sharp, intermittent and noticeable. To reduce and mask the sound, the appellants keep the windows closed and the air conditioning running. Mr Savage did not dispute that the roosters are noisy and said that the noise would be a liability on the subject land. The evidence was equivocal as to whether he had taken it into account in valuing the land. There was no direct evidence about the piggery. Mr Baldwin has not inspected it but understands that the piggery is sited close to the poultry sheds. He said it is the source of pigs' noises and "normal piggery smells". Mr Savage had inspected the DPI Research Station before the hearing but was not aware of there being a piggery. He gave evidence that, during an adjournment in the hearing, he spoke by telephone to Mr Geoff Dawson, the farm manager and supervisor at the DPI Research Station. According to Mr Savage, Mr Dawson said that the piggery is located south of the poultry shed but there have been no pigs there for some years (possibly three or four years). Prior to that, nine pigs had been kept for 1 2 months in conditions which should have allowed little if any smell to escape. -- 12 of 34 -- 13 I accept that Mr Savage considered in a general sense the impact of the neighbouring DPI Research Station, but he may have under-estimated the impact of the animal factors related to it when valuing the subject land . The incinerator was described by Mr Baldwin as "by far the most damaging of the problems". It is used to destroy blood containers sent to the centre for testing. Mr Baldwin stated that the incinerator is used every day and that periodically - approximately once each week or once each month (usually on a Friday) - a "significant chemical smoke" in the form of a "heavy dense smoke" is carried by prevailing winds onto the subject land. The outlet of the chimney is at approximately the same level as the bedrooms of the appellants' house. Mr Baldwin said that sometimes the pollution blown onto the land is so frightening that the appellants leave the site. There was evidence that the detriment to the subject land from the incinerator has substantially reduced in recent years, particularly in the years since the Baldwins' previous appeals to the Land Court. Before March 1990 the incinerator was converted from a diesel burning to a gas burning incinerator. It is now a two stage burner which reburns smoke. According to Mr Savage, it is fitted with various devices to ensure that smoke does not escape or that any emissions are in very short bursts until the smoke detectors have fine tuned the system. I understand that the two stage refinement was installed after the date of valuation. The improvement in burning plastic containers effective at the date of valuation meant that the obvious emissions occurred infrequently rather than daily, as was the case 8 to 10 years ago. The smoke problem, such as it was, was taken into account by Mr Savage in arriving at a valuation of the subject land . Despite the disadvantages just described, it must be recognised also that the DPI land provides a sense of spaciousness perceptible from the subject land which is not available to neighbouring blocks to the north. -- 13 of 34 -- 14 The power station building has a site coverage of 1.4 hectares. It is higher than, but is some 320 metres from the boundary of, the subject land. The two properties are separated by open land owned by the DPI. There are no houses or other substantial structures between the power station and the appellants' house. The power station was decommissioned in 1988. According to Mr Baldwin it has been used as a storage place for chemicals that had been withdrawn from use and is currently undergoing a three year process ( 1991-1994) for the removal of asbestos and machinery. The relevance of the building is, in the appellants' submission, that it is a "very substantial building towering over the subject land". Mr Baldwin conceded that (despite the appellants observations of it when they purchased the subject land) "we as residents don't notice it". But visitors to their home first notice "this giant power station right next door". Apparently the DPI is growing a grove of trees on the DPI Research Station land which is mitigating the visual impact of the power station at the subject land, and Mr Baldwin said that the present view is not as bad as it was in 1990. Such evidence as there was indicates that the appearance and proximity of the building is of greater or lesser significance depending on the aesthetic sensibilities of people observing it. In Mr Savage's opinion, the relative location of the power station has "very little" effect on the value of the subject land. am satisfied, however, that the fact that the power station is visible from the subject land has been taken into account in determining the unimproved value of that land. 3(h) Shape and aspect of subiect land The appellants contend that the valuation has failed to take into account or into any sufficient account the fact that the subject land is an irregular shape with a relatively small river frontage and a large area with no view of the river. Neighbouring blocks to the north are, by comparison, relatively rectangular in shape and have river frontages at least twice the length of the river frontage of the subject land. -- 14 of 34 -- 15 Mr Savage agreed that the subject land has a narrower river frontage than most of the neighbouring blocks. When asked why there was a change in the relativity of the valuations of the subject land and the Siganto land, Mr Savage stated that he (and apparently at least one valuer who had prepared an earlier valuation) considered the subject land to be superior to the Siganto land. He explained that the subject land has outlook, aspect and a large open area around it which is a rarity in a block of land so close to the city. Although the size of its river frontage is relatively small, the important factor is that there is a river frontage and there is a view, or sweep, of the river and elsewhere which cannot be restricted, at least from the vantage point of the building site . The Siganto land is smaller than the subject land (7,262m 2 or 69% of the area of the subject land). The subject land allows for various development or landscaping options and more extensive views are available from the subject land than from the Siganto land, with less risk of restriction than applies to views available from the Siganto land. I am satisfied that the shape and aspect of the subject land were properly considered by the Valuer-General. The relativity of the land with other properties will be considered again later in these reasons. 3 (i) High volta ge cables The final item in the third ground of appeal asserts that the subject land is severely affected by high voltage cables situated in the easement and may be unsuitable in the future for any residential use. In Mr Baldwin's words, the powerlines constitute a "massive risk to the value of the land" because they pose "a health hazard to a greater or lesser extent". Although there is no building on the easement it is necessary to cross the easement to get from one side of the subject land to the other. This matter was raised first by the appellants in their appeal against the valuation of the subject land as at 30 June 1986. In his decision on that appeal delivered in November 1988 Mr DJ Barry stated: -- 15 of 34 -- 16 "The only new matters concern the power-line easement and the problems of possible cancer-causing properties of high voltage power cables. I have no evidence before me of sales of properties encumbered by such easements to allow me to make a finding that the possibility of dangers from the magnetic field of the cables has had any effect on sale prices in the marketplace." The ground of appeal was dealt with in some detail in the present case . Written and oral evidence concerning the location and environmental effects (if any) of the cables within the easement was given by Mr Kevin Nuttall, an electrical engineer and investigations engineer for the SEQEB. Apart from his professional qua Iif ications he is a member of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia ("ESAA") Electric and Magnetic Fields ("EMF") Policy Committee and a member of the ESAA EMF Technical Advisory Committee. His duties include responding to enquires from developers, real estate agents and members of the public concerning possible adverse health effects from the electric and magnetic fields emanating from overhead and underground power lines. He stated that many of these enquiries related to the siting of houses near power lines. In order to carry out his duties he keeps abreast of the scientific literature of the subject, particularly reports issued by authoritative review bodies. His written statement (Exhibit 13) summarised his understanding of current scientific opinion of the issue. Within the electricity easement lie four 33,000 volt cables and one 110,000 volt circuit. Feeders 511 and 514 were laid in 1953, feeders 508 and 51 2 were laid in 1954 and feeder 905 (the 110,000 volt circuit) was laid in 1989. They are laid direct in the ground at a depth of approximately 900mm and rows of cable bricks normally laid at a depth of approximately 700mm provide some cable protection in the event of inadvertent excavation. According to Mr Nuttall, the SEQEB currently has no plans to install further circuits on the easement on the property. On the other hand, there are no plans to relocate the cables and a prospective purchaser of the land would have to assume that they would remain there. -- 16 of 34 -- 17 Mr Baldwin contended that publicity suggesting that electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of high voltage power lines could have deleterious effects on health would have created an apprehension in the minds of (notional) prospective purchasers of the subject land which would have affected the marketability and hence the value of the subject land. In support of his submission Mr Baldwin, tendered an article published in the Courier Mail on 1 September, 1990, headed "Power line, cancer link: study. Qld views research with interest" (Exhibit 8). The text of the article was as follows: "PERTH. - The US Environmental Protection Agency has reported a significant link between human cancer and exposure to electromagnetic radiation from high-voltage power lines. The conclusion, from a recent Congress-commissioned report, is the strongest statement so far on the potential link between human cancer and extremely low-frequency fields emitted by power lines, visual display units (VDUs) and household appliances. The Queensland environmental and occupational health director, Dr Ron Ramm, said the Health Department viewed with interest the new information generated from the American research. "It's the sort of circumstantial evidence that makes you sit up and look at it extremely seriously," he said. Dr Ramm said research was in its infancy and it would be several years before it was known what was safe and what was dangerous. "No one can really say at this stage what the real effects are. No one really knows how close houses should be located from power lines," he said. He said he was not aware of any Australian research but suggested a survey of people who had close regular contact with high voltages would be useful. In a paper last week, the West Australian Energy Commission assured people living near power lines that they had nothing to fear. -- 17 of 34 -- 18 Chief physicist and head of the State's Radiation Health Branch, Mr Bruce Hartley, dismissed the US report, claiming that it was based on old, unproved evidence. The US report said animal tests and epidemiological evidence - including studies of leukaemia, lymphoma and cancer of the nervous system in children - suggested a "casual [sic] relationship" and consistent pattern of response to exposure to small fields of 60-hertz frequency. The agency also gave this type of radiation a hazard rating equal to known carcinogenics DDT, formaldehyde and PCBs but was later deleted from the report. The report said existing evidence did not prove a conclusive link. It also said although studies of exposure in electrical workers found an excess risk of cancers, few or no measurements had actually been recorded." Mr Baldwin accepted that research to 1990 did not prove a conclusive causal link between exposure to electromagnetic radiation from high-voltage power lines and the development of cancer in human beings. His point was however, that the apprehension that there might be such a link, and the fact that there was no conclusive proof that no such link exists, would be sufficient to affect the market value of the subject land. Before considering that submission, it is appropriate to review briefly the evidence relation to the current state of scientific knowledge of these matters and the evidence of measurements of EMF taken near to the subject land. Scientific knowled ge: To put the scientific issue in context, it must be recognised that electric and magnetic fields are found wherever electricity is used. They are a by-product of the use of electricity and are present in domestic and work place environments as well as the ordinary street distribution lines and high voltage transmission lines. No direct evidence was given to this Court of scientific tests, -- 18 of 34 -- 19 measurements or other research. The evidence comprised summaries or conclusions based on such research. According to Mr Nuttall, there is "worldwide scientific consensus that adverse health effects from EMF exposure have not been established, but that further well conducted research should be undertaken". Mr Nuttall's written statement summarised the state of scientific knowledge as published in recent years. Most of what follows is drawn from his statement, which was not challenged by Mr Baldwin. In November 1989 (before the relevant date of valuation) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council adopted guidelines for human exposure to EMF. The guidelines recommend the same limits of exposure published by the International Radiation Protection Association ("IRPA") based on World Health Organisation environmental health criteria. All Australian electric utility electrical facilities comply with the guidelines. During the past two years (the period since the relevant date of valuation) there have been several authoritative reviews of the literature concerning electric and magnetic field research literature. Early in 1991, the former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, published his report on the In quiry into Communit y Needs and High Volta ge Transmission Line Develop ment (the "Gibbs Report"). That report was prepared pursuant to an authority granted under the Energy Administration Act 1987 (NSW). A copy of the Gibbs Report was Exhibit 12 in these proceedings. Neither party requested that this Court consider it in detail. For present purposes its significance was in the conclusions in chapter 5 of the Gibbs Report which include the following : "5. 11 .1 It has not been scientifically established that electric fields or magnetic fields created by the electric power system in New South Wales (or by any electric fields or magnetic fields of extremely low frequency) initiate or promote cancer or have any other harmful effects on humans. However, it has not been scientifically established that such fields are not harmful. -- 19 of 34 -- 20 5.11.2 The scientific studies, although conflicting, support the view that it is possible that children exposed to extremely low frequency electric fields or magnetic fields are at a greater risk than other children of developing cancer, and that it is possible that adults so exposed are at a greater risk than others of developing certain forms of cancer, mainly leukaemia, lymphoma and brain tumours. Some studies suggest that exposure to such fields creates other risks, e.g., in reproduction and of foetal injury, but other studies contradict this suggestion. If any risks exist they are more likely to be created by magnetic fields than by electric fields. It has not been shown that it is probable that any of these risks exist. Scientists differ in opinion as to the strength or the weakness of the evidence in support of the view that the risks exist. As one commentator has aptly observed, "The jury's still out". It will be some years at least before the results of studies now being commenced in a number of countries will be known and before a more confident opinion can be expressed on these matters. 5.11.3 If any risk is created by exposure to extremely low frequency electric fields or magnetic fields, there is no reason to suppose that it is created entirely, or even mainly, by exposure to the fields created by high voltage transmission lines. Electric fields and magnetic fields are produced also by distribution lines, by wiring in homes, shops, offices and schools, by return currents in underground gas pipes and water pipes and in the ground itself, and by the many appliances used in the home, at work, and in hospitals. It seems reasonable to suppose that houses in close juxtaposition to a high voltage transmission line ... will receive greater exposure from such a line than from other sources ... , but if a house is, for example, 1 00m from such a line it is impossible to say, in the absence of more definite information than is at present available, that the field from the line will increase the ambient exposure already within the house from other sources ..... If extremely low frequency fields create a risk to health it is not unlikely that in many, if not most, cases, the risk arises from -- 20 of 34 -- 21 fields created otherwise than by transmission lines . Further scientific studies will be necessary before a definitive answer can be given to these questions. 5.11.5 The fact that evidence on the question whether exposure creates a risk to health is so inconclusive suggests that if a risk exists it is a comparatively small one ... . However it is probably true to say that until it is established that there is a risk it is impossible to quantify it." The conclusions just quoted from the Gibbs Report demonstrate the equivocal nature of the current state of scientific knowledge in this area. It would appear that in the two years since that report no more conclusive picture has emerged. Mr Nuttall records that, in March 1992, a highly qualified scientific advisory committee chaired by Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology at Oxford University, Sir Richard Doll, reported to the National Radiological Protection Board that "in the absence of any unambiguous experimental evidence to suggest that exposure to these electromagnetic fields is likely to be carcinogenic, in the broadest sense of the term, the findings to date can be regarded only as sufficient to justify formulating a hypothesis for testing by further investigation." A recently released scientific review prepared by a consortium of universities in the United States (the Oak Ridge Report) reported in November 1992 to the Office of the President that "there is no convincing evidence in the published literature to support the contention that exposures to (the fields) generated by sources such as house-hold appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are demonstrable health hazards." In September 1992 two epidemiological studies were released in Sweden which were said by their authors to support the hypothesis that the fields may be a cause of cancer. The Electricity Supply Association of Australia sought an opinion from a recognised world expert in the area, Dr Jan Stolwijk, a Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University, who responded: -- 21 of 34 -- 22 "When evaluated in the context of the large existing body of research results, the Swedish studies have not appreciably changed the overall conclusion: Although an inconsistent association between some indices of EMF exposure and cancer has been reported in some studies, after more than 60 epidemiologic investigations EMF exposure has not been demonstrated to cause cancer in humans". At a conference held in London on 31 March 1993, Sir Richard Doll reported that his expert scientific committee had considered the Swedish studies and was of the opinion that they did not establish that magnetic fields cause leukemia but do provide weak evidence of a possible link. Sir Richard's committee strongly recommended further intensive research based on recently diagnosed cases to confirm or refute the postulated associations. The foregoing discussion clearly demonstrates that no causal link has been established between the presence of high voltage power lines and various forms of cancer in humans exposed to EMF in the vicinity of those power lines . The issue has received some attention in legal proceedings in recent years. Counsel for the Director-General provided me with a copy of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Victoria in G Bourakis and Associates v Vic Roads and the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (Appeal No. 1992/25519, decision of Ms JA Moles dated 17 December 1992). That case concerned an appeal against a decision under Victorian legislation to refuse to grant a permit to construct additional dwellings on land which, among other things, was near to a State Electricity Commission of Victoria ("SECV") easement. The SECV objected to the proposed development on the basis of the incompatibility between residential use of the land and the abutting quasi-industrial use of the terminal station, and the high-noise levels from the station plant. The Tribunal raised with the parties the issue of potential health hazards for residents of the proposed units arising from electromagnetic fields surrounding the major electrical installations on the adjoining -- 22 of 34 -- 23 properties. The Tribunal noted that the matter of the relationship between electromagnetic fields and the public health had received some popular press coverage in recent times. The following three reports were provided for the information of the Tribunal: the Gibbs Report, the Oak Ridge Report and the National Radiological Protection Board (United Kingdom): Electroma g netic Fields and the Risk of Cancer, Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, Volume 3No11992. The Tribunal was addressed at length by counsel for the SECV to the effect that: (a) the electromagnetic readings on the subject land were not unusually high, despite the land being virtually surrounded by major electricity installations; and (bl in any case, it had not been scientifically established that electric or magnetic fields of power (line) frequency are harmful to human health. Although the Tribunal recorded its reservation that the presentation of the argument concerning electromagnetic fields and public health was solely carried on by an authority which had a clearly identifiable and significant interest in any finding of the matter, the Tribunal concluded that "having regard to the current state of scientific knowledge, it appears that refusals of planning permission on the basis of concerns about electro-magnetic field effects on public health will not normally be appropriate." (page 40) The Tribunal adverted to the possibility that over time research may establish a significant connection between the fields and health, and expressed the view that, because of the complex nature of the issues involved, the matter will necessarily be most effectively addressed by the development of government policy, rather than by decisions on particular cases by tribunals and courts. Subsequent to the hearing of this matter, the researches of this Court disclosed a decision of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court in Warren v Electricity Commission of New South Wales (decision of Cripps CJ dated 31 October 1990, unreported). The case involved a challenge to a decision by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales ("Elcom") to approve construction and operation of a high voltage transmission line some 160 kilometres long within a 70 -- 23 of 34 -- 24 metres wide easement. It was alleged that the environmental impact statement prepared for the project was inadequate or misleading because, among other things, it did not adequately deal with the effects of extremely low frequency ("ELF") electric and magnetic fields on human health. The hearing of the case took about seven weeks. Numerous scientists from the USA and Australia gave evidence and there were more than 25,000 pages of exhibits (most of which concerned records with respect to the claimed effects, or lack of them, of ELF electric and magnetic fields on public health). At least two of the scientists from the USA advanced hypotheses purporting to explain a possible connection between ELF electric and magnetic fields and damage to human beings including the initiation and promotion of cancer. In response, Elecom called "an armada of highly qualified scientists from the United States to refute suggestions of any established connection between ELF electric and magnetic fields and cancer in any of its manifestations, damage to the immune system or the reproductive process etc." (at pp 17-18) . Although the essential issue in the case was whether the decision making process was legally flawed (and not whether Eleam should be constructing and using the line in view of the claimed risks to public health), the Court considered the range of scientific evidence. The Court recognised that the matter of public concern is the effect of ELF electric and magnetic fields on the biological systems of humans and, in particular, the possibility of adverse mutagenic and carcinogenic consequences. Reference was made to the "enormous amount of literature on the subject" and to the "considerable amount of research" undertaken in the USA and USSR. Cripps CJ summarised the evidence in the following terms: "There has been an enormous amount of research undertaken in recent years including epidemiological studies and in vivo and in vitro testing in laboratories. It appears to be common ground that ELF electric and magnetic fields are not sufficiently energetic to disturb molecular bonding. Nonetheless, biological effects are not disputed and some scientists believe ELF electric and magnetic fields might initiate or promote cancer. For example, it is said that the fields can affect calcium iron efflux across cell membranes which may affect the -- 24 of 34 -- 25 structure and function of the membranes themselves. Based upon the evidence before me, I conclude that among scientists it has not been established that exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields can cause cancer on what might be described as a 'cause and effect' basis." (p 37) Later, with reference to Elcom's witnesses, he concluded that: "they are not saying that it is not physically possible for there to be any connection. Rather, they are asserting that on the current state of medical and scientific knowledge , none has been demonstrated. I do not understand any of the experts called on behalf of Eleam to state that it is physically impossible for ELF electric and magnetic fields to adversely affect biological tissue, nor do I understand any to be saying that exposure could not possibly lead to genetic changes. What they are saying is that in their opinion the connection has not been established and that they do not accept as valid any hypotheses suggesting the contrary." (p 44) Two other findings in that case are relevant to the present case before this Court. First, Cripps CJ accepted that electric fields are capable of being reduced by shielding. Second, he accepted that transmission line magnetic fields attenuate with distance, and he noted that the 1990 Guidelines of IRPA/INIRP set a limited exposure to magnetic fields for the general public for up to 24 hours a day at 1000 milliGaus. EMF levels on the sub ject land: Mr Nuttall gave evidence concerning the levels of EMF at or about the easement on the subject land. He stated that the cables are located underground and are of screen construction, that is they have metallic tape around the conductors which contains the electric field. Consequently there is no electric field away from the cables although there is a magnetic field . Mr Nuttall said that, in that respect, the underground cables were different from overhead -- 25 of 34 -- 26 cables where the electric field and magnetic field are exposed . Unlike overhead lines where the electric fields of the different cables can be aggregated, no such aggregation occurs in the vicinity of the underground cables. Mr Nuttall took measurements on the DPI Research Station land near to the easement or on the subject land. Measurements were taken at one metre above the surface of the land {in accordance with usual practice) and a level of 10 milliGaus was recorded. The field dropped to 0.5 milliGaus at a distance of some 10 metres from the location of the cables. A level of 10 milliGaus is comparable to that in the vicinity of many household appliances. According to Mr Nuttall, it has not been established that such fields are a health hazard. In Australia, current guidelines refer to continuous exposure of 1000 milliGaus, and the scientific literature to date has not established that magnetic fields cause leukemia. Mr Nuttall estimated that the field strength from the underground lines would be 0.1 milliGaus at the Baldwins' house. In summary, the evidence establishes that no causal link has been. proved between exposure to electric and magnetic fields in the immediate vicinity of high voltage cables and the development of cancer in human beings. In the circumstances of this case, measurements taken near the electricity easement indicate that the levels of magnetic field are extremely low and, by reference to current scientific health standards, are so low as to suggest that there is no health risk to the occupants of that land. Those conclusions, however, do not entirely answer the appellants' argument. They contend that articles such as the one quoted from the Courier Mail of 1 September 1990 and television and other programs in a similar vein have created apprehension in the minds of potential purchasers of land over which high voltage cables run such that the value of the land is diminished in the minds of such purchasers. The appellants produced no evidence in support of their contention and in effect, relied upon a common sense appreciation that their assertion is correct. Against that, Mr Savage gave evidence that the market place has not -- 26 of 34 -- 27 shown that there is a demonstrable drop in value of land where high voltage cables are located. He referred to sales several years ago of large blocks in Sunnybank which were subject to various easements, overhead powerlines, and gas and oil pipelines buried underneath. The only difference in value arose from the presence of the easement. The market indicated that people would rather buy a block with an easement through it in a quality area than move downmarket to buy a better block without that easement. The presence of powerlines {and the attendant electromagnetic field), gas lines and oil lines themselves did not affect the market. The effect on market value seems to be related to only the perceived blot on title created by the existence of an easement (be it an electricity easement or a sewerage or other type of easement). In other words, there was no market evidence to suggest that the existence of high voltage power lines with an attendant electric or magnetic field itself affected the price. The assertion by the appellants is not necessarily inconsistent with the evidence given by Mr Savage. It may well be that if some people are genuinely concerned that the presence of high voltage powerlines would pose a serious threat to their health they would simply not purchase a block such as the subject land rather than seek to purchase the block at a reduced price. In other words, apprehension of a possible serious risk to health may influence whether a person buys a block of land, rather than the price which a person will pay for that block. There may be a delay in selling the land, rather than a reduction in the purchase price. In my view, the evidence also accords with the following test of unimproved value of land formulated by Isaacs J in Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia: "To arrive at the value of the land at that date, we have, as I conceive, to suppose it sold then, not by means of a forced sale, but by voluntary bargaining between the plaintiff and a purchaser, willing to trade, but neither of them so anxious to do so that he would overlook any ordinary business consideration. We must further suppose both to be perfectly acquainted with the land, and cognisant -- 27 of 34 -- 28 of all circumstances which might affect its value, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding features, the then present demand for land, and the likelihood, as then appearing to persons best capable of forming an opinion, of a rise or fall for what reason soever in the amount which one would otherwise be willing to fix as the value of the property." ((1907) 5 CLR 418 at p 441) The appellants have failed to prove ground 3(i) of the grounds of appeal. In summary, the appellants did not prove that the Valuer-General failed to have regard to the matters itemised in ground 3 of the grounds of appeal. Indeed the valuation report (Exhibit 1 5) and the evidence from Mr Savage indicated that these matters were known to the valuer preparing the valuation. The fact of the previous appeals to the Land Court and the matters raised in those appeals were known to the relevant officers, and reference to those appeals is made in Exhibit 15. The only issue is whether the Valuer-General had sufficient regard, or gave sufficient weight, to those matters. Mr Savage gave evidence in chief and under cross-examination that the subject land was valued as a whole site without allocating separate amounts to be added or subtracted for each of its attractive or unattractive features. Consequently, the appellants were unable to demonstrate from his evidence that insufficient regard was given to any of those matters, or that any significant reduction in valuation was warranted by reference to them. Com parison of sub ject land with other land In support of their argument that the valuation of the subject land is excessive when compared with the valuation of other land in the area, the appellants produced a table (Exhibit 9) comparing the valuations as at 30 June 1986 and 31 March 1988, 1989 and 1990 (the relevant valuation date) of the subject land, the Siganto land, and three other blocks determined. As noted earlier, the Siganto land -- 28 of 34 -- 29 is the block immediately to the north of the subject land. The other three blocks were blocks on which the Valuer-General relied in support of the valuation of the subject land as at 30 June 1985 in proceedings before the Land Court 1987 (see RW and DB Baldwin v The Valuer-Genera l, decision of Mr CH Carter, V87-170, dated 2 December 1987, unreported). The information in Exhibit 9 (slightly modified) is reproduced below. (OWNER) DESCRIP- VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE SUBURB TION AS AT AS AT AS AT AS AT 30 . 6.86 31.3.88 31 .3 . 89 31.3.90 (BALDWIN) subject land YERONGA 109 000 138 000 400 000 1 150 000 (SIGANTO) 150 000 170 000 375 000 1 110 000 YERONGA KENMORE sub 3 of 180 000 320 000 400 000 420 000 port 195 ind CHELMER Lot 6, 7 150 000 150 000 173 000 415 000 RP187662 CHELMER Lot 9 RP 120 000 138 000 300 000 360 000 112880 Mr Baldwin pointed to the 1988 judgment of the Land Court in RW and DB Baldwin v The Valuer-General (decision of Mr DJ Barry, AV88-6, dated 22 November 1988, unreported) when the Court restored the relativity between the Siganto land and the subject land, with valuations at $150,000 and $109,000 respectively. On the basis that the valuation of the Siganto land as at 31 March 1990 at $1,110,000 was correct (a conclusion compelled by section 13(7) of the Act) and that the previous relativity should be retained, the subject land should have been valued at $806,600, say $807,000. But Mr Baldwin was not content with that figure. Indeed, he suggested that the Siganto land should have been valued at $600,000 to $700,000 as at the relevant valuation date. He submitted that the Valuer- General had correctly contended in the 1987 case that the sales of properties 3-5 in the above table provided the best basis of va luation. Assum ing the ir valuations -- 29 of 34 -- 30 to be correct, he calculated that the subject land should be valued relative to them at about $400,000. That figure is only reached if the relativity of property 5 with the subject land as at 31 March 1987 is retained and the valuation of the subject is made by reference to the valuation of property 5 at $360,000. Similar calculations by reference to the valuations of properties 4 and 5 as at 31 March 1990 produce higher figures ($694,000 and $571,000 respectively). No evidence was given in these proceedings about properties 3-5. Mr Savage said he did not know anything about them and so offered no comment. The utility (or otherwise) of the valuations of the properties to this ground of appeal can be assessed by considering the rate of change in the valuation of each property from year to year and in the relationship of each property's valuation to that of the subject land in each year. DA TE OF VALUATION % INCREASE % OF SUBJECT 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31.3.87 100 138 165 138 110 31.3.88 27 13 78 0 15 100 123 232 109 100 31.3.89 190 121 25 15 117 100 94 100 43 75 31.3.90 188 196 5 140 20 100 97 37 36 31 An analysis of the table shows that it is not possible to rely on relativities with all the other properties, particularly properties 3-5. There has been no consistency in the rate of increase in the valuations of the properties in any one year. For example, as at 31 March 1988 the valuation of property 3 increased 78% on the previous year's valuation while the valuation of property 4 remained unchanged. At 31 March 1990 the valuation of property 4 increased by 140% on the previous year's valuation while the valuation of property 3 increased by 5 % . Indeed the variations in the rates of increase in the valuations as between properties 3, 4 and 5 from one year to the next suggest that they can be of no use in ascertaining the unimproved value of the subject land at the relevant valuation date. Mr Baldwin accepted that the relativity between the Kenmore and Chelmer areas and the -- 30 of 34 -- 31 subject location at Yeronga may change, although he disputed that degree of change for riverfront blocks. There was no direct evidence concerning those properties in these proceedings and it is best to disregard them for present purposes. Mr Baldwin produced no evidence of sales of vacant land to support the valuation of his property at $400,000. Rather, he relied on his experience in land dealings over the past 15 years to argue that at times when land values are falling the "lesser properties" will fall much more than "prime properties". In his submission, the subject land is and always has been a lesser property when compared with the neighbouring large riverside properties in the Yeronga area. He submitted that the recession had started by March 1990. In support of that contention he referred to land three blocks to the north of the subject land (the "Chappel land") which he said was purchased in about 1989 by developers for $1 million . Apparently the purchasers spent some $1 .4million on a building on the property but sold it in July 1991 (14 months after the relevant date of valuation) for $1.368 million, after extensive marketing. The Valuer-General's valuation was made by reference to two sales, the main features of which are summarised as follows: 1. 67 Stephens Street, Yeronqa: The land is the Chappel land to which the appellants referred. It is a riverfront block with a reasonably regular shape (approximately 110 metres deep by 60 metres wide) and an area of 7 ,649m 2 • It is zoned "Residential BR3" and was sold in April 1989 for $1,266,575. Making a small allowance for improvements by way of clearing, the Valuer-General determined the applicable value of the land to be $1, 150,000. I accept that a house on the land at the date of sale remained the property of the vendor (see Exhibit 17) and was removed by the vendor. The sale can be considered a sale of vacant land. -- 31 of 34 -- 32 A gully flows into the block at the south-east corner and then runs north-west to the northern boundary and then west to the river. The best building site is an elevated platform {RL 10 to 11 .5 metres AHO) on the southern boundary, slightly higher than the building site on the subject land. Access was via a 60 metre track from Stephens Street. To the north of the subject is a Brisbane City Council water pumping station. In the 1974 flood the land was flooded to RL 10.6 metres {AHD) . The post-Wivenhoe prediction {Q 100) is RL 7. 7 metres (AHO) . The sale land is smaller than the subject land {about 72% of its area) with the rear of 4 blocks abutting its frontage. Its river frontage is approximately 46 metres long (more than twice that of the subject land) and is rockier than the river frontage of the subject land. It does not have the power easement or Brisbane City Council storm water pipe, but does have a 100 metre long private stormwater pipe running to the river, to reduce surface flooding. (This is new since sale). Both properties have "views" of the Tennyson Power Station, although the building is more obvious from the subject land. Mr Savage described the sale land as comparable to the subject land for present purposes. Having regard to the various features of each block he had determined the same value for each (although he suggested that he considered the subject land to be more valuable, at about $1.3 million). Mr Baldwin has visited the sale land regularly and said he had an "intimate knowledge" of it. In his view it is "vastly superior to the subject land" and the two properties are "not remotely comparable". He described the sale land as having double the river frontage of the subject, no mud problem, no electricity easement, mostly flood free, better situated with a regular shape, and no neighbouring DPI Research Station. Both properties face across the Brisbane River towards a golf course. In his submission, when proper weight is given to those factors, the sale land can be seen to support the valuation of the subject land for which the appellants contend. -- 32 of 34 -- 33 2. 53 Kin g Arthur Terrace . Tenn yson: The land has an area of 918m 2 (8.6% of the area of the subject land) and is zoned "Residential A". It was sold in February 1989 for $365,000. Having regard to improvements by way of a dwelling (to which a value of $10,000 was attributed) and fencing, the Valuer-General determined the applicable value of the sale land to be $325,000. The land is an elevated rectangular river front block with a basically level building site which drops steeply to the river. The building site is RL 1 5 metres (AHO). The land was flooded to RL 10.9 metres (AHO) in 1974. The post-Wivenhoe Dam flood prediction (0100) is RL 7 .9 metres. King Arthur Terrace is a noisy busy through road with inferior residential developments on the southern side. The sale land is substantially smaller, better elevated and on a busier road than the subject land. Mr Savage relied on this sale as an indication of the price which was paid for a small residential riverfront block with very difficult river access down a steep slope. Despite the restriction on the land, it demonstrates the demand for riverfront blocks. He considered that overall the subject land is superior because of its size and quieter location. Mr Baldwin had no knowledge of the sale land but suggested that it is located in an entirely different area with different values where expensive homes are built on relatively small blocks with desirable views and other features. The respondent relied on the sale land because it demonstrated the unreality of the amount for which the appellants contend as the unimproved value of the subject land. Mr Savage also referred in general terms to the sales in the area of slightly larger blocks with houses on them for about $700,000 which, he said, indicated that unimproved riverfront blocks would sell for $300 - $400,000. These sales, he suggested, show that the appellants estimate of $400,000 for the subject land was "completely ridiculous". Further, he contended that the sales evidence and -- 33 of 34 -- 34 character and features of the subject land show that it is worth well over $1 million. The evidence of sales supports the valuation determined by the Valuer-General and the appellants have neither undermined that figure nor established that an amount at or about $400,000 should be preferred. Conclusion The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General is affirmed. GJ Neate Member of the Land Court. -- 34 of 34 --