AJ Turnbull v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 144
•16 July 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: AJ Turnbull v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0144 PARTIES: Andrew James Turnbull
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0214 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation DELIVERED ON: 16 July 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Blackall MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of part of “Narada” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Tambo – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – comparisons with valuations of other properties - classifications of country - carrying capacity – sheep area values – allowance for size - Valuation of Land Act 1944 APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant.
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent.
This is an appeal by a landowner in the then Shire of Tambo against the unimproved value applied to his land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).
Background
Mr AJ Turnbull is the owner of part of a property known as "Narada", the balance of which is owned by Ms Elizabeth J Turnbull. Mr Turnbull’s part of “Narada” contains an area of 4,532.554 ha and is situated about 5 km to the south and east of Tambo. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,150,000, or $252.50/ha, to that land. Mr Turnbull appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $730,000.
The appeal was lodged on his behalf by his agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide-ranging but general in nature, essentially contending that the unimproved value is excessive because of the failure by the Department to take into account and make proper allowance for various matters, or to apply the correct principles of valuation.
This was one of a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determination of selected cases, "Ravensbourne" and “Minnie Downs” in the Shires of Blackall and Tambo.[1] The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and to the sales relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard.
[1] Walker and Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0008.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Mr Andrew Turnbull gave evidence of his concern that the increase in the valuation of this part of the “Narada” aggregation of 215% was greater than the increase in the valuation of the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, of 168%. The applied valuation of $252.50/ha was higher than the valuation of $239.50/ha applied to the adjoining property, “Uanda”, which he regards as being the best property in the Tambo Shire.
Mr Turnbull rejected the Department’s comparison of “Narada” with the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, because it was not comparable in his opinion, as it comprised mixed downs and timbered country. Mr Turnbull preferred to compare “Narada” with the adjoining property, “Uanda”, which he contends comprises 100% downs country, with an agreed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha. According to Mr Turnbull, at the time of the last valuation by the Department as at 1 October 2001, “Uanda” was valued approximately 10% higher than “Narada”, prior to reductions of those valuations on objection, which resulted in an incorrect relativity of valuations between the two properties. Mr Turnbull contends that the incorrect relativity was maintained by the new valuations, with a higher valuation per hectare on the “Narada” aggregation than applied to “Uanda”.
Mr Turnbull also took issue with the Department describing this part of the aggregation as 88% downs country, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha. According to Mr Turnbull, there is an area of ridges with rocky sandstone outcrops (which he estimates to be between 8% and 10% of the area) which is mainly herbage country, with some buffel grass, which does not carry any body of lasting feed.
Mr Turnbull also took issue with the Department’s assessment of carrying capacity over the whole of what had been described as downs country. He referred to a safe carrying capacity assessment by the Department of Primary Industries at Charleville which had estimated the safe carrying capacity of each paddock, arriving at a safe carrying capacity of approximately 1 sheep to 1.4 ha.[2]
[2] Attachment to Ex. 2.
Mr Turnbull maintains that allowance should be made for the severance of the subject land. This part of the aggregation is itself in two parts which, if it was held as a separate entity and not part of the “Narada” aggregation, would cause working difficulties. He contends for an unimproved value for this part of the aggregation of $194.75/ha, or $883,000.
The Evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon. He explained that his assessment of the "Narada" aggregation was made by reference to the Department's historical records, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery. He described this part of the aggregation as comprising:
3,976 (88%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha;
556.554 ha (12%) channels, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha.
He acknowledged that it is severed into two parts and assessed its carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 3,626 sheep.
In Mr Haydon’s opinion, the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, is the most appropriate comparison with the subject land. Although “Minnie Downs” has more timbered country, both are essentially downs country in the same locality.
According to Mr Haydon, “Narada” had historically been seen as similar to “Uanda” and he had maintained the relativity of the valuations previously existing. He also compared this part of the property with “Westbourne”, which had a similar carrying capacity, but had more ridgy country and was severed by the Ward River. It was also much larger. In his opinion, the valuation of the subject land, which was much smaller and closer to town, must have a higher unimproved value. He also applied those comments to the nearby property, “Stirling Downs”.
Mr Haydon concedes that there could be up to 10% of ridge country with sandstone outcrops on “Narada”. However, he acknowledged that it is lighter country and did not think that it would greatly affect the overall carrying capacity. He expressed the view that such country would respond quicker to rain than the black soil Mitchell grass country, but he admitted that the quality of its feed would also deteriorate more quickly.
Although recognising that this part of the aggregation itself was severed, Mr Haydon did not think that it was a major disability. It was, he said, only a short distance between the two parts and they were connected by a dedicated road. However, that road was not made and had been closed. It was subject to Road Licence 2063 in the name of Ms Elizabeth J Turnbull. That is, it was part of the “Narada” aggregation. Mr Haydon was of the opinion that if ever the road was required for its purpose to give access between the two parts of the subject land, the road could be reopened.
The Issues
Initially, there was an issue as to the quality of the downs country. However, with Mr Haydon's concession as to the extent of sandstone ridge country, there seems to be agreement. Carrying capacity was not agreed, but Mr Haydon seems to have relied on the Department's traditional carrying capacity, which I will accept for comparison purposes.
Mr Turnbull and Mr Haydon differ as to the comparability of the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, to the subject land. Mr Turnbull prefers to compare his property with the adjoining property, “Uanda”, contending that “Uanda” is superior country. However, there is evidence in a number of cases that Mr Haydon had valued “Uanda” by comparing it with the “Minnie Downs” sale.
“Uanda” seems to be acknowledged by the landowners in this area as the best property per hectare in the Tambo Shire. It is, they contend, 100% downs country with an agreed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha and is situated just out of town. Mr Haydon has recognised that the carrying capacity of the subject land at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, is somewhat lighter than that of “Uanda”. He also concedes that there could be up to 10% of the lighter ridgy country and that there is a severance between the two parts.
“Uanda” has been valued by the Department at $239.50/ha, while the subject land has been valued at $252.50/ha. However, Mr Turnbull has given uncontested evidence that the 2001 valuation of “Uanda” was $106/ha before a substantial reduction on objection to $79/ha. The initial valuation of $106/ha was considerably higher than the original valuation of the subject land at $97.50/ha. However, the subject land was reduced to $80.50/ha on objection, much the same level as “Uanda”. Mr Haydon had simply maintained that relativity.
In my view, the valuation of the subject land cannot be higher than that of “Uanda”. Mr Haydon has recognised that a small severance allowance should be made, but contends that a loading should be made for the smaller area of the subject land, compared with “Uanda”.
The unimproved value of “Uanda” is $239.50/ha. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha, that is a sheep area value of $287/ha. The unimproved value applied to the subject part of “Narada” is $252.50/ha. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, that is a sheep area of $315.63. In my opinion, that represents a very substantial loading for the size. Mr Haydon produced no evidence to demonstrate that such a loading could be maintained.
In the circumstances of this case, while I accept that “Uanda” is superior country per hectare to this part of “Narada”, the subject land is very handily situated to Tambo. There is little doubt that a small parcel with its attributes would be readily sought after. However, any enhancement in value is somewhat offset by the severance of the two parts. Mr Haydon contends that they are connected by a closed road which could be opened if the need arose. However, for the purposes of valuation, it is held by another owner, albeit the owner of the balance of the “Narada” aggregation. Therefore, the Road Licence itself must be considered as a separate parcel and, for the purposes of valuation, the two parts of the subject land are effectively severed.
Taking all those matters into account, I am of the view that the sheep area value for this part of “Narada” should be much the same as that adopted for “Uanda”. I therefore propose to adopt a sheep area value of $290 which, at a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha is $232/ha, or a rounded unimproved value of $1,050,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of part of "Narada" is determined at One Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0