Angus v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 145
•12 September 1997
|
BRISBANE
12 SEPTEMBER 1997
Re: AV96-410 and 411
Appeals against unimproved valuations -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Local Authority: Nebo Shire Council
C.M. and B.J. Angus
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Mackay)
D E C I S I O N
The appellants own adjoining properties known as "Kimberley" and "Sondella", in Nebo Shire, about 50 km north-west of Moranbah on Mt Coolon Road, in the Parish of Gunn, County of Drake.
Details of each property, together with the unimproved valuations as at 1 January 1996 against which the appeals have been filed are as follows:
AV96-410:"Kimberley" - Lot 6 on Plan DK126 - 12,697 ha - unimproved value, $725,000, rounded from $57 per ha.
AV96-411:"Sondella" - Lot 8 on Plan DK136 - 8,068 ha - unimproved value, $520,000, rounded from $64 per ha.
In the Notices of Appeal, the appellants estimated the unimproved values for "Kimberley" and "Sondella" to be $460,000 (approximately $36 per ha) and $290,000 (also approximately $36 per ha) respectively. The grounds of appeal include the allegation that the valuations are out of relativity with valuations of other lands in the district, and incorrect when compared to unimproved values indicated by analyses of sales.
Mr B.J. Angus conducted the appellants' case and gave evidence in accordance with statements which had been prepared with the assistance of their solicitors. The evidence was that the Department proposed to amalgamate the two parcels for valuation purposes and had indicated that the overall valuation would reduce to a figure of $1,180,000 (from $1,245,000). The valuation of "Kimberley" originally appealed against had been reduced to $725,000. The appellants had assumed (incorrectly) that the valuation of "Sondella" had effectively reduced to $455,000, being the difference between $1,180,000 and $725,000. In fact the valuation as proposed for the amalgamated lands resulted from the Department's opinion that the level of value for a property with an aggregated area of 20,765 ha would, based on market evidence, have a lesser value per ha than would the smaller individual holdings.
Part of the appellants' argument was that (had their assumption as to the valuation of "Sondella" been correct) the "internal" relativity between the valuations of the two blocks was wrong. As opposed to the estimates given in the Notices of Appeal it was their contention that "Kimberley" was significantly inferior on a per hectare basis to "Sondella". In their opinion "Kimberley" comprised 48% brigalow scrub and 53% mixed forest and had a carrying capacity of 1 beast to 9 ha. "Sondella" in their opinion comprised 84% brigalow scrub and 16% mixed forest with an estimated carrying capacity of 1 beast to 6.5 ha.
Based on information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and through open discussions between officers of the Department and the appellants' solicitors, the appellants had understood that the 1996 valuation of Nebo Shire had been based on the sales of two adjoining properties "Mavis Downs" and "Daunia". As it happened, Mr Angus had inspected both those properties as a potential purchaser, prior to their sale. Brochures were tendered wherein the carrying capacity of "Mavis Downs" had been stated as 2,000 cattle or approximately 1 beast to 3 ha. For "Daunia" the carrying capacity was stated as 1,800 cattle or approximately 1 beast to 2.5 ha. In Mr Angus' opinion, both these properties were vastly superior to the subject properties and of no relevance in determining values for the subject lands. It had also been his understanding that the Department's valuation had been based on the "classification method" of apportioning specific values to the various country types. His legal advice had been that in the valuation of grazing land the classification method had been continually challenged as an inappropriate method and one which had drawn adverse comment from the Courts. This was said to be particularly so in circumstances where sufficient sales evidence of land of one specific classification was unavailable. Mr Angus believed that, even so, and particularly in the scrub country, there was need for an understanding of the vastly different qualities of scrub which might fall under that narrow classification. His advice had been that in the valuation of grazing land, the productive capacity of the land was best identified through consideration of carrying capacity, a subject of which he had close knowledge from practical experience. He had been informed that the correct valuation methodology was then direct comparison with values indicated by sales of land with comparable features.
The appellants had in fact purchased the leasehold property "Chesterfield" of 19,316 ha, located in Bowen Shire on 23 May 1995 for $1,700,000. "Chesterfield" was only 3.5 km to the west/north-west of the boundary of "Sondella". A copy of that sale brochure was tendered in which the carrying capacity was stated as being 1 beast to about 10 ha but "more with further development and buffel establishment". Mr Angus classified the country on "Chesterfield" as comprising:
40% - 7,700 ha - scrub developed;
42% - 8,116 ha - scrub undeveloped;
5%- 1,000 ha - frontage scrub/forest, sandy country, not heavy carrying;
8% - 1,600 ha - coolibah floodplain, sparse type;
5% - 900 ha - forest, includes some bendee, rosewood.
Mr Angus estimated the carrying capacity of "Chesterfield" to be 1 beast to 9 ha. It had been established that the Department's analysis of that sale showed an unimproved value of about $29 per ha whilst the applied value had remained unaltered from the previous valuation as $30.21 per ha.
The contested valuation applied to "Kimberley" which had, in Mr Angus' opinion, comparable carrying capacity to "Chesterfield" was $57.10 per ha. In his opinion a valuation of $33 per ha for "Kimberley" with its smaller area was fully supported by the genuine arm's length purchase of "Chesterfield". He anticipated that his estimate of carrying capacity of "Chesterfield" might be challenged on the basis of the uncertainty at the date of sale of the effect of tree clearing restrictions on potential development. His estimate of carrying capacity had been made on the basis that "commonsense could have been anticipated to prevail at the date of sale and more country would be able to be cleared". His assessment of the situation had subsequently been confirmed when a permit was obtained to clear a further 2,400 ha. He suggested that "if I knew I could have developed much more of the scrub country, I would have paid more". Nevertheless, on his assessment of the situation relative to potential tree clearing at the date of sale, which assessment had been based on preliminary discussions with the Department, he believed the price paid represented full market value.
Mr Angus saw the Department's valuation on the property "Cantaur Park" adjoining "Chesterfield" and also in Bowen Shire, as supporting both the reliability of the evidence provided by the sale of "Chesterfield" and his argument on the relativity issue. He had inspected "Cantaur Park" with its owner and was confident that the land could be classified as comprising one-third each of scrub; river frontage; and mixed forest with a carrying capacity of 1 beast to 10 ha. It had been valued at $27.45 per ha and the owner had no objection to that level of value. As secondary support to his opinion, he had been informed by his solicitors that the owner of the property "Albro" of about 26,500 ha in Belyando Shire had agreed with the Department on a valuation of $31.35 per ha on the basis of an overall carrying capacity of 1 beast to 9 ha for land comprising 44% scrub, 15% frontage forest, 39% forest and 2% forest ridge.
Mr R.M. Bein, registered valuer employed by the Department as a Senior Valuer, took responsibility for the valuations appealed against. There was only marginal difference between his country classification and that of Mr Angus for each of "Kimberley" and "Sondella". He found on "Kimberley" 6,050 ha (47%) of brigalow, yapunyah scrub with dark clay soils and 6,647 ha (53%) box, sandalwood, silver-leaf ironbark tableland type country with poorer sandy soils. He described the scrub as being "scattered over the property" and "not in a large component in any one area". On "Sondella" he had found 6,800 ha (85%) to comprise brigalow, gidyea and sections of yapunyah scrub with melonholey black clay soils to red-brown soils with the balance 1,268 ha (15%) undulating forest timbered with box, sandalwood and silver-leaf ironbark, with sandy soils.
While again there was no significant difference in the estimated carrying capacity of "Sondella", (Mr Bein estimating 1 beast to 6.4 ha as against Mr Angus' 1 beast to 6.5 ha), there was a wide difference with regard to "Kimberley". Mr Bein's estimate for "Kimberley" was 1 beast to 7.5 ha. (Mr Angus 1 beast to 9 ha). Mr Bein's estimates were unaltered from those which had stood on the Department's records for many years. To his knowledge there had been no previously exposed dispute on carrying capacity. He freely admitted that the pasture on both properties was indicative of good management practices and that it may well be that the Department's estimate could result in periodic overstocking, which was evident on other, differently managed, local properties. He felt that a lower stocking rate to that estimated by the Department might also assist in management of pastures to assist in the control of further intrusion of parthenium. The difference in carrying capacity estimates was identified during the hearing as relating to the forest country in which classification Mr Angus' experience suggested a safe carrying capacity in "average" seasons of 1 beast to 15 ha. The Department's historical estimate had been adopted as 1 beast to 10 ha.
Mr Bein was flexible enough as to suggest that the Department's historical estimation as adopted by him, might have been somewhat optimistic. Nevertheless, he saw a carrying capacity on that particular forest country as low as 1 beast to 15 ha as being overly conservative. In terms of relativity with other properties with land of comparable quality, he strongly believed that, if the Department's estimate on "Kimberley" was wrong, then estimates of carrying capacity would
be consistently wrong on that class of country. That would include the estimates on the sale properties. On that basis it was his opinion that it did not necessarily follow that relativity of values was also wrong.
Mr Bein was forthright in agreeing that there was an exposed valuation relativity problem between a section of Bowen Shire, which included "Chesterfield" and "Cantaur Park" together with "a few other properties in there going up towards Mt Coolon" and the valuations of similar land such as the subject properties in Nebo Shire. However, as the analysis of the "Chesterfield" sale had shown a slight reduction on the previously existing valuation, a decision had been taken by the valuer involved to "rewrite" that valuation. Similarly other sales evidence in Bowen Shire had supported a "rewrite" of other classes of country. The previous relativity within Bowen Shire itself had remained as before. However, the sales evidence in Nebo and Belyando Shires had been interpreted by the Department to support the increases which had been applied in those Shires. His verbal evidence in that regard was "knowing that those properties on the boundary which are of similar country type to Belyando and Nebo should probably have been increased, but given the sale we had at 'Chesterfield' at the time which showed a rewrite, the valuer made a judgment that the rewrite should be in that country as well. In hindsight that was probably a mistake, but is something that's there and has to be corrected if we can in the near future ...".
The inference was that the valuations applied to "Chesterfield" and the other properties in Bowen Shire in that locality including "Cantaur Park", were wrong, whilst the valuations of the subject and other Nebo Shire properties were correct, regardless of the sale of "Chesterfield", for the reasons given.
Mr Bein denied that the valuations of the subject properties had been originally assessed by apportioning values to the various classifications of country. While classified values may have been discussed with owners at objection conferences, he suggested that was done to assist the objectors in gaining an understanding of the relativity of values in comparison with other properties. However, the basis as presented to the Court was on direct comparison between the subject properties and the sales evidence. While he agreed that there was, all other things being equal, a relationship between carrying capacity of grazing properties and market value, it was not in accord with his interpretation of the market evidence for a standard beast area value to be adopted throughout a district. Adjustment was required to take into account factors which directly impacted upon market value.
Basic Sales Evidence - Nebo and Broadsound Shires
Appeals relevant to 1 January 1996 valuations of grazing properties in both Nebo and Broadsound Shires were heard during the same (and one adjourned) sitting of the Court. These have been referred to as the Angus, Turner, Bell and Driscoll appeals.
Evidence relating to sales of the properties "Chesterfield", "Daunia", "Mavis Downs", "Suttor Creek North" and "Rookwood" was received from various sources.
I see it as both reasonable and necessary to consider the totality of the sales evidence as it has been placed before the Court in individual appeals. The following comments as they apply to sales and relativities will therefore appear in the decisions, where considered appropriate.
"Chesterfield"
Mr Bein had been fully aware of the sale of "Chesterfield" to the Angus family. It was confirmed in the Angus appeals that the sale had been analysed to show an unimproved value of about $29 per ha. In fact, the formal Departmental analysis of the sale was tendered in the Turner appeals showing an unimproved value of $28.40 per ha. The previous valuation of "Chesterfield" at $30.21 per ha had been rewritten as at 1 January 1996.
It was Mr Bein's opinion that "Chesterfield" was sold at a level of value lower than that which would have been expected after consideration of the market evidence generally. He suggested that a sale price as high as $2,000,000 (as against the actual price of $1,700,000) would not have been seen to have been out of line with the market as had been indicated by other sales. As Mr Angus had anticipated, Mr Bein saw the effect of potentially harsher tree clearing restrictions than actually eventuated, as one reason for the sale price of this leasehold land to have been depressed. It had also been suggested to Mr Bein by another Departmental valuer that the vendor of "Chesterfield" may have been overanxious to sell due to financial pressure but Mr Bein had no proof of that.
As I understood Mr Bein's evidence, there had been, at the date of sale, about 11,000 ha of virgin brigalow on "Chesterfield" on which country the Department's estimate of carrying capacity in its natural state had been 1 beast to 20 ha. The Department's assessment of carrying capacity overall had been 1 beast to 10.6 ha. Mr Bein, after a personal inspection believed that the capacity of that particular country in its unimproved condition was higher than the Departmental estimate because it was more "brigalow forest" than "scrub" with areas of open grassland. He indicated that Mr Angus' opinion of 1 beast to 15 ha might have been realistic for that area had it been retained in its unimproved condition. Nevertheless, at the date of sale, even though Mr Angus had believed that commonsense tree clearing considerations would prevail, after having made specific inquiry of the Department, there could have been no guarantee as to the extent of, if any, clearing which would have been permitted. Subsequent to the sale a permit to clear 2,400 ha had been granted.
It seems to me that it would have been a cavalier approach for an intending and informed purchaser not to have considered the risk involved in obtaining even commonsense development approval from a Department at a time when tree clearing guidelines were being formulated in an atmosphere which was causing wide industry concern. I am not convinced that the purchasers as the astute, prudent and experienced persons which I see them as being, would not have taken a pessimistic approach, when it came to negotiating the purchase price. Mr Angus suggested that a higher price, resulting in a higher improved beast area value, would not have reflected the economic expectations of the grazing industry at that time. However the overall sales evidence does suggest that a number of purchasers were prepared to pay prices (on an improved beast area basis as discussed by Mr Angus) significantly higher than he suggested was reasonable.
In the end result while I accept that the "Chesterfield" sale was conducted at arm's length and genuine in that sense, there existed at the time circumstances particularly as they related to potential tree clearing restrictions on leasehold land, which may have influenced a vendor's negotiation strength. If that was not the case in that particular transaction, then it appears to me that the sale price, in comparison with the overall market was as Mr Bein suggested inexplicably low.
"Daunia"
According to Mr Bein, the Department had originally adopted this sale as basic valuation evidence as had been alleged by the appellants Angus and Turner, through their solicitors.
However, subsequent inquiry had established that substantial feedlot infrastructure, which had specifically not been included in the sale price, had not been removed from the site by the vendor. Furthermore, soon after the transaction had taken place, the purchaser on-sold part of the property to a mining company.
Rather than have the sale challenged as being evidence clouded by other than open market circumstances, the sale was discarded as a basis, at least by Mr Bein.
"Mavis Downs"
This property, containing 6,169.4 ha, had sold in May 1994 for $1,180,000. The sale had, according to Mr Bein, been analysed to show an unimproved value of $517,476 or approximately $84 per ha. Mr Bein confirmed that the valuation applied at the relevant date had been $480,000 (approximately $78 per ha).
Mr Bein's analysis had not been challenged during his examinations in the various appeals. However, Mr Angus' statement contained the information that he had been "informed the Crown analysed the sale of 'Mavis Downs' at a far greater figure than what they applied ...". Reference earlier in the statement had been made to an analysis of unimproved value having been shown as $99.30 per ha.
Indeed, in an exhibit tendered through Mr Bein in the Angus and Turner appeals, being a schedule titled "Sales Carrying Capacity & BAV" the analysed BAV was shown against the details of "Mavis Downs" as being $567 for an estimated carrying capacity of 1,102 head of cattle. That would have indicated an unimproved value analysis of 1,102 x $567 or $624,834 equating $101.28 per ha. The scheduled carrying capacity of 1,102 head (1 beast to 5.6 ha) had been as adopted by Mr Bein.
On his tendered analysis, the beast area value (BAV) reduced to $470 and the applied valuation reflected a BAV of $435.
The carrying capacity for "Mavis Downs" as estimated by Mr Bein or alternatively the relativity between the valuations applied to "Mavis Downs" and other properties was consistently challenged in the Angus, Turner and Bell appeals.
Mr Bein's classification of "Mavis Downs" was as follows:
About 3,800 ha (62%) brigalow scrub with sections of blackbutt, yellowwood and associated scrub timbers.
About 1,970 ha (32%) mixed box, ironbark, bloodwood and Moreton Bay ash, undulating forest on sandy and black to brown clay loams.
About 400 ha (6%) downs timbered with coolibah and sections of brigalow, blackbutt.
The appellants Angus and Turner accepted as fact the contents of the sales brochure in which a carrying capacity of 2,000 head or 1 beast to 3 ha had been suggested. Mr Dodds, valuer in the Bell appeal, was concerned with forest country so inferior, in his opinion, to the quality of "Mavis Downs" (which he described as a bullock fattening paddock with arable usage) for the sale to be of no assistance in that matter. While I am not influenced by the sales brochure estimates prepared by some person who was not available for examination, Mr Angus had specifically inspected "Mavis Downs" as a prospective acquisition, before finally purchasing "Chesterfield". At least, his strong challenge to the opinion of Mr Bein relative to the carrying capacity and quality of "Mavis Downs" cannot be disregarded.
Mr Bein suggested that while the carrying capacity of the scrub content of "Mavis Downs" might have been "slightly better" than 1 beast to 5 ha, it was his personal opinion that no scrub country in Nebo Shire should be generally regarded as having greater potential than 1 beast to 5 ha. He agreed that areas of "Mavis Downs" had been cultivated but felt that such use would have been seen in the marketplace as marginal.
He saw the severance of "Mavis Downs" by both a road and railway as creating a management problem and a negative feature of the property.
The question of the quality of "Mavis Downs" in comparison with the relevant appeal blocks will be dealt with later.
"Suttor Creek North"
It was Mr Bein's evidence that this sale had not been included in the original basic evidence because of some confusion as to the actual date of sale. It had been confirmed however that the sale had occurred in January 1994 and, in Mr Bein's opinion, that was within the period relevant to the 1 January 1996 valuation.
"Suttor Creek North" contains 6,730 ha. It sold for $1,550,000, the sale analysed by Mr Bein to show an unimproved value of $480,138 or $71 per ha. A valuation of $65 per ha had been applied. The carrying capacity was stated by Mr Bein as being 1 beast to 8 ha. That would equate 841 head, suggesting an analysed BAV of $571 or an applied BAV of $520.
The appellants Angus and Turner were caught somewhat by surprise in finding that the sale of "Daunia" had been replaced by "Suttor Creek North", as part of the basic evidence of value. They knew of the property but not sufficiently well enough to challenge the details provided by Mr Bein.
Mr Dodds however did have close knowledge of this property. In his opinion it was considerably superior to the country with which he was concerned in the Bell appeal. He described it as including "very good forest country - it's been highly developed - it has coolibah and blue gum forest country and it has a carrying capacity of some 1,250 head of cattle." If he was correct that would equate 1 beast to 5.4 ha.
Mr Bein's description of "Suttor Creek North" was as follows:
About 2,330 ha (35%) mixed brigalow, blackbutt, sandalwood and softwood scrub.
About 3,700 ha (55%) Moreton Bay ash, poplar gum with some bluegum and areas of steeper ironbark and bloodwood ridges.
About 700 ha (10%) hard forest ridges of bendee, lancewood and wattle.
It was also described as "a very well improved property ... three houses and three large sheds". He had not thought that the improvements would be classed as normal on a grazing property of that size. However, as the purchaser "had other interests" and was using the property in association with those other interests, Mr Bein said that in his sale analysis, he had applied "full value" to each of the improvements.
The real difference of opinion between Mr Bein and Mr Dodds which developed in the Bell appeal was the carrying capacity potential of "Suttor Creek North", although Mr Dodds' assessment was not specifically challenged in cross-examination.
"Rookwood"
The sale of this property became relevant to the Turner, Bell and Driscoll appeals. Mr Bein was the Department's valuer in Turner and Bell, while Mr Eisenmenger had taken responsibility for the Driscoll appeal. Mr Bein had offered the sale as primary evidence in Turner, but not in Bell. The sale was Mr Dodds' primary evidence in Bell.
Mr Dodds analysed the sale to show an unimproved value of $61 per ha. He estimated the carrying capacity potential as 2,652 head, or 1 beast to 6.6 ha overall. That potential reflected an unimproved BAV of $403, or, on the basis as adopted by Mr Dodds, a BAV of $550 including the cost of clearing and pasture development, excluding water and fencing improvements. He classified the country as:
4,566 ha of frontage country (c/c 1 to 7).
7,000 ha of brigalow scrub (c/c 1 to 5).
6,000 ha of forest (c/c 1 to 10).
It was Mr Bein's evidence that he had adopted the analysis of another valuer, but had inspected "Rookwood" prior to the appeal. The Department's analysis (which had been carried out by Mr Eisenmenger) showed an unimproved value of $65.20 per ha and the land was classified as follows:
About 5,140 ha (29%) mixed brigalow, blackbutt, yellowwood and associated scrub.
About 2,185 ha (12%) flooded mixed brigalow scrub and coolibah.
About 9,110 ha (52%) mixed box, ironbark, bloodwood and Moreton Bay ash forest on mainly red sandy soils.
About 1,132 ha (7%) hard forest ridges and tableland with rosewood and lancewood.
In the Driscoll appeal, Mr Eisenmenger gave his opinion of the carrying capacity potential of "Rookwood" as being 1 beast to 7 ha or a rounded 2,500 head, but suggested that was a conservative estimate. In the document tendered through Mr Bein in the Angus and Turner appeals ("Sales Carrying Capacity and BAV") referred to earlier, the carrying capacity of "Rookwood" was shown as "1 to 8", but the total number of head as 2,500. The BAV was shown as $459 (unimproved) which is reasonably consistent with Mr Eisenmenger's evidence (1 beast to 7 ha - unimproved analysis of $65.20 per ha = BAV $456).
In the Bell appeal, Mr Bein was quite specific in confirming his estimate of carrying capacity for "Rookwood" . When discussing Mr Dodds' evidence he said - "I think his overall carrying capacity is 2,600 head - well we've assessed the Department's carrying capacity (as) roughly 2,200 head, so I think Mr Dodds is possibly a bit generous on some of the forest country ...". Then later - "just what the file says, it's historically been 1 to 8 right through or ever since they started bringing in the potential in the scrub country."
Summary of Sales Evidence and Relativities
There are inconsistencies in the Department's evidence which are seen to have some impact on the important aspect of comparison of the quality of the land contained within the sale properties as compared to the properties the valuations of which are subject of the various appeals.
The carrying capacity potential of grazing properties with no arable content, is the logical criterion on which market considerations are based. It would be seen as the common denominator upon which cogent comparisons are possible. Clearly, the market would also be expected to recognise particular features both positive and negative with regard to individual properties, in that comparison process.
The valuer's expertise comes from the ability to first compare like with like and then to identify those features of individual properties which would affect market value. As Mr Bein says, even if an assessment of carrying capacity is arguable, possibly because of various management practices, it is important to ensure that consistency of approach is adopted in the comparison process. In valuations used for revenue-gathering purposes, the importance of establishing correct relativity from property to property cannot be overstated.
The sales evidence in these matters is clearly not ideal for general valuation comfort to be obtained by the various valuers. The real problem is not seen to be so much the lack of sales evidence however but the differing opinions as to the quality of the sale properties in comparison with the appeal lands.
It seems that there has been some tinkering with the sales analyses, from valuer to valuer, to cause the inconsistencies in the evidence as tendered for the chief executive. The apparent original analysis of the "Mavis Downs" sale, for example, might well have indicated that the quality of that country is significantly superior to the level of value applied. Similarly, either the potential of properties such as "Suttor Creek North" and "Rookwood" is greater than that adopted, at least by Mr Bein, or those sales show too high an analysed unimproved value in comparison with Mr Bein's analysis of the "Mavis Downs" sale.
There is insufficient evidence before the Court for it to be suggested that, apart from the identified problem between the section of Bowen Shire and Nebo Shire as mentioned in the Angus appeal, there are glaring examples of lack of relativity within the individual shires. Nevertheless, there does seem to be sufficient evidence to support the complaints of some of the appellants relevant to the margin between valuations applied to the various qualities of land.
It seems to me that with the passage of time, historical estimates as to carrying capacities may not necessarily reflect modern management practices, particularly with regard to the better quality lands and there may have developed too narrow a margin between the values applied by the Department's valuers, between the inferior and superior classes of grazing country.
In summary, there is no evidence on which I can accept other than Mr Bein's analysis of the sale of "Mavis Downs" as indicating an unimproved value of $84 per ha with an application, for relativity purposes of $78 per ha. The evidence I have heard suggests that in comparison with the appeal lands, the estimate of the carrying capacity and quality of "Mavis Downs" as suggested by Mr Bein, is too conservative, regardless of the perceived effect of the management difficulties caused by severances.
Again, with "Suttor Creek North", there is no cogent challenge to the analysis of the sale showing an unimproved value of $71 per ha, with an application for relativity purposes, of $65 per ha. It is observed however that there was in Mr Dodds' evidence an indirect challenge to Mr Bein's estimate of carrying capacity of 1 beast to 8 ha (given in the Angus appeal). Mr Dodds' estimate was 1,250 head (1 beast to 5.4 ha) and that again was not challenged in his cross-examination. It is further observed that in the Bell appeal, Mr Bein agreed that "Suttor Creek North" was superior in quality to the much larger "Rookwood" on which he had also estimated a carrying capacity of 1 beast to 8 ha (Mr Eisenmenger - 1 beast to 7 ha).
I have come to the conclusion again that Mr Bein's stated estimate of the carrying capacity potential and quality of "Suttor Creek North" is too conservative.
As it applies to Mr Bein's evidence, I have come to the same conclusion relative to the sale property "Rookwood".
Basis of Valuation - Subject Appeals
Mr Bein in these appeals relied on the sales of "Mavis Downs" and "Suttor Creek North".
In comparison with "Kimberley" and "Sondella", Mr Bein described "Mavis Downs" as having similar services, superior location and access, comparable water, a greater percentage of superior scrub country and less forest. Attention was drawn to the disability of "Mavis Downs" caused by the rail and road severance.
In comparison with both appeal blocks, "Suttor Creek North" was described as having similar services, comparable location, superior access and water, but inferior overall country type.
Findings
There is no doubt that "Mavis Downs" is superior to both the subject blocks and particularly "Kimberley", although Mr Bein has placed some weight on the severance disabilities attaching to "Mavis Downs".
I have not been convinced that although there may be a greater percentage of scrub country on both appeal lots, the quality of the forest on "Suttor Creek North" and its superior water and access does not result in reasonable comparability with "Sondella" but clear superiority to "Kimberley".
On the overall evidence, as previously discussed, I have been persuaded that Mr Bein's opinion as to the quality and positive features of "Suttor Creek North" has been too conservative.
Nevertheless, I see no reason to disturb the valuation applied to "Sondella" either in comparison with "Mavis Downs" at $78 per ha with perceived severance problems, or with "Suttor Creek North" to which has been applied a near equivalent level of value.
It seems to me however that in comparison with "Sondella" and also "Suttor Creek North", the valuation applied to "Kimberley" is too high, particularly as there is convincing evidence to suggest that even under average management, the Department's assessment of carrying capacity is excessive.
For the reasons given I am unable to accept that the sale of "Chesterfield", if it has the productive potential suggested by Mr Angus, should be relied upon as reflecting open freehold market value for general application under the Valuation of Land Act.
There is insufficient cogent evidence before the Court for any weight to be placed on the significance of the relativity example as provided by the appellants relevant to the property "Albro" in Belyando Shire.
I have decided to find an unimproved value for the property "Kimberley" of $50 per ha. Appeal AV96-410 is allowed, the determination of the chief executive set aside and the unimproved value of that land as at 1 January 1996 determined in the rounded amount of Six Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($635,000).
For the reasons given Appeal AV96-411 is dismissed and the determination of the chief executive of the unimproved value of the property "Sondella" is affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0