Burnett v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1999] QLC 5

[1999] QLC 5

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

9 FEBRUARY 1999

Re:     V96-588

An appeal against an unimproved valuation -

Valuation of Land Act 1944 -

Local Authority:        Belyando

Albert Edgar Burnett

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

D E C I S I O N

Albert Edgar Burnett owns the grazing property known as "Nairana" which is located in a grazing locality approximately 162 km north of Clermont.  The Chief Executive respondent valued the land as at 1 January 1996 at $470,000 under the provisions and for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the "Act").  Mr Burnett contends that the value of the land ought to be $250,000 and, accordingly, appealed to this Court seeking a variation of the Chief Executive's figure.  The grounds of appeal are as follows:

"1        The Unimproved Capital Valuation of the said land determined by the Department of Natural Resources is excessive and unreasonable.

2.      The Capital sum which the fee simple of the said land (if unimproved) might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require is much less than the Unimproved Capital Value determined by the Department.

3.      In arriving at the Unimproved Capital Value of the said land, an insufficient amount has been applied to the value of the improvements existing on the said land.

4.     The Department has been influenced by the sales made in such circumstances and under such conditions as to render them an incorrect basis for assessing the Unimproved Capital Valuation of the said land.

5.     The Department has failed to make proper allowance for the limited economic use to which the said land can be put.

6.     The Department pre-supposes a prosperity in Primary Industry carried out upon the said land which existed in the past but now does not exist.

7.     The Department has not made sufficient allowances for:

(a)     the topographical characteristics of the said land
(b)     the deterioration of the value of the natural pastures

(c)the present level of development of the said land

(d)the present day economics of developing the said land to its full potential

(e)     the effect of the more restrictive Tree Clearing Guidelines that now
        apply when developing land to its economic potential.

8.    The Department has failed to use correct principles in valuing the said land.

9.  The Valuation is in excess of the Capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a prudent and experienced purchaser would require and assuming at the time of the valuation of the improvements did not exist, and in comparison with comparable sale prices after making all due allowance for the value of improvements and the time to effect the improvements on such comparable land.

10.  The Department's Unimproved Capital Valuation of the said land is out of relativity with those of comparable properties in the local district."

Mr Burnett appeared on his own behalf and gave evidence in the matter.  He also provided comprehensive documentation including a detailed analysis of the classification of country on "Nairana" supported by a map and an assessment of the value of fixed improvements on the land. The Chief Executive's valuation figure was supported by John Chapman Greenhill, a registered valuer in the employment of the Department of Natural Resources.  Mr Greenhill was not the valuer who originally prepared the valuation, however, arrived at the same figure as that originally determined and provided a report in support of that conclusion.

"Nairana" has an area of 19,700 ha and is accessed via the Gregory Development Road which comprises 140 km of bitumen from Clermont, with the remaining 22 km being formed gravel.  The development road cuts the property into two parcels.  "Nairana" is situated in the northern part of Belyando Shire and has access to cattle selling centres in Clermont, Charters Towers, Nebo and Emerald.  There are permanent and semi-permanent waterholes located in the Belyando River and Mistake Creek, which the property fronts, and artificial supplies are obtained from dams and tanks constructed on the property.  "Nairana" is currently used for breeding and fattening beef cattle and the parties agree that that is its highest and best use. 

Mr Burnett contested the Chief Executive's valuation as at 30 June 1993 before this Court and the learned President provided a decision in that appeal in December 1995.  Mr Burnett made reference to the valuation figure of $295,500 determined by this Court on that occasion and calculated that the figure currently contended for by the Chief Executive at $470,000 represents an increase of some 59% on that earlier determination.  He had, I should mention, achieved some success in objecting against the valuation of $532,000 made initially by the Chief Executive and that figure represented an increase of 80% over the 1993 figure.  Mr Burnett argued before me that the increase in value is too large when one has regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and to the Prices Paid Index (PPI).  He presented an exercise which employed the CPI figures from 1989 which he said supported the level of value he contends for.  Notwithstanding his reference to the CPI, Mr Burnett said that the PPI which is a figure taken from a table entitled "Farmers Terms of Trade – Queensland Rural Sector", leads to a similar conclusion.  The PPI is a measure of the Queensland Rural Sector input costs.  I have not previously been acquainted with this index, however, do not find that neither the employment of either a CPI method of value escalation, nor one calculated by reference to a PPI, is useful in striking a value.  There is no evidence that values of land in Queensland are established in this way in the marketplace and, indeed, my experience says that the market does not employ such a method.  (See Tow v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 at 381.)

Mr Burnett tendered a map compiled with the help of a Mr Joe Rolfe, a land management extension officer employed by the Department of Primary Industries.  The map represents the classification of country on "Nairana" and was prepared primarily for the purpose of allowing Mr Burnett to consider tree clearing on the property, having regard to the recently promulgated Tree Clearing Guidelines.  Mr Burnett has apparently lived on "Nairana" for some 50 years and it was a combination of this history, reference to aerial photos flown in 1972 and 1993 and Mr Rolfe's expertise which produced the land classification map. 

In the appeal to this Court with respect to the 1993 valuation, Mr Burnett gave evidence and proposed a certain classification of the country on the subject land which was adopted by the learned President with, however, the qualification that the classification may change if more accurate measurements were taken.  The Court found that the country on "Nairana" might be classified as set out in the table below in which I have also included the carrying capacities determined by the Court. 

2795     ha of frontage forest                cc. 1:16   175 hd

850     ha gidyea scrub  cc. 1:  7   121 hd

5090     ha blackwood scrub               cc. 1:11   462 hd

2545     ha mixed scrub  cc. 1: 9   283 hd

8420     ha mixed forest  cc. 1:16  525 hd

19700     ha  1566 hd

Mr Burnett said that he has now more accurate information, prepared in the manner that I have outlined above and presented his classification of country in the following manner:

Land Type	Total Area	Pot CC Ha/head
Blackwood	6009  6009                 6009  6009                 6009	11
Gidyea – alluvial, unflooded	1500	7
Gidyea – clay plains & ridges	1155	7
Gidyea – alluvial prolonged          Flooded	1356	16
Strikeridge	1182	9
Brigalow	182	7
Lancewood	164	30
Bloodwood Sandridges	687  687	12
Coolibah – prolong flooded	1355	16
Box Forest – Reid River -	1500	12
Ironbark Forest	1492	16
Spinifex Ridges	3118	24
19700

The Chief Executive's side accepts the break-up of country included on the above table, however, submits that the break-up is too refined and similar classes of country ought to be grouped together to represent a group of classifications more representative of land usage.  I agree with that proposition.  Certainly Mr Burnett is to be commended for the detail of his work, however, the fact that it took such effort and expertise to produce the table of land classes indicates that the methodology is different from that which would be employed in the marketplace in striking a value for land.  In the end, and following a brief re-opening by me, the parties agreed with the following classification break-up:

Blackwood  6009 ha

Brigalow and gidyea scrub  2837 ha

Coolibah and flooded gidyea (frontage)  2711 ha

Box, bloodwood sandridges and ironbark forest                  3679 ha

Forest ridges (spinifex, strikeridge and lancewood)              4464 ha

Whilst Mr Burnett presented the classification of country on the subject land in the manner I have indicated above, he also presented a supplementary table which he said took into account the restricted opportunity for tree clearing on the property, given the impact of the Tree Clearing Guidelines.  These guidelines operate under the authority of the Land Act 1994 to provide for the control of the clearing of trees on leasehold land and, whilst the guidelines had not been promulgated as at 1 January 1996, draft guidelines were in place, which I understand were generally referred to in the case of tree clearing applications. Mr Burnett has apparently referred to the guidelines in identifying what he says are "restricted clearing" classifications of country on the subject land. For example, in the case of blackwood he said that the total area was 6,009 ha, however, as 50% of that only might be cleared on his understanding, the potential carrying capacity is 1 to 15 ha on his so-called restricted clearing classification. He similarly treated the gidyea country, the strikeridge, brigalow and coolibah

country types.  In response to this proposition, the Chief Executive's side makes two points.  The first and perhaps the most significant is that there is no evidence that Mr Burnett has or will be refused a tree clearing permit to allow him to develop "Nairana" in the manner that he wishes.  The second is that the Tree Clearing Guidelines are not rigid in their application, with each  property being dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  Mr Greenwood agrees that the Tree Clearing Guidelines say that 50% of blackwood ought to be retained, however, made the point that the 50% figure is expressed as being an area wide figure and one that does not necessarily apply to a particular property.  On the topic of blackwood, I note that in the hearing for the 1993 valuation appeal the President in his reasons records that Mr Burnett expressed the view that much of the blackwood scrub country on the subject land was not economical to pull.  I mentioned this to Mr Burnett, however, he did not reconcile his evidence before me with that given earlier.  At that earlier hearing a Mr NJ Heelan, a grazier and a graduate of the Emerald Agricultural College, gave evidence that the type of soil in the blackwood scrub area on "Nairana" is a limiting factor in the establishment of improved pastures in that country.  Mr Greenhill did, before me,  not attempt to counter that evidence directly. 

It seems to me that Mr Burnett is somewhat premature in his concerns relating to the possible application of Tree Clearing Guidelines to his land. His concerns arise more as matters of conjecture rather than substantive evidence and do not, in my mind, arise for consideration in this present appeal. In the event that more cogent evidence is forthcoming, the matter may fall for consideration in later appeals or, alternatively, the Chief Executive may take action under s.28 and s.29 of the Act to alter the valuation of the subject land.

Prior to the recent drought Mr Burnett had the view that vegetation on his land and other similar lands was increasing in density with the effect of reducing carrying capacity in areas that had not been improved.  He has noticed, however, that during the recent drought many trees in untreated areas have died, with the result that there has been an increase in pasture growth in that area, with a probable increase in carrying capacity since the 1993 appeal

was considered.  He said that it was too early to assess any increase in carrying capacity resulting from this phenomenon and that he had not directed his mind to considering the extent to which carrying capacities might be adjusted.  Mr Greenhill placed a carrying capacity on "Nairana" at 1 beast to 11 ha overall.  The figure of 1,748 head appeared in his report, though I note that a carrying capacity of 1:11 ha would convert to about 1,790 head.  The decision of this Court in respect to the 1993 appeal resulted in a carrying capacity of 1 beast to 12½ ha or 1,566 head.  Mr Burnett said that he carries 1,863 branded stock at the moment, including an area of stock route which he grazes, and that if he allowed about 85% of this figure to apply to "Nairana" proper, the figure would be 1,585 head.  This figure is not much use to me as I would have to understand the basis of the enterprise carried out on the land to use this figure for the purpose of establishing a carrying capacity which is in effect a classification of country, not an absolute figure dependent upon the particular management style of a particular land owner.  In any event, Mr Burnett was unwilling to accept a carrying capacity of 1 to 11 ha, though he did say that an improvement in the vicinity of 10% in carrying capacity from the 1993 figure was one that had been "rattling through my mind". 

Mr Greenhill identified the two main areas of contention with regard to carrying capacity being the blackwood scrub and the frontage forest country.  He said that in his opinion the blackwood scrub has a carrying capacity of 1 to 10 ha, whereas that had previously been determined by this Court at 1 to 11 ha.  Given the state of the evidence concerning the uncertainty associated with the development of blackwood scrub country and the absence of any clear evidence from the Chief Executive's side as to the district standard for the development of this class of country, I intend to not adjust the carrying capacity of 1 to 11 ha for this land. 

As to the frontage country:  Mr Greenhill says that the carrying capacity should be 1 to 9 ha, which is a substantial improvement over the figure of 1 to 16 ha previously determined.  Mr Greenhill relies on his experience in proposing this carrying capacity and, in addition, sought support from a document entitled "Land Types of the Upper Mistake Creek Catchment" compiled by the Department of Primary Industries.  The document is unpublished and appears to have been prepared for a workshop carried out in June 1995.  The introduction to the document records:

"This booklet has been compiled  from a range of sources including:

·    Lands of the Nogoa-Belyando Area, Queensland.  CSIRO Land Research Series No. 18 (1967)

·    Understanding and Managing Soils in the Central Highlands, Department of Primary Industries Land Management Manual.  QE93002.

·    The Soil Fertility of Central and North-east Queensland Grazing Lands.  Department of Primary Industries Information Series.  Q194065.

·    A field trip through the area identifying different land types, describing soils and vegetation and collecting some samples for analysis, and

·    Discussions with some landholders in the area and local Department of Primary Industries extension staff based in Clermont.

The information contained in the booklet attempts to describe the major land types of the area.  The Land Use Potential, Management and Tree Management statements are not meant to be restrictive but a recommended approach as a starting point for discussions at the workshop."

Mr Greenhill referred to one entry in the tendered document which referred to "flooded coolibah and gidgee on silty clays on frequently flooded flats of major creeks".  I note that the class of country referred to in the document is subject to high silt load in flood waters, demonstrates problems associated with the establishment of improved species and has a recommended stocking rate of 1 beast to 8 to 10 ha.  Mr Greenhill also provided photographs of the frontage country on the subject land indicating, in his view, similarity with the description and the photography included in the DPI document. 

Mr Burnett said that the DPI document deals with the Upper Mistake Creek area which is "totally different sort of country".  Mr Greenhill disagrees with that proposition.  I think Mr Burnett has overstated his case.  The points that I have included above taken from the DPI document are points that were made by Mr Burnett with respect to his frontage country and the description of that country proffered by him and Mr Greenhill and that provided by the DPI document revealed to me sufficient similarity for the recommended stocking rates in the document to be afforded some respect.  Mr Greenhill acknowledges that "Nairana" is subject to severe flooding on the frontage country, but suggests that that country is very good country suited to fattening bullocks.  I prefer Mr Greenhill's evidence on this matter, supported as it is by the DPI document and by his experience and the tendered photographs.  I will, however, acknowledge Mr Burnett's experience with his own land and will take into account the qualified nature of the DPI document given the introductory words which I have referred to above, together with the range of recommended stocking rates to settle on a carrying capacity for the frontage country of 1 beast to 10 ha.

The Chief Executive did not take issue with the various other assessments of carrying capacity mentioned by Mr Burnett in his documentary evidence.  I have, therefore, had regard to those carrying capacities in arriving at the figures I have settled on for each classification of country.   In the result, the carrying capacities of the various classes of country and the overall carrying capacity for "Nairana" are determined as follows:

Blackwood   1:11 ha  546 hd

Brigalow and gidyea scrub               1: 7 ha  405 hd

Coolibah and flooded gidyea          1:10 ha  271 hd

(frontage)

Box, bloodwood sandridges

and ironbark forest  1:13 ha  283 hd

Forest ridges (spinifex,

Strikeridge and lancewood)          1:18 ha  248 hd

1753 hd

I will determine carrying capacity overall at 1:11.5 ha.

Before turning to the process of valuation, I will refer to some other matters raised by Mr Burnett relating to disabilities that he says the subject land suffers.  He mentioned that a stock route runs the full length of "Nairana" and he has a licence to use the stock route area.  Mr Burnett's concerns are twofold.  First, he mentioned that there is some scrub on the stock route and stock sometimes go into that when he is mustering, increasing his mustering difficulties.  Second, he mentioned that he has no right to manage the stock route in the manner that he would be able to if it were his property.  He must obtain permission from the respondent's Department if he wishes to provide a water improvement or such like on the stock route area.

He suggests that the underground water on "Nairana" is probably deep and brackish, given the number of dud boreholes on nearby properties on the same side of the Belyando River.  He suggested also that because of the development of water harvesting schemes upstream of the subject land, Mistake Creek is likely to stop running sooner than it might otherwise have.  He said also that the quality of soils have deteriorated on "Nairana" given the long-term grazing use of the land and that he has to use more cattle feed supplements to maintain the same production now that "Nairana" has historically experienced.  He mentioned also that the pests of baroom, ellengowan and native myrtle, are present on the land and that rubber vine is a potential pest.  Mr Greenhill agreed with what Mr Burnett had to say about these pests and included mention of parthenium, harisia cactus, together with dingoes and pigs in his valuation report.  Mr Greenhill said that such pests, as were discussed during the hearing, are common to the area. 

Mr Burnett explained that the subject land lies along the channels of Mistake Creek and touches the Belyando River, whereas most properties in the area lie across these channels.  He believes that future research will reveal that prolonged flooding of frontage forest is a major cause of the high level of the incidence of botulism on "Nairana".  He now vaccinates each year against botulism, whereas it is not standard practice generally in the area to vaccinate so frequently.  He also complains of sandflies, mosquitoes and flies which irritate stock.  According to Mr Burnett, insects also reduce the quality of grasses.  Access across stream channels can be problematic and costly.  I come now to the matter of valuation.

The appellant says that it appears that the values in the "northern region" are just, but that those in the central region are substantially higher.  The "northern region" is apparently the Dalrymple Shire administered by the Chief Executive's Townsville office, whilst the subject land is in an area administered by the Mackay office.  Mr Burnett called this the "central region".  Mr Burnett referred to a number of properties which he said indicated that the valuation on the subject land was too high.  He referred to the following properties in Dalrymple Shire:

Name of Property	Area	Chief Executive's Value per ha 1993	Chief Executive's Value per ha 1996
"Plain Creek"	29,700 ha	$9.25	$8.18
"Vine Creek"	24,500 ha	$10.20	$9.92
"Bundabaroo"	21,100 ha	$12.55	$11.47
"Mt Hope"	23,400 ha	$13.25	$12.65
"Llanarth"	16,500 ha	$13.05	$13.03

For the area Mr Burnett describes as the "central region", he referred to:

Name of Property	Area	Chief Executive's Value per ha 1993	Chief Executive's Value per ha 1996
"Bulliwallah"	39,400 ha	$15.50	$24.00
"Disney"	47,600 ha	$16.50	$29.00
"Mt Douglas"	31,200 ha	$20.00	$31.00
"Elgin Downs"	76,180 ha	$25.50	$43.00

Mr Burnett mentioned that the properties of "Plain Creek" and "Bundabaroo" adjoin the subject land to the north, though on the map tendered it appears as though "Bundabaroo" adjoins the subject land, whilst "Plain Creek" adjoins "Bundabaroo".  He said that even though "Disney", "Mt Douglas" and "Elgin Downs" have considerable areas of gidyea clay country and have better natural water, in his view, than "Nairana" does, the Chief Executive has over-valued them in his opinion.

Certainly the appearance given, if one refers only to the above information, is that the trend of values in the area surrounding the subject land is upwards, whilst the trend towards the north is downwards, however, I am unable to draw a conclusion that this trend is contrary to the evidence found in the marketplace, without more detailed information concerning the properties listed.  I would hope that officers, employed by the Chief Executive who are responsible for striking values in separate areas, take into account the relationship between values in those respective areas in settling upon the standard to be applied.  I have no evidence that such liaison took place between the areas referred to by Mr Burnett, however, equally I have no evidence which leads me to conclude that the "central region" valuations are out of kilter with the market.  The best that I can do is to have regard to the evidence put forward by the parties in support of their respective values.  It is neither my task nor does the evidence presented equip me to review the level of values overall. 

The appellant included reference to the property of "Vine Creek" as providing, in his opinion, a suitable sale for comparison with the subject land.  "Vine Creek" has an area of 24,500 ha, is located 30 km north of the subject land, is a breeding and fattening property and apparently markets cattle through Clermont which is 200 km by rail or road to the south.  Mr Burnett said that "Vine Creek" is similar to "Nairana" in the availability of natural water and is similar overall in country, though having a higher proportion of blackwood and a lower proportion of frontage country than "Nairana".  Mr Burnett recorded that "Vine Creek" has a present carrying capacity of 1 to 14.5 ha, which he says is the current carrying capacity of "Nairana" but did not include an assessment of the carrying capacity potential of the "Vine Creek" property.  "Vine Creek" sold in December 1994 for $801,000. Mr Greenhill pointed out that the "Vine Creek" property is a 1994 sale and said that it is better to employ sales closer to the relevant date of 1 January 1996.  He said that his two sales were preferable in that regard. 

Mr Burnett took his new classification of the country on the subject land and compared that with "Vine Creek".  Whilst he made reference to this sale property and suggested that the circumstances of the sale were quite suitable, his comparison between the "Vine Creek" property and the subject land was made not on the basis of the sale, but on the basis of the Chief Executive's unimproved value.  That is, Mr Burnett did not present an analysis of that sale back to an unimproved value figure, however, referred to the Chief Executive's applied unimproved value of $9.90 per ha.  I have no evidence that the Chief Executive used the "Vine Creek" sale as a basis for valuation. 

He referred generally also to those properties in the "northern region" and "central region" mentioned above in support of his conclusion on value, though he made a comparison with "Vine Creek" only.  It is difficult for me to see how the properties other than "Vine Creek" to which Mr Burnett referred can be usefully considered by me in this appeal, given the absence of any detailed comparison.  For completeness I should mention that he did include a break-up of the country on "Plain Creek" and suggested the values of land classes which would support the value applied there by the Chief Executive, however, no comparison with the subject land was provided.

In the case of "Vine Creek", Mr Burnett inspected the land and reinforced by a description which was included in a tree clearing application, settled upon a value for each of the classes of country on the land which led him to the unimproved value figure of $9.92 per ha.  It appears to me that the allocation of values to the land classifications was a matter carried out by Mr Burnett as his appreciation of how the unimproved value of the Chief Executive might be supported but is neither the unimproved value approach of the Chief Executive, nor an analysis of the sale.  Mr Burnett applied the values that he attributed to the land classes on the "Vine Creek" property to the land classes he identified on "Nairana" and, in so doing, discounted the values having regard to what he saw as being an absolute restriction on tree clearing on certain classes of land.  Thus in the case of blackwood where he understood that clearing would be limited to 50% of that area on his land, he applied a value of $18 per ha to 50% of the blackwood country and $9 per ha to the other.  This percentage discount method was carried through the various classes, though not rigidly in accordance with the percentage tree clearing indicated in the Tree Clearing Guidelines, but without reference to any reliable evidence as to the manner in which the marketplace assesses the impact of Tree Clearing Guidelines on the class of values of the particular types of country.
           The "Vine Creek" sale had been referred to by Mr Burnett in the previous appeal before the Land Court and it was found by the learned President on that occasion that reference to that property was of no assistance to him.  It is of no assistance to me.  Not only is the sale removed in time, but was not supported by a relevant sale analysis back to unimproved value.  Rather, Mr Burnett has employed the unimproved value applied to "Vine Creek" by the Chief Executive and has compared his property with that, supported by general reference to unimproved values in lands near the subject land.  It has been recorded in this Court on many occasions with respect to the establishment of values under the Valuation of Land Act  that sales evidence is to be preferred to relativity evidence in the form of a comparison with values determined by the Chief Executive.  (See Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981) 8 QLCR 70 at 76.)
           Mr Greenhill referred to two sales in his written valuation.  The first of these, "Mt Gregory", sold in July 1995 for $2,629,000, analysed by Mr Greenhill to an unimproved figure of $19.09 per ha.  He estimated the carrying capacity of "Mt Gregory" at 1 beast to 13 ha.  In his comparison Mr Greenhill said that the sale is considered to be comparable to the subject land in that it has a similar location, has frontage to the Belyando River and has a similar country type.  He said that the sale is considered overall inferior, given that it has poorer natural water, worse access and a greater percentage of poorer forest country, together with an area of inaccessible country.  "Mt Gregory" has an overall area of 24,719 ha.  Mr Burnett did not take issue with the description of "Mt Gregory" provided by Mr Greenhill, however, said that as "Mt Gregory" is approximately 95% cleared, whereas the subject land is developed to 10% only, the sale property is substantially superior as the owner of that land would not have to be subjected to Tree Clearing Guidelines.  Given that Mr Greenhill says that about 39% of "Mt Gregory" comprises undulating to steep mountain and ridges timbered with bloodwood box, yellowwood, cabbage, gum, ironbark and wattle, with areas of dense lancewood ridges and 15% of inaccessible mountain ranges and ridges with no real grazing value, it is clear that Mr Burnett's mention of a 95% clearing rate is too high.   Apart from this, I have already found that the possible influence of Tree Clearing Guidelines on the value of "Nairana" is a matter not to be taken into account on this occasion, given the absence of suitable cogent evidence of the actual impact on the owner's desire to develop the land and the view that the market would take of such impact.  Accordingly, this claimed point of distinction between "Mt Gregory" and the subject land is not one that can be properly drawn.
           Mr Burnett mentioned that "Mt Gregory" was purchased by a major banana grower, that is someone not local nor experienced in the cattle grazing industry and, by implication ,suggested that the sale price might have been too high.  He did not, however, pursue this point and given that it would appear to be at odds with the level of development that he claims is present on "Mt Gregory", I must say that his evidence on that matter is of no influence on me.
           Mr Burnett challenged Mr Greenhill's sale analysis of "Mt Gregory" focusing particularly on timber treatment.  Mr Greenhill's evidence was that a straight pull, burn and seeding would cost about $53 per ha at the relevant time and he depreciated that figure, taking into account the presence of regrowth and the overall efficacy of the timber treatment.  His documentary evidence revealed a considered approach to six different classes of country on the sale which had been treated and he dealt with each separately as to area, cost of treatment and depreciation, to arrive at his value of the timber treatment improvement.  Mr Burnett said that costs of fencing, providing waters and establishing firebreaks and the possibility of retreating were not sufficiently taken into account in Mr Greenhill's costs.  The valuer's response was that they were part of his all-up cost.  He explained that his Department maintains a "Costs Book" which records known costs of particular improvements and timber treatment operations as they come to hand and he referred to that book in preparing his evidence in support of the sale analysis.
           Mr Greenhill's second sale, "Chesterfield", took place in May 1995 for a price of $1,700,000 which was analysed to a figure of $31.27 per ha.  "Chesterfield" has an area of 19,316 ha.  The sale property is located on the Suttor Development Road, which bisects the property about 160 km north of Clermont.  The sale is situated about 60 km as the crow flies east of the subject property.  Mr Greenhill estimated the carrying capacity on "Chesterfield" at 1 beast to 9 ha and said that the sale land is considered superior to "Nairana" in terms of country type, with inferior natural water and access. 
           Mr Burnett was also critical of the timber treatment costs applied by Mr Greenhill to his analysis of the "Chesterfield" sale.  Here Mr Greenhill had based his costs on $48 per ha.  He said that there were a number of small areas on the sale land and there was no need for such costs as fencing and water to be taken into account. 
           Mr Burnett closely questioned Mr Greenhill's classification of country on both sales.  In response, Mr Greenhill provided property sketches and mentioned with respect to "Chesterfield" that the property sketch was based largely on a tree clearing application lodged with the Chief Executive's Department.
           Mr Burnett's criticisms of the sale properties referred to by Mr Greenhill largely arose in the process of cross-examination, but were not sufficient to draw any admission of error from Mr Greenhill or any inconsistency in evidence which I would observe might otherwise undermine the credibility of the sales analyses and application.  I am content therefore to rely on the sales in drawing my conclusion on the value of the land, the subject of this appeal and, as I have said earlier, must prefer Mr Greenhill's use of these sales to the method employed by Mr Burnett.
           It seems to me that the choice of sales made by Mr Greenhill are suitable in valuing "Nairana" as he has one sale, which is inferior to the subject property and another which is superior.  I have already discussed the question of carrying capacity on "Nairana" and have concluded that on the evidence that I have heard, Mr Greenhill has applied a carrying capacity which is somewhat better than the evidence reveals.  It is appropriate in these circumstances then that I adjust the comparison between the subject land and the sale properties and in so doing, I conclude that the value of "Nairana" ought to be $455,000.  In drawing this conclusion, I have also made a small adjustment to take into account Mr Burnett's concerns about the stock route.
           Before concluding these reasons, I should make reference to some quite comprehensive evidence provided by Mr Burnett regarding what he sees to be the value of the fixed improvements on "Nairana".  He values water improvements, land clearing, miscellaneous improvements, fencing, building and yards to a total figure of $1,200,099.12 and says that if one were to add that figure to an unimproved land value figure of $470,000, the resultant gross figure exceeds the price one would expect to obtain in the marketplace for the subject property.  Mr Burnett's approach to valuing the improvements was to establish the new price of an item, together with the installation costs and then to depreciate the gross figure by the straight-line method, having regard to his estimate of the usable life of the item and its present age.  The Chief Executive's side did not provide a similar assessment of the value of fixed improvements, nor was the Chief Executive in a position to cross-examine Mr Burnett concerning the large number of items comprehensively included in his assessment of such value.  I do not intend, in the circumstances, to deal with the value of improvements on "Nairana", as I have not been presented with a sufficiently informed debate on the matter to draw appropriate conclusions.  What I can conclude, however, is that a price as is of "Nairana" at $1,670,000 approximately certainly appears to be excessive when one considers the sale price of "Chesterfield".  I can also conclude that the sales evidence supplied by Mr Greenhill supports a value for "Nairana" unimproved at $455,000, therefore indicating that the value of improvements assessed by Mr Burnett must be too high.  The process of valuing improvements is a difficult one and it is one that was presented by Mr Greenhill in the usual and acceptable manner in his analysis of the two sales referred to by him.  Mr Burnett has not employed the traditional method and as he is not a valuer, I would find it difficult accepting his evidence in any event.
           It follows that the appeal is allowed and the valuation of the subject land is determined at $455,000.

RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT