Cameron v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 75
•30 April 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Cameron v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0075
PARTIES:Melvyn John Cameron
(appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0338
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944
DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Longreach
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Romulus” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($1,690,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Blackall –comparison with determinations of test cases – sales relied upon in the test cases – classification of country – carrying capacity – disabilities – 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 Shire of Blackall 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 MJ Cameron is the owner of a grazing property known as “Romulus”, with an area of 18,772.558 ha, situated about 50 km south-east of Blackall. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $1,750,000, or $93.25/ha, to that property. Mr Cameron appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $870,000.
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 to the correct principles of valuation.
This case was tried by the fast track process, following the determination of agreed test cases in the Shires of Blackall and Tambo. The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparison 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.
Mr Cameron’s Evidence
Mr Cameron gave evidence that “Romulus” adjoins the test case “Ravensbourne” on its eastern boundary, but comprises quite different country. “Ravensbourne” comprises downs country, developed gidyea scrub and red soil ridges, while “Romulus” is a much inferior property, comprising a small amount of downs country, three types of gidyea country and a large area of mulga tableland.
Mr Cameron described “Romulus” as comprising 1,780 ha (9.5%) downs, 11,594.5 ha (61.5%) scrub and 5,398 ha (29%) mulga tableland. He further classified the scrub into three categories, 23% good scrub, 15% stony scrub and 62% red clay soil scrub. In his opinion, the last two categories were considerably inferior to the better scrub country on “Ravensbourne” and the scrub country on the sale property “Eastwood”. He had calculated the area of remnant gidyea on “Romulus” at 1,695 ha. Mr Cameron tendered a series of photographs showing the two inferior areas of scrub.
In Mr Cameron’s opinion the mulga tableland is of little use and detracts from the property. It has red stony and gravelly soils and includes large rocky gorges, with dense bendee. He regarded the stony gidyea country as only slightly better than the tableland country.
Having regard to the restrictions of the vegetation management legislation, Mr Cameron was of the opinion that the carrying capacity of “Romulus” was between 1 sheep to 2.2 ha and 1 sheep to 2.5 ha.
Mr Haydon’s Evidence
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr P Haydon. Mr Haydon explained that he had classified the country of “Romulus” by utilising the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery. The various areas were measured using a computer based measuring system. He explained that the developed scrub areas were measured from the RE mapping where the non-remnant areas are shown in white. He calculated the remnant areas from the same mapping, but excluded the areas of shade lines and shade clumps which he thought would have been left by a prudent owner.
However, during the course of the hearings, I made a ruling that the area of shade lines and shade clumps should be included in the areas of remnant scrub. The reasoning behind that ruling was explained in the case of Lloyd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0073.
Mr Haydon had classified “Romulus” as comprising:
500 ha (3%) downs, with carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha;
1,200 ha (6%) downs, with carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.5 ha;
9,792.558 ha (52%) scrub, of which 9,620 ha was developed, with carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha;
980 ha (5%) channels, with carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha;
1,300 ha (7%) remnant scrub, with carrying capacity 1 sheep to 5 ha;
5,000 ha (27%) mulga tableland and jump up country.
His assessment of carrying capacity overall was 1 sheep to 1.85 ha, or 10,147 sheep.
After hearing Mr Cameron’s evidence concerning the quality of the scrub on “Romulus”, Mr Haydon revised the carrying capacity of the developed scrub from 1 sheep to 1.3 ha to 1 sheep to 1.4 ha. However, he regarded the better scrub areas as similar to the red brown soil scrub on the sale of “Eastwood”.
Mr Haydon also revised his overall carrying capacity from 1 sheep to 1.85 ha to 1 sheep to 2 ha. However, he reasoned that “Romulus” had 13,772 ha of what he regarded as “reasonably good” country. By comparison with the sale property “Eastwood”, which also had a large component of developed scrub, he thought that his applied value seemed to be too low. However, “Romulus” also had the additional range country. He therefore felt that a lower sheep area value should be adopted. However, overall he thought the unimproved value should be revised upwards from $1,750,000 to $1,850,000.
The Issues
The parties in this case have taken somewhat divergent views of the quality of the country on “Romulus”. Mr Cameron sees the downs country as having a more limited carrying capacity that does Mr Haydon. Also, while he concedes that the best of his developed scrub country is equal to that on “Eastwood” and “Ravensbourne”, he was adamant that the stony gidyea and the red soil gidyea, comprising approximately 77% of the scrub area, was inferior to the good scrub country on “Eastwood”. He also measured a significantly larger area of remnant gidyea, at 2,418 ha, than Mr Haydon at 1,300 ha, or 1,473 ha, when shade lines and clumps are included.
“Romulus” adjoins the test case “Ravensbourne”. It is somewhat further removed from the other test case “Minnie Downs”. The two sales referred to in the determination of the unimproved value of “Ravensbourne”, were “Eastwood”, a largely developed scrub property and “Mineeda”, a property consisting largely of downs country.
The respective details of the test case properties and the sale properties are set out below:
· “Ravensbourne”, 8,777 ha, determined by the Court at $200 per ha, or $1,755,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 6,269 sheep at $280 per sheep area, $1,755,000.
· “Minnie Downs”, 22,177 ha, determined by the Court at $185 per ha, or $4,100,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, or 14,785 sheep at $277 per sheep area, $4,100,000.
· The sale property “Eastwood”, 10,097 ha, applied value $178 per ha, or $1,800,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 7,767 sheep at $232 per sheep area, $1,800,000.
· The sale property “Mineeda”, 13,057 ha, applied value $222.50 per ha, $2,900,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 10,044 sheep at $289 per sheep area, $2,900,000.
Mr Haydon reasoned that “Romulus” has 13,772 ha of better quality country, which at a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.45 ha would carry 9,498 sheep. By adopting a sheep area value similar to that of the sale of “Eastwood” at $230 per ha, the resultant unimproved value would be $2,184,540, considerably more than his presently applied of $1,750,000.
However, during the hearing Mr Haydon revised his carrying capacity to 1 sheep to 2 ha overall. Adopting a sheep area value of $200 per ha, to recognise the inferior nature of the tableland and the worst of the developed scrub, 9,386 sheep at $200 per sheep area, amounted to an unimproved value of $1,877,200.
However, in my view, that takes insufficient account of the mulga tableland country, which Mr Cameron considers to be more of a detriment than an advantage.
Mr Haydon in his revised assessment considered that a sheep are value of $230 per sheep should be adopted for the better class of country by comparison with “Eastwood”. However, Mr Cameron was of the opinion that only the best of his scrub was of the quality of “Eastwood”. “Eastwood” was mainly gidyea country with some downs. It had no tableland country with limited carrying capacity and the problems which it causes for the better class country. In my view, the sheep area value of “Romulus” would be substantially less than “Eastwood”, but there was no evidence of how much less. Mr Boyd submitted that in 2001 the Department had valued “Eastwood” at $57.94/ha and “Romulus” at $27.43/ha. However, there was no evidence that the relationship was correct.
Subsequent to the hearing of this case, the valuation of the neighbouring property “Moonbong” was determined by consent at $3,700,000, or $92.50/ha. That property of 40,005 ha adjoins “Romulus” to the south and comprises a similar mixture of country, but a larger proportion of downs, a smaller proportion of scrub and a similar proportion of mulga tableland and jump ups.
Prior to the determination, “Moonbong” had been valued at $4,100,000, or $102.50/ha, compared with “Romulus” at $1,750,000, or $93.25/ha. The carrying capacity of “Moonbong” had been assessed by Mr Haydon at 1 sheep to 1.75 ha, which he conceded should be extended to 1 sheep to 1.85 ha. As determined, that is a sheep area value of $171. Even if the carrying capacity was extended to 1 sheep to 1.9 ha, that is a sheep area value of $175.75.
Having regard to the difference in size between “Moonbong” and “Romulus” and the greater impact of the tableland country, which runs through “Moonbong”, it would not seem unreasonable to adopt a sheep area value of $180 for “Romulus”. At 1 sheep to 2 ha, or 9,386 sheep, that amount to $1,689,400, or $90/ha. I will adopt $1,690,000.
I make this determination on the evidence available to me in this case. The previous relativity and Mr Haydon’s opinion that the relationship is quite different are of concern. I can only suggest that the Department carry out an inspection of “Romulus” and perhaps surrounding properties at the next revaluation.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Romulus” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($1,690,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0