Champneys v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 153

[1995] QLC 153

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

10 November 1995

Re:     Appeal against Rental Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
  Shire of Bungil.
  (RV93-694).

Janice Dorothy Champneys
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Roma)

D E C I S I O N

Mrs Champneys is the lessee of Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease No. 36/7919, which is in respect of the land described as Lot 25 on Plan WV844, Parish of Spowers, County of Waldegrave. The property is known as "Tylden" and contains an area of 811.598 hectares. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the respondent determined the unimproved value of that land as at 31 March 1992, at $103,000. Mrs Champneys objected to that valuation and was subsequently advised that her objection had been disallowed. Mrs Champneys then appealed to the Land Court against that decision upon her objection, advising that in her opinion the unimproved value of the land should be $69,000.
           According to the report tendered on behalf of the respondent, "Tylden" is situated approximately 42 kilometres south-west of Roma with access by means of a bitumen sealed road.  The report described the country as consisting of 485 ha of open downs and 326.598 ha of box and coolibah flats, slopes and ridges.
           "Tylden" is watered by one near-permanent waterhole in Muckadilla Creek and two unequipped earth tanks.  It is used for the purpose of sheep grazing and grain growing. 
Mrs JD Champneys appeared and gave evidence. This case was heard with two other matters relating to the same property. The details of Mrs Champneys' evidence are contained in my decision on the determination of unimproved value for conversion purposes for Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease No 36/7919, Roma District, which was delivered today. I do not propose to repeat that evidence. It is sufficient to say that Mrs Champneys relied for her opinion of the valuation upon earlier determinations for conversion purposes and upon the unimproved values applied by the respondent under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act to other lands in the area.
           Evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by Mr TE Herberts, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands.  Details of Mr Herberts' evidence is also contained in the abovementioned decision.  Mr Herberts relied upon sales of lands in the general locality and for the purpose of this appeal, the sale of "Amaroo", the details of which are contained in the conversion decision, was the basis for his valuation.
           In addition, in this case Mr Herberts referred to the sale of "South Westgrove", a property of some 7,010 hectares, situated in the north-west of the Bungil Shire.  This property sold in April 1992 for $1,315,256 and analysed to show an unimproved value of $385,881.  As at 31 March 1992, an unimproved value of $375,000, or $54 per hectare, was applied to that property.  The country on "South Westgrove" is predominantly brigalow, belah, box, myall, sandalwood with areas of pine, bulloak and wattle.  It is therefore quite different to the country on the subject land.
           Mr Herberts explained that the sale of "South Westgrove" demonstrated that there had been no movement in the market for grazing land in the Bungil Shire since the previous valuation in 1990.  Values had therefore been rewritten.
           I do not think that the sale of "South Westgrove" adds anything to the evidence given by Mr Herberts in the conversion matter and I prefer to look for guidance to the sale of "Amaroo".  Although much larger than the subject land, "Amaroo" was considered by Mr Herberts to be of similar value per hectare.  However, for reasons which I have discussed in the conversion decision, I have some doubts about the direct applicability of the sale.
           In that case I resolved those doubts by making a further allowance to Mr Herberts' valuation.  As the evidence is to the effect that there has been no change in the unimproved value of land since 1990, there is no reason why the same valuation should not be adopted in this case.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at Ninety-seven thousand, four hundred dollars ($97,400).

(JJ Trickett)       
  Member of the Land Court