Clarke v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2001] QLC 81

[2001] QLC 81

 

LAND COURT BRISBANE 19 JULY 2001

Re:     V00-60 -

An Appeal against an Unimproved Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944

Local Government:  Herberton

KR and DP Clarke v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

D E C I S I O N

The chief executive's unimproved valuation of land described as Lot 2 RP 737160, County of Cardwell, Parish of Ravenshoe, containing an area of 50.6082 ha, was in the amount of $40,000, as at 1 October 1998.

The subject land is situated fronting the Kennedy Highway, Chilverton, approximately 11 km by road north-east of Ravenshoe. The land accommodates a dwelling and is used for the fattening of beef cattle as well as agro-forestry. Power, telephone and postal services are available.

It is the appellants' opinion that the unimproved valuation should be reduced to

$30,000. Mr Clarke conducted their case and gave evidence accordingly.  A statement was tendered with attached notices of valuation showing the most recent valuation history of the land. On 22 March 1999, the subject land had been valued in amalgamation with Lot 9 which adjoined but severed by the Millstream, with a total amalgamated area of 81.57 ha, in the amount of $63,000 which valuation was reduced on objection to $57,000. That valuation had taken effect from 30 June 1999. The notice of the decision on objection was dated 5 November 1999. It was the evidence that Lot 9 was sold in August 1999 and a fresh valuation issued by notice dated 8 March 2000 for the subject Lot 2 in the amount of $40,000 as appealed against. That valuation took effect from 21 September 1999.

Mr Clarke had interpreted the dates of effect of the valuations, as suggesting that the chief executive had increased the level of value by approximately $92 per ha or 13% in a period of only three months. It was his opinion that, even at the date of valuation, 1 October 1998, values had been falling and the market had deteriorated even more significantly since that date. The appellants had found the necessity to place their original holding which had comprised four surveyed lots, on the market

and had disposed of three lots, the first in December 1997, the second in November 1998 and the third in August 1999. Mr Clarke's evidence was that they had been forced by the declining state of the market to reduce their asking price below an earlier valuation which they had instructed an approved valuer to carry out. In Mr Clarke's opinion, the sale prices achieved had been influenced significantly by the improved condition of the land and the state of maintenance of the original clearing and not by the unimproved value of the land. Increased unimproved valuations had the effect of increasing the rate revenue to the Shire when in his opinion, the state of the local rural economy was in crisis, and farmers needed financial assistance rather than being faced by increased costs such as the rating burden.

The valuation appealed against had been made for the chief executive by Mr DF Paton, registered valuer. He described the land as comprising "a long easy ridge top with easy to moderate slopes down to Weir Creek and the Millstream. Soils comprise light red acidic scrub soils with areas of grey-brown soil particularly near the junction of Weir Creek and the Millstream. The property has permanent water supplies provided by both Weir Creek and the Millstream. Stock access points are available. The majority of the property has been cleared of the predominant scrub timbers which merged with the Blue Gum Bloodwood forest. Without careful grazing management and fertiliser application on these soils pastures can quickly revert to Bracken and Lantana. … the subject property has two water allocations.  One is for a 2 megalitre Riparian Permit from Weir Creek while the second is for a 4 hectare Watercourse Licence from the Millstream."

Mr Paton had valued the land pursuant to the provisions of s.17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 on the basis of exclusive use for the business of farming, at a rate of $800 per ha, the result rounded to $40,000.

In arriving at that valuation he had regard to the sales of four improved blocks, two of which adjoin the subject land, the vendors having been the appellants.

Mr Paton's valuation report had been provided to the appellants in accordance with Rule 23 of the Land Court Rules 2000 and I do not propose to discuss in detail the overall sales evidence. Suffice to say that Mr Clarke, apart from having first-hand knowledge of the first two sales mentioned above, had some local knowledge of the other two and made no challenge to Mr Paton's analyses of the sales or his description of comparability of the sale lands with the subject land. The application of unimproved values to the sale lands as at 1 October 1998, ranged from $670 per ha to

$1,299 per ha, for block sizes between 30 ha and 76 ha and those levels of value were supported by the analyses of the individual sales.

Mr Paton explained that the higher pro rata value applied to the subject land than to the larger area involved when the subject land and Lot 9 were valued in amalgamation, was the result of some discounting for size for the larger aggregation then recognition of a working disability which had existed when the blocks were used in amalgamation and severed by the Millstream.

The reasoning of Mr Paton in applying a higher pro rata value to the subject land than to the previous larger area in amalgamation had nothing to do with inflation or any increase in general levels of value. The earlier amalgamated valuation and the valuation now appealed against were both made as at the same date of valuation, not to be confused with the date at which those valuations came into effect.

The subject valuation is well supported by the unchallenged analyses of the market evidence, some of which was a result of the appellants' activities in the marketplace.

Finding

The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved valuation of the chief executive affirmed.

RE WENCK MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT