Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 110
•30 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0110 PARTIES: Peter J Crombie
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0204 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation. DELIVERED ON: 30 May 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Winton MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Winton – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classification of country - carrying capacity – sheep area values – 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 Winton 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 PJ Crombie is the owner of a grazing property known as "Lucella", containing an area of 6,989 ha, situated about 105 km north-east of Winton on the Olio-Muttaburra Road. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $880,000, or $125.90/ha, to that property. Mr Elliott appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $305,000.
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 the correct principles of valuation.
This was one of a number of cases tried by the fast-track process, following the determination of selected cases, "Bonnie Downs"[1] and "Belmont"[2] in the Shire of Winton. The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons 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.
[1] Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036.
[2] Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0040.
Mr Crombie's Evidence
Mr Crombie gave evidence of the relationship between the selected cases "Bonnie Downs" and "Lucella". He pointed out that on 18 November 2004, the Land Court determined the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2001 at $21.80/ha and the unimproved value of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation at $21.40/ha. He interpreted that small difference be related to their relative areas, the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation containing an area of 26,080 ha, compared with "Lucella" at 6,989 ha.
In Mr Crombie's opinion, those two properties are much of a muchness. Regardless of the changes to the carrying capacities by the Department, he is of the view that both properties would carry stock at the same rate per hectare.
Mr Crombie also compared "Lucella" with the sale property "Dahlia", which has an area of 13,327 ha, to which the Department had applied an unimproved value of $112.55/ha. Mr Crombie had inspected "Dahlia" and formed the opinion that it was a superior property per hectare. He referred to its variety of country, with more channels and therefore more shade. He put "Dahlia" slightly ahead of "Lucella". Even though the Department had altered the traditional carrying capacity of "Dahlia" from 1 sheep to 1.6 ha to 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, it had maintained the carrying capacity of "Lucella" at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha. Mr Crombie was of the opinion that this was incorrect, as all the properties in this run of country in the Corfield downs area of Winton Shire, would carry at much the same rate.
The Evidence of the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr DA Routh, who explained that in assessing the various properties in this area he had relied on the Department's historical records and had utilised the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. From those sources he had classified the country on "Lucella" as:
6,430 ha (92%) downs, (1-1.6 ha);
559 ha (8%) channels (1-1.6 ha).Mr Routh described the country as follows:
"'Lucella' is described as gently undulating brown soil downs, lightly shaded with Whitewood and Vinetree. Coolibah on sections of Lucella Creek. Mitchell grass ranges from good on the tighter country to sparser on the lighter country. Approximately 20% of the downs is looser and heavily pebbly country."
In his opinion, "Lucella" is typical of the Corfield downs country and has no major working problems. Like most of the properties in this area, access is by means of formed black soil earth road, which can cause problems after any rain. He assessed the carrying capacity of "Lucella" at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, or 4,368 sheep.
In defending his valuation, Mr Routh pointed out that "Lucella" is located adjacent to the selected case "Bonnie Downs", which the Land Court had determined at a valuation of $110/ha. He agreed that it is a similar run of country to that property and to the other selected case "Belmont", which the Court had determined at $105/ha. However, in Mr Routh's opinion "Lucella" is most aligned to the sale property "Dahlia", to which the Department had applied an unimproved value of $112.50/ha. Mr Routh reasoned that "Lucella" is about half the size of "Dahlia". It was his experience that generally smaller parcels attract a higher rate per hectare in the marketplace, than larger ones.
The Issues
Perhaps the principal issue in this case relates to relative carrying capacities. For reasons which I explained in the determination of the unimproved value of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation, in my view a comparison of carrying capacities between "Dahlia" and "Bonnie Downs" and other similar properties in the area is misleading. The Department had "let out" the traditional carrying capacity of "Dahlia" from 1 sheep to 1.6 ha to 1 sheep to 1.8 ha and the carrying capacity of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation from 1 sheep to 1.6 ha to 1 sheep to 1.7 ha. As I pointed out in that decision, the arbitrary revision of traditional carrying capacities on an ad hoc basis affects any comparison on a carrying capacity or a sheep area basis.[3]
[3] [2008] QLC 0036 at [85].
The evidence in these cases is compelling that there is virtually no difference in the carrying capacities of the properties in this immediate area. Therefore, as in the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation, I propose to put aside any assessment on a carrying capacity or sheep area basis, and make direct comparisons.[4]
[4] At [85] to [87].
I accept the opinion of Mr Crombie that generally the country on "Dahlia" is slightly superior to that on "Lucella". I also accept the point made by Mr Routh that "Lucella" is about half the size of "Dahlia" and that some allowance should be made for the difference in their respective sizes. However, there is no evidence as to the extent of the superiority of the country on "Dahlia", or to the enhancement in the value per hectare that would be paid for a smaller property such as "Lucella".
In the absence of such evidence, I propose to apply much the same rate per hectare to "Lucella" as the Department applied to "Dahlia". That is also the same value which I have determined for the "Bonnie Downs" lease component of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation. But it is also lower than the $115/ha which I have applied to the adjoining property "Corunna". Therefore, the unimproved value of "Lucella" will be determined at 6,989 ha at $112.50/ha, which when rounded amounts to $786,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0