Dohnt v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 13
•14 February 1997
|
BRISBANE
14 FEBRUARY 1997
Re: AV96-219 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Waggamba Shire
D.N. And G.S. Dohnt
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Goondiwindi)
D E C I S I O N
The unimproved value of land described as Lot 2 on CVN423, Parish of Nomby, County of Carnarvon, containing 2,586.49 ha was assessed by the Department of Natural Resources (as it now is) in the amount of $192,500 as at 1 January 1996. The property is situated off Goodar Road, about 55 km north of Goondiwindi.
The owners have appealed against the valuation. They estimate the unimproved value to be $123,440. The basis of that estimate was explained by Mr D.N. Dohnt (Jnr), a son of the appellants who appeared on their behalf. In his opinion there is an area of about 1,000 ha of better country to the east of Billa Billa Creek which intersects the property and which he would value at $60 per ha on a relativity basis. In his opinion that level of value compares with the Department’s valuation of “Akaringa” which adjoins to the east, at $85.67 per ha and “Nomby” further to the east, at $101.52 per ha. The balance land of 1,586 ha, Mr Dohnt would value at $40 per ha in relativity with, in particular, “Warrah Willah” adjoining to the west, which is valued by the Department at $41.13 per ha. In Mr Dohnt’s opinion the property should be valued as two classifications because, as he described it, the eastern and western sections are physically severed by a large lagoon in Billa Billa Creek. Vehicular access between the two sections is said not to be possible except through adjoining land at the northern end of the lagoon. Further management problems are caused by the position of Yarrill Creek inside the southern boundary and another watercourse dividing the eastern section.
The Department’s valuation was carried out by Mr M.J. Gollan, registered valuer. He described the south-eastern section as mainly belah wilga scrub soils suitable to be developed to cultivation or pasture improvement and the western side as mainly level coolibah box country subject to inundation in wet weather. The balance was described as varying from melonholey brigalow soils to low sandy ridges timbered with pine and oak.
A feature of the property was seen by Mr Gollan to be the excellent watering provided by the creeks and lagoon, although he recognised the existence of “some management problems in extreme wet conditions”.
The basis of valuation was obtained primarily from the sales of “Burumbah” of 2,289 ha at an analysed sale price of $54.25 per ha unimproved and “Welton-Vale” of 2,282 ha at an analysed sale price of $69.31 per ha. In Mr Gollan’s opinion, both sale properties were inferior to varying degree in comparison with the subject property. Then there was the sale of the subject property in September 1994 at an analysed sale price of $79.69 per ha unimproved. The applied valuation is rounded from a level of $75 per ha. While the subject land adjoined other land of the Dohnt family, Mr Gollan held the opinion that the sale price represented fair market value, the property having been on the market at a higher price than that which was paid.
It was Mr Dohnt’s evidence that the purchase price of the subject land represented a premium in value because of the much needed watering facilities, including a flowing bore, provided to the family aggregation.
There was conflict between Mr Dohnt and Mr Gollan as to the more precise description of the lands within the subject property and some of the relativity examples. Mr Dohnt, for example, did not accept that the property “Akaringa” was deserving of its access disability allowance or the extent of its melonhole country as suggested by Mr Gollan. The two disagreed as to the extent of sand influence on “Warrah Willah”.
It is not possible to resolve these differences of opinion as to relativity of valuations. Mr Gollan has however demonstrated that, in comparison with previous valuations of the subject land, the management difficulties have been recognised, tempered to a degree by the enhancing influence seen to be provided by the excellent water availability.
It is recognised that relativity of valuations is an important issue. However, when deciding the question of valuation of any particular property, the sales evidence cannot be ignored. I am persuaded by Mr Gollan’s evidence that the valuation of the subject property is adequately supported by the sales of “Burumbah” and “Welton-Vale”. It seems then that while the appellants may well have had good water-related reasons to have, if necessary, paid a premium for the subject property, it has not been demonstrated by the market that in fact such a premium was paid.
With the management disability allowance already built into the valuation appealed against, I am unable to find that the valuation should be further reduced on the grounds of appeal.
The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0