EJ Turnbull v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 145
•16 July 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: EJ Turnbull v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0145 PARTIES: Elizabeth J Turnbull
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0211 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation DELIVERED ON: 16 July 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Blackall MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of part of “Narada” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($664,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Tambo – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – comparisons with valuations of other properties - classifications of country - carrying capacity – sheep area values – allowance for size - 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 then Shire of Tambo against the unimproved value applied to her 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
Ms EJ Turnbull is the owner of part of a grazing property aggregation, known as "Narada", containing an area of 2,862.401 ha. It is situated approximately 7 km south-west of Tambo. The other part of the aggregation adjoins the subject land to the north and east and is held by Mr AJ Turnbull. An appeal against the valuation of that part of the aggregation has been determined separately.[1]
[1] AJ Turnbull v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0144.
As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $700,000, or $245/ha, to the subject land. Ms Turnbull appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that her estimate of the unimproved value is $460,000.
The appeal was lodged on her behalf by her 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 fast-track hearing, following the determination of selected cases, "Ravensbourne" in the Shire of Blackall and “Minnie Downs” in the Shire of Tambo.[2] 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 comparisons with the valuations applied to other properties in the area was also heard.
[2] Walker and Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0008.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Evidence for the appellant was given by Mr AJ Turnbull, the owner of the other part of the “Narada” aggregation. As with Mr Turnbull’s land, the appellant’s principal concern was the 205% increase in the valuation of her land, compared with the increase of 168% in the valuation of the selected case, “Minnie Downs”.
Not surprisingly, Mr Turnbull’s evidence in relation to the subject land was very similar to his evidence in relation to his own part of the aggregation. However, he contended for a slightly higher value of $205/ha for the subject land, compared with the value of $194.75/ha, for his part of the aggregation. That appears to be because of the smaller area.
The Evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that his assessment of the valuation of this part of "Narada" was made in the same manner as Mr Turnbull’s part. He described the country on the subject land as comprising:
2,203 ha (77%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha;
659.401 ha (23%) channels, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha.
Overall Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity of this part of the aggregation at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 2,290 sheep.
Mr Haydon’s evidence in relation to this part of the aggregation was very similar to that of the other part. However, there is a greater percentage of channels on the subject land and that seems to have been the reason why Mr Haydon applied a somewhat lower valuation of $245/ha and a sheep area value of $305.
The Issues
The issues in this case are very similar to the appeal against the balance of the “Narada” aggregation. Apart from the greater percentage of channels, which Mr Haydon explained include not only the channels themselves but the claypan areas, the only difference is in size, the subject land being 2,862 ha in area, while the other part of the aggregation has an area of 4,532 ha.
In applying a valuation of $245/ha, somewhat higher than the valuation of $239.50/ha applied to “Uanda”, Mr Haydon obviously applied a loading for its smaller size.
The valuation applied to the subject land at $245/ha is lower than the valuation of $252.50/ha applied to the other part of the aggregation. That can only be attributed to the larger proportion of 23% of channels on the subject land, compared with the 12% of channels on the other part.
However, having regard to the whole of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the valuation of the subject land should have a different rate per hectare than that applied to the other part of the aggregation. Although it seems to be more affected by the channels, it has the same carrying capacity and is considerably smaller. In my view, those features outweigh one another. Therefore, I propose to apply the same rate of $232/ha to the subject land, as I determined for the balance of the aggregation. That amounts to a rounded valuation of $664,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of part of "Narada" is determined at Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($664,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0