Gae Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 82
•7 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: GAE Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0082 PARTIES: Graham Alexander Edward Walker
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: RV2006/0715 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an rental valuation DELIVERED ON: 7 May 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 "Gillespie" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($2,860,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Blackall – comparison with determinations of test cases – sales relied upon in the test 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 Blackall 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 Walker is the owner of a grazing property known as "Gillespie" (Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease 3/6106), containing an area of 22,105.346 ha, situated about 36 km south-east of Blackall. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $3,100,000, or $140/ha, to that property. Mr Walker appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $1,700,000.
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 case was tried by the fast-track process, following the determination of agreed test cases in the Shires of Blackall and Tambo. 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.
Mr Walker's Evidence
Although "Gillespie" is situated in close proximity to the test case "Ravensbourne", according to Mr Walker it is not comparable because "Ravensbourne" has far better country. "Gillespie" has a greater proportion of gidyea country which has been costly to develop. Furthermore, "Gillespie" has only a small proportion of downs, not all of it first- class downs, as the north-western country over which the Barcoo River floods is mostly Bull Mitchell grass and other parts of the downs grow feathertop and poorer grasses.
Mr Walker referred to an enterprise application, in which the various country types on "Gillespie" had been measured by PRW Agribusiness as follows:
2,601 ha (12%) hills and mulga
209 ha (1%) broken gidyea and boree
497 ha (2%) thick gidyea
3,224 ha (15%) river and creek channels and flats
2,000 ha (9%) pulled sandridge country
4,605 ha (21%) pulled gidyea
400 ha (2%) pulled gidyea with regrowth
4,500 ha (20%) blade and savannah ploughed
1,209 ha (5%) good open to shaded downs
1,105 ha (5%) gidyea scrub on red sandridge
1,755 ha (8%) deadfinish on red sandy country.The Department had classified an area of 4,000 ha as downs. However, Mr Walker said that much of that country was more forest than downs, being timbered with bauhinia and leopardwood and scattered scrub, with hard sandstone outcrops. Mr Walker also took issue with the Department including all the scrub in one category. In his opinion, the 13,000 ha of scrub consists of three categories. There was an area of hard scrub close to the hills, which had shallow and infertile soil. Mr Walker said he had tried to plough that area, but was unsuccessful because it was full of rock. Water simply did not percolate that type of soil.
According to Mr Walker, approximately 25% of the scrub area was what he described as good scrub, which after development had good buffel grass and few suckers. However, he thought that even that scrub would need re-pulling after about 20 years.
Between the poor scrub and the good scrub was an area which Mr Walker described as fair scrub, which had responded well to buffel grass after it had been ploughed with a heavy disk plough (Savannah Plough). Ploughing was necessary because the soil compacts and is less fertile. In Mr Walker's opinion, approximately 75% of the scrub area consisted of the poorer types of scrub.
Mr Walker explained that gidyea and brigalow regrowth was a continuing problem. He had blade-ploughed large areas of the property at a cost of what he estimated to be about $140/ha (present day). Other areas had been savannah ploughed. In his opinion, the expenditure was worthwhile because it was too expensive to purchase other land. Ploughing increased the productivity and carrying capacity of those areas, but at a significant cost.
Mr Walker regarded the mulga tableland area as virtually waste country. It was simply a harbour for wallaroos. The Department of Primary Industries studies estimated grazing pressure on adjoining country from macropods at 63%.
PRW Agribusiness had measured the remnant timbered areas on "Gillespie" at 3,566 ha. However, according to Mr Walker, that area is not all gidyea scrub, as it includes the broken gidyea and boree country and the red sandy deadfinish country. However, those are areas that Mr Walker said he would have cleared if it had not been for the vegetation management legislation restrictions. With such a large area of remnant country, Mr Walker estimated the carrying capacity of "Gillespie" at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha.
Although traditionally a sheep property, since 1981 "Gillespie" has run only cattle. However, Mr Walker conceded that when the property ran only sheep, the carrying capacity was about 1 sheep to 4 acres, the equivalent of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha.
Mr Haydon's Evidence
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr P Haydon, who explained that he had classified the country on "Gillespie" by utilising the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. The various areas had been measured using a computer based measuring system.
Mr Haydon classified the property as follows:
4,200 ha (19%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha;
9,250 ha (42%) scrub, developed carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha;
4,855 ha (22%) sandy forest, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha;
1,250 ha (6%) channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha;
2,550 ha (12%) mulga tableland and jump-ups, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 4 ha.Overall, Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity of "Gillespie" at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, with 13,815 sheep.
Mr Haydon had measured 10,178 ha as non-remnant (developed) from the regional eco-system mapping. That included part of what Mr Haydon classified as sandy forest country. He thought that the PRW assessment of the remnant areas included country which in previous valuations the Department had regarded as not developable. In Mr Haydon's opinion, much of that undeveloped remnant country is useful grazing country, with large open areas.
The Issues
There were several issues that were unable to be resolved between Mr Walker and Mr Haydon. There is sufficient evidence to establish that in all probability the area of 4,200 ha which the Department has described as downs is not all heavy Mitchell grass country, but consists of a variety of country, ranging from good downs to flooded Bull Mitchell plains, to lighter timbered country, some of which has sandstone close to the surface.
There seemed to be great disparity between the area of developed scrub country. However, if the 2,000 ha of pulled sandridge country is excluded from the PRW measurements, the combined total of the pulled scrub, some of which had been blade and savannah ploughed, totals 9,505 ha. That is reasonably close to Mr Haydon's assessment of 9,250 ha of developed scrub. His measurement of 10,178 ha of non-remnant, must include some of the sandridge country.
The area which Mr Haydon has described as 4,855 ha of sandy forest can probably be reconciled with what the PRW report described as 1,105 ha of gidyea scrub on red sandridge and 1,755 ha of deadfinish on red sandy country. It seems clear that the area of 3,224 ha described by PRW as river and creek channels and flats includes some of the flooded downs country which had been included by Mr Haydon under the generic term "downs". There is general agreement about the area of mulga tableland country.
According to Mr Walker, PRW Agribusiness measured the area of remnant vegetation on "Gillespie" at 3,566 ha. However, that area seems to include areas of broken gidyea and boree, and the country described as gidyea scrub on red sandridge and deadfinish on red sandy country, much of which the Department had previously assessed as not developable. Although it is not possible to definitively isolate how much of the remnant area the Department would have previously regarded as developable, it must include the 497 ha of thick gidyea and at least part of the gidyea scrub on red sandridge. Mr Haydon had not isolated an area of remnant gidyea, but it is clear from the regional eco-system map that there are areas of shade lines and shade clumps. In accordance with my ruling in these cases, those areas of remnant gidyea scrub, which would have been previously assessed by the Department as developable, must be taken into account as areas no longer able to be developed.
Conclusion
While I have no doubt that Mr Walker is able to maintain the carrying capacity at better than the cattle equivalent of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha (1 sheep to 4 acres), that can be achieved only by blade and savannah ploughing, which on the evidence, exceeds district standard practice. Furthermore, it seems to be conceded that the mulga tableland country is of little value, being a harbour for dingoes and marsupials.
"Gillespie" is in close proximity to the test case "Ravensbourne". It is a little further removed from, but of similar area to the other test case "Minnie Downs". The two sales referred to in the determination of the unimproved value of "Ravensbourne" were "Eastwood", a largely developed scrub property, and "Mineeda", a property consisting largely of downs country.
The respective details of those properties are set out below:
·"Ravensbourne", 8,777 ha, determined by the Court at $200/ha, or $1,755,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 6,269 sheep at a sheep area value of $280, $1,755,000.
·"Minnie Downs", 22,177 ha, determined by the Court at $185/ha, or $4,100,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, or 14,785 sheep at a sheep area value of $277, $4,100,000.
·The sale property, "Eastwood", 10,097 ha, applied value $178/ha, or $1,800,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 7,767 sheep at a sheep area value of $232, $1,800,000.
·The sale property, "Mineeda", 13,057 ha, applied value $222.50/ha, or $2,900,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 10,044 sheep at a sheep area value of $289, $2,900,000.
Mr Haydon reasoned that "Gillespie" is inferior to "Ravensbourne" and although comparable in size to the test case "Minnie Downs", is inferior country. In his view, "Gillespie" is most aligned to the sale property "Eastwood", due to the scrub component and the resultant higher development costs. Making allowance for the differences, Mr Haydon arrived at a sheep area value of $224, which at a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, or 13,815 sheep, amounted to $3,100,000, or $140/ha.
As a check on that valuation, Mr Haydon reasoned that "Gillespie" has two distinct areas, the better quality land occupying 19,555 ha and the vastly inferior mulga tableland, with an area of 2,105 ha. In his opinion, the better quality land had a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.48 ha or 13,178 sheep. By relativity with the "Eastwood" sale, a sheep area value of $230 could be adopted which produced a valuation for the better quality area of $3,031,000.
Determination
In my view, for comparison purposes on the evidence presented in this case, I intend to adopt a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha, or 13,003 sheep. I agree with Mr Haydon that the most appropriate comparison is the sale of "Eastwood" at $232 for developed gidyea country, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha. However, "Gillespie" has a large proportion of country which required no development costs. However, in my opinion, this advantage is more than offset by the disadvantage of the mulga tableland country and the ongoing maintenance of the scrub country. Therefore, I intend to adopt a sheep area value of $220, compared with the "Eastwood" sale. That calculates to an unimproved value of $2,860,660. I will adopt $2,860,000, or approximately $129.40/ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Gillespie" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($2,860,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0