Humphreys v Valuer General
[2011] QLC 35
•14 June 2011
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Humphreys v Valuer General [2011] QLC 0035 PARTIES: Darren Bruce Humphreys
(appellant)v. Valuer General
(respondent)FILE NOS: VLA0900-08 (formerly AV2008/0900),
VLA0901-08 (formerly RV2008/0901) and
VLA0902-08 (formerly RV2008/0902)DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDINGS: Appeals against annual and rental valuations under Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Roma PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald ORDER: 1. Appeal VLA0900-08 is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of the Darkwater aggregation is determined at Four Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($437,000) as at 1 October 2007.
3. Appeal VLA0901-08 is allowed.
4. The unimproved value of Darkwater Pastoral Holding described as Lot 1 on Plan WAR 11 : PH36/4071 in the Parish of Forfar is determined at Three Hundred and Forty-Two Thousand Dollars ($342,000) as at 1 October 2007.
5. Appeal VLA0902-08 is allowed.
6. The unimproved value of Mount Clift Pastoral Holding described as Lot 3095 on Plan PH 1200 : PH 36/3095 is determined at Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000) as at 1 October 2007.
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value - grazing property - direct comparison with sales and previous Land Court determination - one sale rejected by Court.
Valuation - comparison with sale - analysis of sale accepted - whether commercial timber on sale - allowance for water availability - no further allowance for access difficulties.
Valuation - Delbessie Agreement - impact on value of subjects not proved - Valuation of Land Act 1944.
APPEARANCES: Mr DB Humphreys in person Mr J Tate of Crown Law for the respondent
This decision deals with three appeals under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) by Darren Bruce Humphreys (the appellant) against determinations by the respondent Valuer General of the unimproved value of several parcels of land as at 1 October 2007.
VLA0900-08 concerns the rating valuation of the Darkwater aggregation which is made up of two pastoral holdings, Darkwater Pastoral Holding and Mount Clift Pastoral Holding. The unimproved value of the Darkwater aggregation was issued by the respondent at $460,000. The appellant's estimate of value was $195,000.
VLA0901-08 is a valuation for rental purposes of Darkwater Pastoral Holding described as Lot 1 on Plan WAR 11 : PH36/4071 in the Parish of Forfar. The unimproved value of Darkwater Pastoral Holding was issued at $436,000. The appellant's estimate of value was $150,000.
VLA0902-08 deals with the valuation for rental purposes of Mount Clift Pastoral Holding described as Lot 3095 on Plan PH 1200 : PH36/3095. The respondent issued this value at $100,000. The appellant's estimate of value was $50,000.
The Darkwater aggregation has a total area of 28,215.8 ha. Darkwater Pastoral Holding has an area of 12,415.8 ha, and is adjoined by Mount Clift Pastoral Holding to the east. Mount Clift has an area of 15,800 ha. The properties are designated for rural uses under the Maranoa Regional Council Town Plan and are currently used for cattle grazing. Mr PD Schefe, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Environment and Resource Management, who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent, considered grazing to be the highest and best use for the properties.
Mr Schefe described all of the properties as situated about 87 kms north-west of the town of Injune and about 126 kms north of the town of Mitchell. The appellant, who also gave evidence, contested this description saying that Mount Clift lay further away from the town of Injune. Mr Schefe conceded this, but it appears that this error has no impact on the amount of the valuation.
Mr Schefe provided a detailed analysis of the break-up of the country on each of the properties in his written reports tendered at the hearing. Mr Humphreys did not contest these descriptions.
Mr Schefe valued each of the properties by direct comparison with sales and a previous Land Court determination. Using that methodology he valued the Darkwater aggregation at $16.30/ha giving a total value of $459,917. Accordingly he adopted $460,000 as the unimproved value of the Darkwater aggregation as at 1 October 2007. Mr Schefe valued the Darkwater Pastoral Holding at $29/ha or $360,058. He adopted a value of $360,000 as the unimproved value of that property as at 1 October 2007. Mr Schefe valued Mount Clift Pastoral Holding at $6.30/ha or $99,540, and adopted $100,000 as the unimproved value of that land as at 1 October 2007.
The appellant estimated the values of the subject properties by adopting the amounts of the previously issued valuations for each saying that he did not consider that the properties had increased in value since the previous valuation.
Mr Schefe relied on sales of two properties, Bullen Bullen and Forfar/Mt McLeay, and a Land Court determination of part of Hoganthulla in support of his valuations of each of the subject properties. Mr Schefe was not the valuer who originally undertook the valuation in 2007. The valuer who did so has subsequently left employment with the Department of Environment and Resource Management and Mr Schefe then assumed responsibility for the subject valuations. Mr Schefe has inspected the subject property, the sale property Bullen Bullen and the relevant part of the Hoganthulla property. He also reviewed the analysis of the previous valuer, and conducted his own analysis.
Bullen Bullen is a 13,270 ha improved freehold property which sold on 7 December 2005 for $1,000,000. The sale adjoins the northern boundary of the subjects. Mr Schefe analyzed the sale to $286,568 ($21.60/ha) and applied an unimproved value of $255,000 ($19.22/ha). Details of this sale are considered further below.
Forfar/Mt McLeay is a 30,065 ha improved property, made up of a variety of tenures including State Forest and pastoral leases. The property sold on 12 March 2007 for $2,075,000. Mr Schefe analyzed the sale to $1,043,967 ($34.72/ha) and applied an unimproved value of $600,000 ($19.96/ha).
Mr Schefe had relied on this sale in another valuation appeal, Kemp v Department of Natural Resources and Water[1]. I noted in that decision that the sale had been applied at approximately 57% of the analyzed unimproved value and concluded that the effect of the unexplained discrepancy between the applied unimproved value and the analyzed unimproved value of the sale property was that the sale was not reliable, and, therefore, that the sale should not be used in the valuation of the subject property in that case. Mr Schefe gave no additional evidence in these appeals, concerning that discrepancy and, accordingly, I consider that the sale should not be used in the valuations of the subject properties in these appeals.
[1] [2010] QLC 0049.
The Land Court determination in Kemp v Department of Natural Resources and Water[2] was also relied on by Mr Schefe to support the subject valuations. That determination concerned part of a property called Hoganthulla which, Mr Schefe said, was 24 kms from the subjects, in a straight line. The unimproved value of Part Hoganthulla was determined by the Court at $425,000 or $22.93/ha as at 1 October 2007. Mr Schefe's comparison of the subject properties with Hoganthulla led him to the conclusion that the relevant part of Hoganthulla was superior to the subjects on a dollar per hectare basis, primarily because of the nature of the land.
[2] [2010] QLC 0049.
It is well accepted that when suitable sales are available, the unimproved value of land is to be ascertained by comparison with those sales. Reference may be made to relevant Land Court determinations but comparable sales provide the best evidence of value. On the face of it, therefore, the best evidence of the unimproved value of the subject lands is the sale of the property Bullen Bullen while the Land Court determination in Kemp is also relevant.
The appellant submitted that the comparison with Bullen Bullen was inappropriate for the following reasons -
· Bullen Bullen had an increase in valuation of less than 100% between sales.
· The valuer had not considered all infrastructure and improvements put in place between the sales of Bullen Bullen.
· The valuer had given no consideration to the value of the saleable timber asset located on the property Bullen Bullen.
The evidence was that Bullen Bullen has changed hands a number of times in the last couple of decades. At some time in the early 1990s, possibly as late as 1994 or 1995, the property was sold to Hornick for approximately $640,000. Hornick sold the property to Hose on 7 December 2005 for $1,000,000, that being the sale on which Mr Schefe relied to support the subject valuations. It also appears that the property changed hands again in the second half of 2009 for, Mr Humphreys said, approximately the same amount as the 2005 sale.
Mr Humphreys' first submission, that Bullen Bullen had an increase in valuation less than 100% between sales, appears to be directed towards the fact that that property had sold in the early to mid-1990s for approximately $640,000 and then in 2005 for $1,000,000. The increase in value shown by the sale of Bullen Bullen was less than 100%. By contrast the unimproved value of the Darkwater aggregation had increased by approximately 147%, the value of the Darkwater Pastoral Holding had increased by 150% and the value of the Mount Clift Pastoral Holding by approximately 100%. Mr Humphreys submitted, therefore, that the increases applied to the subject properties were out of relativity with the increase in value of Bullen Bullen as shown by the first two sales of that property.
Moreover, Mr Humphreys believed that the difference between the price paid for Bullen Bullen by the Hornicks and the price at which they sold was roughly the equivalent of the cost of the infrastructure put in place during their period of ownership. Mr Humphreys' family had leased Bullen Bullen from the early 1990s until approximately the end of 1996. Consequently Mr Humphreys was very familiar with the property, having worked on it during that period. He was also aware that improvements of a fairly substantial character had been carried out while the property was in the hands of the Hornicks. Those improvements included connecting power, instalment of cold rooms, cementing sheds, enclosing sheds, new yards, new bores, extra bores, new boundary fences, roads and dams. Mr Humphreys and/or his father had made a number of the improvements including constructing the dams and clearing the power lines for the power connection.
While I accept that extensive improvements were made to Bullen Bullen by the Hornicks during their period of ownership, I consider that Mr Humphreys' submission that the increase in the value of Bullen Bullen between the first two sales was substantially attributable to the development of those improvements, does not directly address the type of analysis undertaken by Mr Schefe. Mr Schefe analyzed the sale by deducting the value of the improvements from the sale price. He applied conventional techniques in assessing the value of improvements on the property as at the date of the 2005 sale to reach an analyzed unimproved value. It was not the purpose of his exercise to establish the reasons for the increase in value of Bullen Bullen between the two sales of the property. While it may be true that the increase in value was caused by the improvements made to the property between the two sales, it is also the case that the value of an improved property does not necessarily increase in direct proportion to the cost of effecting the improvements. Moreover the increase in value shown by the sales does not establish the analyzed unimproved value of the sale property, nor indeed the issued unimproved value of that property.
Mr Humphreys also submitted that Mr Schefe's analysis of the sale of Bullen Bullen did not attribute sufficient value to the improvements on the land. This was caused, said Mr Humphreys, by Mr Schefe's failure to recognize the cost of the improvements and his inaccurate assessment of the extent of some improvements. Further, the number of stock included in the sale was understated. Consequently the analyzed value of the sale was overstated and this impacted on the value applied to the sale and the values applied to other properties including the subjects.
While it was evident that Mr Humphreys had a good working knowledge of the improvements on the sale property including the numbers of livestock that may have been present at the date of sale, he did not adduce evidence that satisfied me that Mr Schefe's analysis was incorrect. Parts of Mr Humphreys' submissions were unsupported by any evidence and even where Mr Humphreys did give evidence as to the extent of the improvements he was unable to give any verified evidence as to the value of those improvements as at the date of sale.
Mr Schefe's evidence was not ideal because he had not made the valuations under appeal and had inspected the subject properties some years after the date of valuation. To an extent then, he had relied on departmental records to identify the numbers of stock and the extent of structures, yards and fencing as at the date of sale. However despite these difficulties, I consider that the values attributed by him as a registered valuer to the improvements as at the date of valuation should be given more weight than the opinions expressed by Mr Humphreys. Accordingly I have accepted Mr Schefe's analysis of the sale.
Mr Humphreys' third submission was that the valuer had given no consideration to the value of the saleable timber assets located on the property Bullen Bullen. The parties were in issue as to whether there was any substantial commercial timber on Bullen Bullen as at the date of sale. Mr Humphreys' evidence was that there was significant timber on the property as at that date and that the value of that asset had not been taken into account by the respondent in comparing the sale property with the subject property. Mr Humphreys supported his evidence with photographs showing young pine, which he said would be harvestable in a few years time, and standing ironbark timber. He estimated that the ironbark forest would probably account for between 20% and 30% of the total area of Bullen Bullen and that the ironbark would yield in excessive of 5 m³/acre. He said that the royalties on hardwood were anywhere between $15 and $50 per cubic metre depending on what the timber was used for. He estimated that on a minimum of $15/m³ the royalties would calculate to about $500,000 of hardwood timber. Moreover that did not take into account the money that could be earned by cutting and hauling the timber nor did it take into account the other species that grew on the sand flats and creek flats. Some of that timber could be sold for high end furniture or floorboards which could bring about $3,000/m³ sawn.
The respondent called Mr JA Moore, a registered valuer employed by the respondent, who said that he had carried out a detailed inspection of Bullen Bullen on 22 October 2007. During a telephone interview conducted on 13 December 2007, the purchaser, Mr GJ Hose, had stated that there was no commercial timber left on the property. Mr Moore also said that he had inspected Mt McLeay and during that inspection the Hornicks who were the vendors of Bullen Bullen, were cutting timber on Mt McLeay. The Hornicks had stated that they had cut all of the commercial timber from Bullen Bullen during the period of their ownership because it was very valuable to them as owners of the sawmill in Injune. They had also used the property for running cattle, but had ultimately sold the property for two reasons, one to sort out a family partnership and the other because there were no more commercial timber reserves on Bullen Bullen.
Neither Mr Schefe nor Mr Moore were timber experts although Mr Moore did say that there was no commercial timber on Bullen Bullen at the date of his inspection. The respondent relied primarily on the telephone conversation between Mr Moore and Mr Hose, the purchaser of the property, who said there was no commercial timber, and also on the statements of the vendors of that property (the Hornicks) who had said that they had taken all the commercial timber from the sale property. Mr Humphreys said that Mr Hose had told him in 2009 that he (Mr Hose) had harvested and sold timber off the property. Neither Mr Hose or the Hornicks were called to give evidence.
Mr Humphreys explained the discrepancy between his evidence and the statements of Mr Hose and the Hornicks as to the quantity of commercial timber on the sale land by saying that the Hornicks had removed the cypress pine for use at their sawmill but that there were significant quantities of other types of commercial timber, ironbark, still on the land.
Mr Humphreys has experience in the timber industry and although not a qualified valuer, appeared to understand the nature of the timber industry and to be in a position to assess the quantity and quality of timber on the land. It appears that there were quantities of timber on the land and that the real issue is whether it was viable, commercially, to harvest the timber. The weight of the evidence was that both the vendor and the purchaser of Bullen Bullen said that there was no commercial timber on the land at the date of sale. I can only conclude that the sale price was struck on the basis that there was no commercial timber. It follows that the sale price reflects a market value for a property without timber and, as such, it provides a proper basis for comparison with the subject properties.
I would also add that it appears to me to be inherently unlikely that the vendor (who was an experienced sawmiller) would not have been aware of the valuable timber reserve if commercial timber were present in the quantities estimated by Mr Humphreys.
Mr Humphreys assessed the combined value of the improvements and commercial timber on Bullen Bullen at $1,500,000. As the sale price was $1,000,000 this estimate attributes a negative value to the unimproved land. This demonstrates that those estimates are inaccurate as the land cannot have a negative value.
The appellant also submitted that the valuation was in error for a number of other reasons.
The first of those submissions related to the increasing expenses faced by the appellant as a result of the activities of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM). Those losses were identified as -
· Loss of access;
· Increasing infrastructure repairs (input costs increased due to forestry hindrance in failing to repair fences when cut for harvesting purposes);
· Input costs increase due to DERM's hindrance in not meeting responsibility of maintaining local residential roads accessing the property as per the "Terms and conditions relating to the getting of forest products and/or quarry material 1 October 1997" has increased transport costs; and
· Increased vehicle maintenance and repairs;
· Decrease in lifestyle choices;
· Increase in costs to police DERM activity;
· Increase in freight costs.
Counsel for the respondent, Mr Tate, objected to this part of Mr Humphreys' submissions on the grounds that it was not relevant to the proceedings in issue before the Court. At the time that this and other objections were made, I ruled that the evidence could be given and that I would rule upon its relevance in the course of my decision.
The evidence given by Mr Humphreys, which was supported by photographs tendered at the hearing, was that the access road to his property has been severely damaged by large forestry timber vehicles which have caused deep ruts in the dirt roads. Trucks are often bogged on the road. Further the fencing on his property had been damaged by the forestry trucks. The state of the roads has led to extra expense for Mr Humphreys in maintaining and repairing his vehicles. There are also additional freight costs because B-Double trucks are no longer able to access his property directly because of the condition of the access road.
While I do not consider that Mr Humphreys' attribution of blame to DERM for these problems is relevant to the issues in this appeal, availability of access to the subject properties is obviously a question that may affect value. That evidence is, therefore, relevant.
Mr Schefe said, in his written report, that the subject was accessed from Mitchell via about 1 km of the Warrego Highway to the Forestvale Road, followed by about 133 km of single lane bitumen road, then about 23 km of formed earth road. The balance of about 11 km consisted of formed earth track to the property boundary. He did not consider the access to be all weather. In comparing the subject with Bullen Bullen, Mr Schefe said that the sale had superior access to that of the subject in relation to the condition of the road, but both were accessed via 'access roads' rather than main roads. He also compared the roads and access to Part Hoganthulla with those leading to the subject and concluded that Hoganthulla had slightly superior access to the subject in relation to the condition of the road.
I am satisfied that the access road to the appellant's property was seriously degraded at the date of valuation and therefore that access to the subject property was and is impeded. However the respondent suggested that other properties using the same access road would be similarly affected and to that extent, Mr Humphreys did not suffer a special problem. Mr Humphreys' evidence, which I accept, was that there was only one other regular user of the road.
However, Mr Schefe has taken the poor quality of the subjects' access into account in his overall comparison between Bullen Bullen and Part Hoganthulla and the subjects and, on that basis, I do not consider that any further allowance should be made for the inferior quality of the access to the subject.
Mr Humphreys' next submission raised a relativity issue in that he said that the general increase applied to properties in the area for this valuation was 100%, whereas the increase applied to his property was 150%. Further the valuers had been unable to provide any evidence as to why the value of one lease was increased 50% more than the district average. Mr Humphreys also submitted that restrictions imposed on further improvements to his property by the Land and Vegetation Act directly impacted on the valuation of Darkwater and resulted in loss of productivity and loss of potential income. In addition, natural thickening of remnant vegetation would impact on the value of Darkwater. DERM was actively attempting to reclaim white areas marked as Category 6 which would also impact on Darkwater.
Mr Schefe's response was that a general review of the valuations of properties in the district had been carried out for the 2007 revaluations for the purpose of taking into account the impact of the Vegetation Management Act 1999. That legislation restricted property owners, in some cases, from clearing mainly scrub country. The legislation had impacted unevenly on properties depending on whether any particular property had been cleared at the time the legislation came into effect. If a property had been cleared, it was not impacted by the legislation. Further development of uncleared properties was restricted which had a consequential impact on the unimproved value of such properties. The valuation of Darkwater Pastoral Holding was increased by 150% because the clearing had already occurred on that property, whereas Mount Clift only increased by 100%. Mr Schefe's understanding was that there had been no consistent increase in the district because of the uneven impact of the Vegetation Management Act.
I have accepted Mr Schefe's evidence in this regard and therefore do not consider that Mr Humphreys' submission concerning relativity leads to the conclusion that the valuations are in error. Further, it is clear from Mr Schefe's evidence that the respondent has endeavoured to make appropriate allowances for the impact of the Vegetation Management Act in the 2007 revaluation. There has been no specific evidence brought by the appellant to establish that these allowances were incorrect in relation to the subject properties.
The appellant also submitted that changes in the availability of water in the region had adversely affected the unimproved value of the subject land and the ability to maintain a productive income. Mr Humphreys said that Mount Clift has one bore which was slowly going dry, one reliable dam and one leaky dam. The nature of the terrain - the hills, mountains and rocks - prevented the construction of dams. Further, Darkwater had only one reliable bore, one bore that was going dry and numerous dams which had all been dry in the last 10 years. Mr Humphreys challenged Mr Schefe's statements that the water available on Bullen Bullen was comparable to the subjects. Bullen Bullen had seven bores plus numerous dams. Moreover the bores on Bullen Bullen were shallow and cheap to maintain whereas the deepest one on Darkwater was 480 feet.
I do not consider that Mr Humphreys' submissions relating to changes in the availability of water in the region generally have established an error in the valuation. Any such changes in the water supply would impact on all the properties in the district and therefore impact in a similar way on the market value of those properties.
However, I have accepted Mr Humphrey's evidence that Bullen Bullen has superior access to water as compared with the subjects. Mr Humphreys has direct knowledge of both the sale and the subjects and is therefore in a position to make an accurate comparison. I consider, therefore, that there should be an allowance made for the inferiority of the water available on the subjects. I will consider the amount of that allowance below.
The appellant also said that there had been an increase in input costs despite cattle prices going down by 20% since 2006. There was no evidence to establish whether and to what extent these issues have impacted on the value of the subject properties and therefore, I consider that this submission has not been proved.
It should be noted that the respondent objected to the last four submissions on the grounds of relevance. I have considered the submissions because, if they had been proved, it may be that there would have been an impact on the value of the subjects and to that extent they were relevant to the appeals.
The appellant also submitted that the Delbessie Agreement process had decreased the value of the pastoral leases and their future saleability, particularly Mount Clift which, he had been told, had been earmarked for conversion to a national park. Mr Humphreys said that he was unable to sell the properties due to the uncertainty of the terms of the lease. Moreover, the banks would not lend money to buy a State Forest lease and, Mr Humphreys thought, they would have the same attitude to a conservation lease. Mr Humphreys owns a property near Inglewood which is affected by the Delbessie process. He tendered some documents relating to the Inglewood property to demonstrate the type of restrictions that may be imposed on such leases where the leased land is declared to be necessary for environmental or nature conservation purposes. Mandatory conditions are imposed on the renewal of the lease. Where the land is reserved as a Future Conservation Area, further renewals of the lease are precluded.
The respondent objected to this submission on the basis that the issue was not relevant to a valuation dated 2007. Mr Tate said that what may occur in the medium or long term in relation to landholding in Queensland was irrelevant to a valuation made as at 1 October 2007 and, at best, it involved a speculative process as to what government may or may not decide.
The Delbessie Agreement is a framework of legislation, policies and guidelines supporting the environmentally sustainable, productive use of rural leasehold land for agribusiness. The Agreement was signed in December 2007 by the Queensland Government and other parties. The Agreement clarifies the duty of care of all holders of rural leasehold land (including State land leased for agriculture or grazing). Its primary focus, however, is on the sustainable management of those rural leases which have terms of 20 years or more and an area of 100 ha or more. The framework is expected to provide a number of benefits to stakeholders including clarification of what will happen if land is identified as having significant environmental values that should be conserved within the protected area estate (e.g. future national parks).[3]
[3]Website of the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Accessed 2 June 2011.
Although I accept that Mr Humphreys has justifiable concerns as to the future security of tenure of his property, there was insufficient evidence to enable me to determine whether or what impact the Delbessie Agreement may have had on the subject properties as at the date of valuation. As the Agreement was signed in December 2007, it is likely that information about its content was in the public domain as at the date of valuation. Consequently it is possible that awareness of the pending Agreement may have impacted adversely on the market for leases affected by the Agreement. These issues are relevant to the valuation but in the absence of any evidence as to their impact on the value of the subjects I am unable to say that the respondent's failure to take the Agreement into account has lead to any error in the subject valuations.
Mr Humphreys also submitted that improvements need to be considered for both leases as the sale of one was dependent on the other as there is no access to Mount Clift Pastoral Holding other than a private road through Darkwater Pastoral Holding. One lease would not be a viable proposition without the other.
Mr Schefe said that Mount Clift had been valued as an additional area to Darkwater and he considered that the valuation of $100,000 for Mount Clift was appropriate. In comparing Mount Clift Pastoral Holding with Bullen Bullen, Mr Schefe said that Bullen Bullen had far superior access to the subject as no direct formed gazetted access was available to the subject. His overall conclusion was that the sale was far superior to the subject due primarily to access and the large areas of rough country on the subject. On that basis he valued the subject at $6.30/ha compared with the unimproved value of Bullen Bullen at $19.22/ha.
Although Mount Clift is landlocked, the principle to be applied is that Mount Clift is to be valued as a separate property for the purposes of VLA0902-08. On that basis the lack of access is an issue to be taken into consideration in the valuation. The property may be attractive to an adjoining owner including the owner of Darkwater Pastoral Holding. Any other potential purchaser would, presumably, be aware that to make use of the property it would be necessary to make arrangements for access to it with any adjoining landowner. The potential cost of any such arrangements would need to be taken into account.
It is clear that Mr Schefe was aware of the lack of access to Mount Clift and that he has taken that into account in the valuation. I can see no reason to allow the appeal on this basis.
Conclusions
For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that, with the exception of the water availability issue, Mr Humphreys has not brought sufficient evidence to persuade me that the valuations are in error. There was no specific evidence as to the size of an appropriate allowance for water availability. Doing the best I can, therefore, I have decided to reduce the valuations by 5% to allow for the superior water availability on Bullen Bullen as compared with the subjects. On that basis -
· The Darkwater aggregation is to be valued at $15.50/ha or $437,344.90 to be rounded to $437,000.
· Darkwater Pastoral Holding is valued at $27.55/ha or $342,055 rounded to $342,000.
· Mount Clift Pastoral Holding is valued at $6.00/ha or $94,800 rounded to $95,000.
ORDERS
1. Appeal VLA0900-08 is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of the Darkwater aggregation is determined at Four Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($437,000) as at 1 October 2007.
3. Appeal VLA0901-08 is allowed.
4. The unimproved value of Darkwater Pastoral Holding described as Lot 1 on Plan WAR 11 : PH36/4071 in the Parish of Forfar is determined at Three Hundred and Forty-Two Thousand Dollars ($342,000) as at 1 October 2007.
5. Appeal VLA0902-08 is allowed.
6. The unimproved value of Mount Clift Pastoral Holding described as Lot 3095 on Plan PH 1200 : PH 36/3095 is determined at Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000) as at 1 October 2007.
CAC MacDonald
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0