Hutchison v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 19
•14 February 1997
|
BRISBANE
14 FEBRUARY 1997
Re: AV96-208
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Pittsworth Shire
David I and Brett W Hutchison
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Dalby)
D E C I S I O N
As at 1 January 1996 the Department of Natural Resources, as it now is, assessed the unimproved value of land described as Lot 1 on RP 75413, Parish of Motley, containing 64.264 ha, in the amount of $37,500. This valuation resulted from a decision on objection to reduce an initial valuation of $49,000. That reduction, as will be explained, followed acceptance by the Department that flood damage had occurred in the period relevant to the valuation - ie between October 1995 up until the date of issue of the valuation in June, 1996.
The owners remained dissatisfied with that reduction. In their opinion the unimproved value at the relevant date was $30,000. That estimate is less than the previous annual valuation before gully erosion flood damage had occurred.
Mr B.W. Hutchison gave evidence. He explained that as a result of October and December floods in 1995 then a major flood in May 1996, gully systems previously external to the land had eaten into the property making useless about 10 ha of previous grassland. Use of parts of the balance area was temporarily denied due to the loss of fencing and remains affected by the temporary fencing which has been necessitated.
The Department’s valuer was Mr M.C. Farrington. He explained that as a result of the objection an inspection of the damage was carried out. He did not dispute that a significant area was seriously affected by gully erosion from the 1995/96 flood events. Mr Farrington’s report explained that:
“The whole area was originally treeless plain with finely textured black cracking clays. Ashall Creek, a broad shallow depression through this reach, severs the property south-east to north-west. The whole property is subject to frequent inundation from flooding, although approximately 15 ha in the north-eastern corner has been broken up for cultivation and is protected from serious water erosion by a levee bank constructed around its southern perimeter. The balance of the property is grassed.
Major flooding during November 1995 and May 1996 has created a network of deeply incised gullies up to 5 metres deep through north-western parts of the land. Unless stabilised, these gullies are likely to encroach further through the property and do threaten the future use of much of the land for grazing purposes.”
In the initial valuation the 15 ha of cultivation was valued at $1,500/ha, while the balance area was classified as grazing land, as I understood it, primarily because of the shallow depression effects of Ashall Creek. Mr Farrington expressed the opinion that if or when Ashall Creek through this block becomes defined by gullied banks or is stabilised by soil conservation works, the potential for the remaining area may well be for cultivation to exploit the fertile nature of the soils. The 1995/96 flood damage was contained within the grazing classification. Rather than attempt to be specific about the irregular area now affected by the deeply incised gullies, the decision was taken to reduce the valuation applied to the whole area of the grazing classification. The remaining increase above the previous valuation was attributable to the new valuation applied to the unaffected cultivation area.
Mr Farrington provided a schedule of two sales to support the valuation of $1,500/ha applied to that 15 ha of cultivation. He said that a valuation of $540/ha had been applied to the grazing component initially and that had been reduced to $300/ha to account for the loss of land and deleterious effect generally from the flood damage. He said that the grazing components in most of the agricultural farms in the locality carried relatively nominal apportionment of value in the sales analyses. Stony grazing slopes and the isolated hill features in the locality had been valued in the range of $250/ha and in his opinion the far superior soil types on the subject grazing area warranted a higher level of value even after consideration of the flood damage. Mr Farrington saw the potential for further erosion as real although the timing impossible to predict. He held the opinion that it would be unrealistic to expect the value of the land to be depreciated further as a result of further damage potential, particularly when the legislative machinery existed for review in the event of further damage.
As I understood Mr Farrington’s evidence, the potentiality for further damage and physical loss of land might well be offset by the potential for the use of at least some of the balance area for the higher and better use of cultivation.
While there is logic in the owners’ contention that loss of land should be reflected in loss of value, that would be true only if the values applied in the previous valuation had remained static as at the relevant date of valuation. No real attack was made on the evidence used to support the Department’s assessment of the arable component, and no evidence introduced by the owners to prove that the Department’s reviewed assessment of the grazing component to include the effects of erosion, was wrong or even unreasonable.
I am not persuaded that the valuation appealed against should be disturbed.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0