Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 143

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water (Term Lease over Reserve) [2008] QLC 0143

PARTIES:Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

(appellant)

v

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)

FILE NO:RV2006/0690

DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division

PROCEEDING:  Appeal against a rental valuation

DELIVERED ON:                  16 July 2008

DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane

HEARD AT:Blackall

MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President

ORDER:The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the “Lansdowne” Term Lease over Reserve 3 for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is confirmed at Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000).

CATCHWORDS:                  Unimproved value of a term lease for rental purposes – used in conjunction with a large grazing property at Tambo – comparison with determinations of selected cases – classification of country – carrying capacity – Valuation of Land Act 1944

APPEARANCES:                  Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant

Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent

1. This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Tambo against the unimproved value applied to a Term Lease over a Reserve for rental purposes 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

1. The Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (the company) is the owner of a grazing property known as “Lansdowne”, containing a total area of 62,933.323 ha.  However, the property is an aggregation comprising a northern part, known as “Lansdowne” Head Station, situated about 16 km south of Tambo and a southern part, known as “Lower Lansdowne”, situated approximately 50 km south of Tambo.

2. The two parts of the property are separated from one another and separate valuations have been made of the whole property and the various components of it.  Appeals against those valuations have been heard and determined.[1]  The present appeal is in respect of a Term Lease over Reserve 3, comprising an area of 240 ha and situated on the channels of the Ward River, within the lower “Lansdowne” complex.  As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $20,000 to that parcel of land.  The company appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that its estimate of the unimproved value is $15,500.

   [1]Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0130; Lansdowne Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0131.

3. Evidence for the company was given by Mr CH Turnbull, the manager of “Lansdowne”.  Mr Turnbull’s main concern was the extent of the increase in the valuation from the previous valuation of $9,300, as at 1 October 2001.  According to Mr Turnbull, the narrow strip of land comprising the term lease is a flooded flat alluvial plain, that is so severely flooded that it is unsafe to run livestock for four months of the year during the wet season.  He said it has hardly every been used to run sheep and because of the flooding he has to be careful running cattle.  However, it does have a permanent waterhole in the creek.

4. Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who described the parcel as comprising:

   240 ha of Ward River channels, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.2 ha, or 109 sheep.

   Mr Haydon agreed that the subject land would have no appeal except to a neighbour, being situated 60 km from Tambo and severely flooded.  In applying a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.2 ha, Mr Haydon realised that it would only have limited use as an additional paddock to “Lower Lansdowne”.

5. Mr Haydon said that he applied no premium in the valuation because of its small size, but had arrived at the rate of $85/ha by comparison with the values applied to the rest of the “Lansdowne” aggregation.

Conclusion

1. There is no evidence of any sales of small areas of any type of country in this locality.  In my view, Mr Haydon was correct in valuing the parcel as no more than an adjunct to “Lower Lansdowne”.  Having regard to the values applied to neighbouring properties, his applied value of $85/ha does not seem unreasonable.  I can see no reason for disturbing his valuation of $20,000.

Order

The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the “Lansdowne” Term Lease over Reserve 3 for rental purposes as 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000).

JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT