Lloyd v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 73

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Lloyd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0073
PARTIES:	Trevor C, Eunice C and Martin Lloyd (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NO:	AV2006/0380
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING:	An appeal against an annual valuation.
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Longreach
MEMBER:	Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:	The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Lorne”, as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Seven Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($2,710,000).
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 – disabilities – Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES:	Mr A Boyd, Agent, for the appellants. Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent.

1. This is an appeal by landowners in the Shire of Blackall against the unimproved value applied to their 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

1. The Lloyd family are the owners of a grazing property known as "Lorne", with an area of 15,803.784 ha, situated about 54 km south of Blackall.  As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $2,900,000 or $183.50/ha, to that property.  The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $1,800,000. 

2. The appeal was lodged on their behalf by their 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. 

3. 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 comparison 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 Lloyd's Evidence

1. Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr TC Lloyd, whose family have owned "Lorne" since 1963.  Mr Lloyd gave evidence in 2007 when contesting previous interim valuations of the same property, where he produced a series of photographs depicting sandalwood and gidyea encroachment and of needlebush infestation onto the downs country and of a stony ridge which does not grow Mitchell grass.  Those photographs showed that what the Department had described as Mitchell grass downs is not all heavy Mitchell grass country.  Other photographs showed the lack of grass in the remnant gidyea scrub and gidyea/sandalwood regrowth in the developed scrub country, with little or no buffel grass. 

2. Mr Lloyd requested that those photographs be referred to in this case.  While they assisted the Court to determine the unimproved value in the previous case, they were not evidence in the present case.  However, there was no issue concerning what those photographs depicted.

3. Mr Lloyd had given evidence in the previous case concerning the extensive Noogoora burr infestation along the Hope Creek channels, which sever the property from north to south.  In the present case, Mr Lloyd gave evidence that in the last wet season an area of some 900 ha was flooded up to 8 feet in depth, resulting in severe stock losses, damage to four dams and to 3½ km of fencing.  Because of the danger of flooding, combined with the Noogoora burr infestation, the owners have fenced out an area of 813 ha, which is effectively lost to sheep. 

4. Mr Lloyd contends that the disabilities suffered by "Lorne" are not suffered by the test case "Ravensbourne" and that they reduce the carrying capacity of "Lorne" to between 1 sheep to 1.5 ha and 1 sheep to 1.6 ha. 

Mr Haydon's Evidence

1. Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr P Haydon.  Mr Haydon explained that he had classified the country on "Lorne" 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.  He explained that the developed scrub areas were measured from the RE mapping where they appear in white.  He calculated the remnant areas from the same mapping, but excluded the areas of shade lines and shade clumps, which he reasoned would have been left by a prudent property owner. 

2. However, during these hearings I made a ruling that all remaining scrub areas should be included as remnant scrub.  The matter assumed importance because of the effect of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and other vegetation legislation.  In previous valuations, the Department had assessed the unimproved value of what it considered to be developable scrub, taking into account its potential carrying capacity following development, without excluding any area for shade lines and shade clumps.  However, since the restrictions on tree clearing came into effect, the remnant areas of undeveloped scrub can no longer be cleared. 

3. Therefore, for the 2005 valuations, any potential which the Department had previously assessed for those remnant areas had to be excluded from the valuations.  The remnant areas were required to be valued without any potential for development.  That had a significant impact on the carrying capacities and unimproved values of those properties with large areas of remnant scrub which had previously been assessed with potential.  It also affected the relativity of valuations of properties, one to the other. 

4. In the earlier valuations, the potential of the total areas of scrub had been assessed, without any subtraction for shade lines or shade clumps.  However, in the present valuations the Department had excluded the shade lines and shade clumps from the remnant areas.  In my view, it was inconsistent not to include those areas with the remnant scrub, which is now unable to be developed. 

5. Therefore, consistent with that finding, I propose to increase the area of remnant scrub calculated by Mr Haydon, to include the areas of shade lines and shade clumps, a further 183 ha.

6. Mr Haydon was well aware of the disabilities suffered by "Lorne" from the previous case.  He conceded that the flooding, the gidyea and sandalwood regrowth in the developed area and their encroachment, together with the needlebush infestation onto the downs country would warrant some alteration of his previous assessed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha. 

The Issues

1. There is little disagreement between the parties as to the classification of the various types of country on "Lorne".  The owners had the various areas independently measured by PRW Agribusiness, which seems to have calculated the areas from the same or similar sources to those used by Mr Haydon.  Their respective calculations are set out below:

   PRW Calculations  Mr Haydon's Calculations
   10,442 ha (64%) grassland  9,450 ha (60%) downs;

   3,885 ha (25%) non remnant (developed scrub)           4,000 ha (25%) scrub, which comprised 3,817 ha developed;

   347 ha (2.5%) channels etc  1,554 ha (10%) channels/flooded frontage country,      which would include some downs

   1,003 ha (6.5%) gidyea of concern  800 ha (5%) remnant scrub,
     to which the shade lines must be added.

2. Mr Lloyd assessed the carrying capacity at between 1 sheep to 1.5 ha and 1 sheep to 1.6 ha.  On the other hand, Mr Haydon had originally assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, but reassessed it to 1 sheep to 4 ha, taking into account the various disabilities referred to by Mr Lloyd.

3. As a result of my findings above, the inclusion of Mr Haydon's area of remnant scrub must be increased by the area of shade lines and shade clumps.  Therefore, it will approximate the PRW assessment of 1,003 ha.

4. It also seems that Mr Haydon may have over-estimated the area of flooded country.  PRW had calculated an area of 347 ha, but that appears to be simply the area of channels themselves.  Mr Lloyd's assessment is that an area of 900 ha is badly flooded.  No doubt other areas are flooded to a lesser extent.  It therefore seems that Mr Haydon's assessment of 1,554 ha of channels and flooded country may have included areas of other types of country. 

Conclusion

1. "Lorne" is situated only one property removed from the test case "Ravensbourne".  It is somewhat further removed from the other test case, "Minnie Downs".  "Ravensbourne", however, has a larger proportion of developed scrub.  Two sales were also referred in the determination of the unimproved value of "Ravensbourne".  They are "Eastwood", a largely developed scrub property, and "Mineeda", a property consisting largely of downs country.

2. 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, 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, 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, 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, 10,044 sheep at a sheep area value of $289, $2,900,000.

3. Mr Haydon reasoned that by comparison with those properties, but particularly with "Ravensbourne", a sheep area value of $247.50 should be adopted for "Lorne".  At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, that is $176.50/ha. 

4. Having regard to the situation, nature of land and carrying capacity, I agree with Mr Haydon that the most comparable property is "Ravensbourne".  However, because of the disabilities suffered by "Lorne", its sheep area must be somewhat lower than $280, but somewhat higher than the sheep area value of "Eastwood" at $232, the carrying capacity of which is achieved only by the development of a significantly greater proportion of gidyea scrub.  Mr Haydon is of the view that an appropriate sheep area value is $247.50. 

5. However, taking into account the severe flooding and the management problems suffered by "Lorne", I am of the opinion that a somewhat lower sheep area value should be applied.

6. Maintaining Mr Haydon's revised carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 11,288 sheep, but adopting a slightly lower sheep area value of $240, the result is $2,709,120.  On a per hectare basis, the result is 15,804 ha at $171.50/ha, or $2,710,386.

7. I will adopt a rounded unimproved value of $2,710,000.

Order

The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lorne", as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Seven Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($2,710,000).

JJ TRICKETT

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT