Lloyd v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 84
•11 October 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Lloyd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0084 PARTIES: Eunice C, Trevor C and Martin Lloyd
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NOS: AV2006/0017 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDINGS: An appeal against an interim valuation. DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2007 DELIVERED 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 the subject land is determined at One Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – appeal against an interim valuation – disabilities of property not taken into account – relativity of the unimproved value with the unimproved values of other properties - Valuation of Land Act 1944. APPEARANCES: Mrs A Boyd, Agent, for the appellants.
Mr W Isdale, of Counsel, Crown Law, for the respondent.
This is an appeal by landowners against an interim valuation applied to their land by the respondent under the Valuation of Land Act 1944.
Background
The appellants are owners of a grazing property known as "Lorne", situated south of Blackall. As at 1 October 2001, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $1,125,000 to that property. At the time it consisted of freehold land with an area of 15,803.784 hectares and a Permit to Occupy over Crown Land, with an area of 599 hectares, a total of 16,402.784 hectares. The owners did not object to that valuation.
Since then the Permit to Occupy has been cancelled. The respondent issued an interim valuation of $1,100,000 for the amended area of 15,803.784 hectares. The owners objected against that valuation and subsequently appealed to the Land Court, contending for an unimproved value of $870,000. The appeal was filed by the respondent's agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are general in nature, but they do refer to the alleged lack of relativity of that valuation with the respondent's unimproved values applied to other properties.
With the agreement of the parties, this matter was decided on the previously supplied written submissions, supplemented by further submissions at the hearing. No sworn evidence was received.
Through Mr Boyd, Mr Trevor Lloyd, one of the owners, presented a series of photographs taken in September 2006 depicting sandalwood and gidyea encroachment on what was previously open downs, also photographs of an infestation of needlebush (which cannot be treated), covering an area of about 300 hectares, onto the open downs country. There was also a photograph of stony ridge, which Mr Lloyd contends does not grow Mitchell grass, which the respondent had classified as downs country.
These photographs were intended to show that what the Department has been describing as "downs" is not entirely Mitchell grass downs, but includes significant areas where the carrying capacity has been adversely affected.
Mr Lloyd also presented photographs showing that there was no grass in the areas of remnant gidyea scrub. Other photographs showed areas of thick gidyea encroachment and gidyea/sandalwood regrowth in the developed scrub country, which also included some needlebush. These photographs were intended to show that there was little or no buffel grass in those developed areas. Mr Lloyd also mentioned that the scrub development had to be repulled because of the sandalwood and gidyea regrowth.
Mr Boyd made submissions concerning the relativity of the respondent's valuation of "Lorne" and the valuations applied to other properties, particularly "Lighthouse" and "Duniera", which he contended demonstrated that the valuation applied to "Lorne" was out of relativity.
On the other hand, Mr Haydon, the valuer for the respondent, referred to the relativity of the valuation of "Lorne" with that of "Ravensbourne", a property where the proportions of country, were roughly similar. In his view, that was a better comparison which showed that the valuation of "Lorne" was correct.
There was some difference of opinion concerning the classification of "Lorne", but this seemed to me to be more a matter of description than any great substance. There was also some disagreement about the relative merits and proportions of downs country on "Ravensbourne" and "Lighthouse", compared with that on "Lorne".
However, Mr Haydon conceded that the extent of sandalwood and gidyea encroachment onto the downs country, together with the needlebush infestation, the encroachment and regrowth of sandalwood and gidyea in the developed country, apparently had not been taken into account sufficiently in the respondent's valuation. In his words, "it seems that previous valuers had not seen these problems as bad as they appear to be."
I accept the contentions of Mr Lloyd that the intrusion of gidyea and sandalwood onto the downs country, together with the infestation of needlebush, for which there is no known control, must affect the carrying capacity of what has previously been described as downs country. I also accept that the encroachment and regrowth in the areas of pulled country has an impact on the buffel grass in those areas, which would also have an adverse impact on the carrying capacity of the developed scrub.
While the extent of the impact on carrying capacity can be left for another time, I am of the view that some recognition should be given to those detriments in the valuation under appeal. The present valuation equates to $69.60 per hectare. For the purposes of the interim valuation made as at 1 October 2001, I will reduce the valuation to $66.50 per hectare which, when rounded, equates to $1,050,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at One Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0