MacDonald v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 77

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:MacDonald v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0077

PARTIES:Nigel AF MacDonald, Lindsay MacDonald and Alan NF MacDonald

(appellants)

v

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

FILE NO:RV2006/0336

DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division

PROCEEDING:  An appeal against a rental 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 “Coolatai” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).

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 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 appellants are the owners of a grazing property known as “Coolatai” (Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease 3/5860), containing an area of 7,900.678 ha, situated about 55 km south of Blackall.  As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value for rental purposes of $1,350,000, or $171 per ha, to that property.  The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $630,000. 

1. The appeal was lodged on their behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd, who also lodged an appeal on behalf of the owners against the rating valuation (AV2006/0335).  The grounds of both appeals 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. 

1. These cases were 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. 

The Determination of the Rating Valuation

1. The rating valuation of “Coolatai” was made in respect of the present GHPL, plus Permit to Occupy 3/5689, containing an area of 806 ha, a total area of 8,706.678 ha.  The unimproved value in that case was determined at $1,360,000 or $156.20 per ha.

1. The various classifications, carrying capacity and comparisons were dealt with in detail in that case. 

1. In the present case, evidence for the appellants was given by Mr Nigel MacDonald, while Mr P Haydon, registered valuer, gave evidence for the respondent.  Their respective classifications of the GHPL are as follows:

Mr MacDonald’s classification

Mr Haydon’s classification

2,746 ha (34.5%) downs

858 ha (11%) scrub

2,104 ha (26.5%) red “seedy” ridges

1,638 ha (21%) flooded channels

555 ha (7%) riparian areas

Mr MacDonald assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha

3,506 ha (44%) downs
carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha

820 ha (10%) scrub, developed
carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.25 ha

1,800 ha (23%) forest red/brown soil ridges, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha

1,775 ha (22%) channels
carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha

Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.51 ha, or 5,232 sheep

1. It seems that the Permit to Occupy on the northern part of the property consists largely of flooded channels, scrub and red/brown soil ridges.  The exclusion of that area from the property seems to slightly improve the value per hectare of the remainder.  Mr Haydon valued the 7,901 ha GHPL at $171 per ha, compared with the overall 8,707 ha property at $166.50 per ha.  I determined the value of the overall property at $156.20 per ha.

1. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I will preserve that relativity and determine the unimproved value of the GHPL for rental purposes at $160 per ha.  Therefore, the unimproved value of “Coolatai” for rental purposes will be determined at 7,901 ha at $160 per ha, or (rounded) $1,260,000.

Order

The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Coolatai” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).

JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT