MacDonald v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 76
•30 April 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:MacDonald v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0076
PARTIES:Nigel AF MacDonald, Lindsay MacDonald and Alan NF MacDonald
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0335
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944
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” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,360,000).
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
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
The appellants are the owners of a grazing property known as “Coolatai”, with an area of 8,706.678 ha, situated about 54 km south of Blackall. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $1,450,000, or $166.50 per ha, to that property. The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $750,000.
“Coolatai” comprises a Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease of 7,900.678 ha and a Permit to Occupy of 806 ha. Under s.14(1) of the Act the property must be valued as it if was held in fee simple.
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.
This case was tried on 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 MacDonald’s Evidence
Mr Nigel MacDonald gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. According to Mr MacDonald, although “Coolatai” adjoins the test case “Ravensbourne” on its southern boundary, it is not comparable because “Coolatai” has large areas of dangerous flooded channels, with the balance of the country being of lesser quality to that of “Ravensbourne”.
Mr MacDonald's main concern was the extent of flooding. Ravensbourne Creek severs the property from south-east to north-west, entering the eastern boundary about one-third of the distance from the southern boundary and exiting through the north-east corner. Gap Creek enters near the north-east corner and also exits at the north-west corner, merging with Ravensbourne Creek on the neighbouring property. A smaller creek, Coolibah Creek, runs from the southern boundary to merge with Ravensbourne Creek. These creeks effectively sever the property with resulting management difficulties during the wet season. Mr MacDonald gave evidence that earlier in 2008 there had been a record flood causing stock losses and damage and cutting off the southern part of the property for weeks, preventing the movement of stock.
Mr MacDonald tendered photographs showing the flooding on the property. He also tendered photographs depicting the various types of country and a map showing the various land systems. He classified the various country types as follows:
2,746 ha (34.5%) downs
858 ha (11%) scrub
2,104 ha (26.5%) red “seedy” ridges
555 ha (7%) riparian areas
1,638 ha (21%) flooded channels
He estimated the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha.Mr MacDonald’s classification did not include the 806 ha Permit to Occupy which is included in the annual valuation.
Mr MacDonald took issue with the Department’s assessment of the various types of country and carrying capacity, but flooding is the major problem, with two-thirds of the property being cut by Ravensbourne Creek and Gap Creek, creating serious management difficulties, not experienced by the test case “Ravensbourne”, or the sale property “Eastwood”. He contended that more weight should be given in the valuation to the flooding and the extent of the lighter carrying red soil country.
Mr Haydon’s Evidence
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr P Haydon, who explained that he had classified the country on “Coolatai” by utilising the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery. The various areas had been measured using a computer based measuring system.
Mr Haydon classified the property as follows:
3,532 ha (41%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha
950 ha (11%) scrub, 745 ha of which is developed, with a carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.25 ha
2,100 ha (24%) forest red/brown soil ridges, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha
2,125 ha (24%) channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 haHe assessed the overall carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.53 ha, or 5,690 sheep.
Mr Haydon said that he was aware of the flooding problem on “Coolatai” and the associated working problems. This had been taken into account in the sheep area value he applied in making the valuation. While there were some differences between his classification of the country and that of Mr MacDonald, Mr Haydon did not think they were significant enough to affect his assessment of carrying capacity.
The Permit to Occupy is at the north of the property, over what is described on one of Mr MacDonald’s maps as “Coolatai Reserve”. According to Mr Haydon, it comprises 130 ha of developed scrub, 300 ha of red/brown soil ridge and 350 ha of channels. Mr MacDonald thought there was a larger area of channels.
The Issues
In my view, Mr MacDonald may well be correct about the area of channels on the Permit to Occupy. The satellite imagery seems to show nearly half the area as channels and perhaps a smaller area of developed scrub. When those areas in the Permit to Occupy are added to Mr MacDonald’s classifications, there is not a great deal of difference between his classifications and those of Mr Haydon. Mr Haydon has a greater area of downs country, but that may well include some other country. The areas of red soil ridges are almost identical, but when the red soil country on the Permit to Occupy licence is added, Mr MacDonald’s area is greater than that of Mr Haydon. Similarly, when the small area of developed scrub on the Permit to Occupy licence is added to Mr MacDonald’s area, there is little difference between them. I accept that Mr Haydon’s measurement of non-remnant (developed) scrub from the RE mapping, is likely to be accurate.
When the area of channels on the Permit to Occupy is added to Mr MacDonald’s area of channels, plus the area of 555 ha which he has called “riparian areas”, Mr MacDonald has greater area of that type of country than Mr Haydon. However, Mr Haydon measured 745 ha as non-remnant developed scrub. That would leave an area of 205 ha of remnant scrub unable to be developed, which would seem to be at least part of what Mr MacDonald described as “riparian areas”.
In my view, therefore, there seems to be a reasonable similarity in the various classifications of country. However, Mr MacDonald did not agree with the carrying capacities applied to the various classifications by Mr Haydon. He contended that the downs had areas of poorly grassed ironstone/sandalwood and would not carry 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, nor would the gidyea scrub carry 1 sheep to 1.25 ha. In Mr MacDonald’s opinion, the developed gidyea on “Coolatai” is not as good as the developed gidyea on “Eastwood”, where the carrying capacity had been assessed at 1 sheep to 1.3 ha.
In addition, Mr MacDonald maintained that the flooded channels were not safe or suitable for sheep. He also thought that the channels may be safer for cattle, but it would be difficult to run them in those channels.
“Coolatai” joins the test case “Ravensbourne”. It is some distance removed from the other test case “Minnie Downs”. The two sale properties referred to in the determination of the unimproved value of “Ravensbourne” were “Eastwood”, a largely developed scrub property, and “Mineeda”, a property consisting largely of downs country.
The respective details of those properties are set out below:
· “Ravensbourne”, 8,777 ha, determined by the Court at $200 per ha, or $1,755,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 6,269 sheep, at a sheep area value of $280, $1,755,000.
· “Minnie Downs”, 22,177 ha, determined by the Court at $185 per ha, or $4,100,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, or 14,785 sheep, at a sheep area value of $277, $4,100,000.
· The sale property “Eastwood”, 10,097 ha, applied value $178 per ha, or $1,800,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 7,767 sheep, at a sheep area value of $232, $1,800,000.
· The sale property “Mineeda”, 13,057 ha, applied value $222.50 per ha, or $2,900,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 10,044 sheep, at a sheep are value of $289, $2,900,000.
Mr Haydon reasoned that by comparison with those properties, particularly “Ravensbourne”, a sheep area value of $255 should be adopted relative to the sheep area value of “Ravensbourne” at $280. “Ravensbourne” had been reduced by the Court to that value because the red/brown soil ridges had not been separately recognised on that property. However, the similar red/brown soil ridges on “Coolatai” had already been classified at a lighter carrying capacity.
Determination
In my view, having regard to the evidence of Mr MacDonald and the photographs and maps which he tendered, I have come to the conclusion that his assessment of carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha should be adopted. “Coolatai” suffers dangerous flooding, which severs the property making it difficult to work. Those disabilities are not suffered by “Ravensbourne”. In my view, Mr Haydon’s sheep area value should be reduced slightly. I will adopt a sheep area value of $250 for “Coolatai”. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, that equates 5,442 sheep at $250, or $1,360,000, or $156.20 per ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Coolatai” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,360,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0