Martin v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 132
•30 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Martin v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0132
PARTIES:Andrew L Martin
(appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0258
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation
DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Blackall
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of “Toolmaree” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Two Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,200,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Tambo – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classification of country – carrying capacity – sheep area values – Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent
This is an appeal by a landowner in the then Shire of Tambo against the unimproved value applied to his 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
Mr AL Martin is the owner of a grazing property known as “Toolmaree”, containing an area of 10,243.403 ha, situated about 60 km south-east of Tambo with access by bitumen road, except for the last 17 km which is formed earth road. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $2,200,000, or $215/ha, to that property. Mr Martin appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $1,400,000.
The appeal was lodged on his behalf by his 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 was one of a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing following the determination of selected cases, “Ravensbourne” in the Shire of Blackall and “Minnie Downs” in the Shire of Tambo.[1] The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons 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 evidence for the appellant
[1] Walker & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0008.
Evidence was given by the Chairman of the Tambo Valuation Consultative Group, Mr CH Turnbull, of the concern by the owners of open downs country about the extent of the increases in the Department’s valuations of their properties compared with the valuations of other properties in the Shire. Mr Turnbull’s evidence was in respect of what can generally be described as open, treeless, Mitchell grass downs country.
Mr Turnbull was aware that the Department’s mass appraisal process was carried out by applying increases derived from the analyses of sales of properties of various types of country.
At a directions hearing it had been agreed by Mr Boyd, on behalf of the appellants and by Mr Isdale, representing the Department, that the property “Minnie Downs” would be the selected case for the Tambo Shire. “Minnie Downs” has an area of 22,177 ha and comprises approximately 70% open to lightly shaded Mitchell grass downs, approximately 20% of lightly timbered to semi-open forest ridges and slopes with scattered patches of gidyea and brigalow scrub, with the balance area being creek and river channels, flood plains and claypan areas.
The appeal against the valuation of “Minnie Downs” was heard in Blackall in 2007. After hearing evidence from the valuer for the appellant and the valuer for the Department, the Court dismissed the appeal and determined the unimproved value at the Department’s applied a valuation of $185/ha. The Court also found the carrying capacity of “Minnie Downs” to be 1 sheep to 1.5 ha.
In the present appeals, Mr Turnbull contends that there is no direct comparability between “Minnie Downs” and the open downs properties. While not resiling from their agreement to accept “Minnie Downs” as the selected case, Mr Turnbull said the appellants’ objective was to set a benchmark for the valuations in the northern part of the Shire. He asserts that the Department had already established a benchmark in the southern part of the Shire by reducing the valuation of a property known as “Barwhinnock” to reflect an increase of 100% from the previous valuation. Mr Turnbull contends that the Department had initially applied an increase of 155% to the valuation of “Barwhinnock”. However, he gave no evidence about the type of country, carrying capacity or the value applied to “Barwhinnock”.
The thrust of Mr Turnbull’s evidence is that in the 2005 valuations, the Department had increased the previous valuations by about 180% or more in the north of the Tambo Shire and about 100% in the south. In Mr Turnbull’s opinion, that is an undesirable and inequitable relationship of valuations within the Shire.
Mr Turnbull maintains that it is more appropriate to compare the open downs properties with the best property in the Tambo Shire, “Uanda”, which he maintains comprises 100% first class downs country, is in close proximity to town, has bitumen road access and an agreed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha.
Mr Turnbull also gave evidence of the increases in the valuations of other properties which he considered were out of relativity with the valuations of the properties owned by members of the group. He conceded that on a per hectare basis, “Uanda” was more valuable country than “Minnie Downs”, because of its superior carrying capacity, its situation and its access. Although at first reluctant to do so, under cross-examination Mr Turnbull ranked the relevant properties in the area in the following order:
1.“Uanda”
2.“Westbourne”
3.“Stirling Downs”
4.“Toolmaree”
5.“Minnie Downs”
However, Mr Turnbull emphasised that the ranking of each of them was as sheep properties, rather than as cattle properties. It also emerged in evidence that “Minnie Downs”, which is solely a cattle property, had the added disadvantage of wild dogs.
Mr Martin’s evidence
Mr Martin, the owner of “Toolmaree”, agreed with Mr Turnbull that “Uanda” has the best downs country in the Shire and is superior to “Toolmaree”. He also agreed that “Uanda” was a better comparison than “Minnie Downs”, which he regarded as comprising different country to “Toolmaree”, which comprised undulating open to lightly timbered Mitchell grass downs, interspersed with coolibah and red gum water courses, with patches of gidyea, brigalow and myall. Basically, it is open treeless Mitchell grass downs.
Mr Martin took issue with the Department describing an area of “Toolmaree” as channels, maintaining that there are no channels on “Toolmaree”, as it was one of the highest blocks in the district. The alluvial country shown on the various maps is, he said, not channels, but open creeks and claypans.
Mr Martin also disagreed with the Department’s assessment of carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha. He contended that the long-term average carrying capacity was more like 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, although he conceded that in good seasons the property would run more.
Under cross-examination, Mr Martin was reluctant to compare “Toolmaree” with “Minnie Downs”, preferring to compare his property with “Uanda”. However, he conceded that “Toolmaree” was a superior sheep property per hectare than “Minnie Downs” and was located closer to a bitumen road. He regarded “Uanda” as superior to “Toolmaree” which, he thought, should be valued at a lower rate per ha. He contended for an unimproved value of $191/ha.
The evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that he assessed the value of the properties in the area by reference to the Department’s historical records, together with the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. From those sources, he had classified the country on “Toolmaree” as comprising:
8,868 ha (87%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha
1,375 ha (13%) channels, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha.He assessed the carrying capacity of “Toolmaree” at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 8,195 sheep.
Mr Haydon explained that he realised that the relativities resulting from the previous valuations made as at 1 October 2001 had been of concern to the owners. He had assessed the 2005 valuations on the basis of the classifications of country on each property. In his opinion, the most appropriate comparison for the open downs properties was the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, the unimproved value of which had been determined by the Court at $185/ha. He agreed that “Minnie Downs” consisted of a variety of country, but the principal component was downs country, although better shaded than the open downs properties. However, “Minnie Downs” is a much larger property and has a lower carrying capacity.
Mr Haydon agreed that “Uanda” is one of the best properties in the area per hectare, if not the best. He also agreed that “Uanda” is superior country to “Toolmaree”. The Department’s unimproved value of “Uanda” is $239.50/ha, while the unimproved value applied to “Toolmaree” is $215/ha, which he thought was the correct relativity.
However, Mr Haydon disagreed with the rankings by Mr Turnbull and Mr Martin of the various properties in the area. He ranked “Stirling Downs” ahead of “Westbourne”, because it comprised two blocks separated by several km and on opposite sides of the Ward River. That separation caused access and working problems. Mr Haydon’s ranking of the properties was:
1.“Uanda”, applied value $239.50/ha;
2.“Stirling Downs”, applied value $223/ha;
3.“Westbourne”/“Sunny Downs”, applied value $215/ha;
4.“Toolmaree”, applied value $215/ha;
5.“Minnie Downs”, determined by the Court at $185/ha.
When cross-examined about the landowners’ contention that there is a lack of relativity between the valuations in the northern part of the Shire and those in the southern part, Mr Haydon denies that the sale of the property, “Barwhinnock”, was comparable to the subject lands. It is, he contends, not downs country, comprising red bloodwood ridges and poor scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.9 ha. However, he agrees that there was a big variation from the previous relativity, but he considers that it was justified.
The Issues
The principal issue in this case is the contention that the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, is not comparable to the open downs properties. Mr Turnbull and Mr Martin assert that it is different country. The difficulty for the appellant is that it had been agreed at an early stage in these proceedings by the representatives of the parties that the selected case for this area of the Tambo Shire was “Minnie Downs”. The Court determined the unimproved value of “Minnie Downs” at $185/ha, after a hearing where the parties were represented by counsel and detailed evidence was given by registered valuers.
Despite the differences between “Minnie Downs” and the subject lands, in my opinion, there is sufficient similarity for comparisons to be made. “Minnie Downs”, although a much larger property, comprises a mixture of country, but the majority is downs country. It is in the same vicinity, can run either sheep or cattle, but has a somewhat lighter carrying capacity.
The greatest concern of the appellants is the percentage increase in value from the previous valuations applied to various properties throughout the Shire. While that is understandable, it does not affect the integrity of the challenged valuations. That argument is based on the assumption that the previous valuations by the Department were correct and secondly, that there was a uniform increase in the market for properties throughout the area. The evidence in various cases demonstrates that neither of those assumptions are valid. From the evidence given by Mr Turnbull, it seems that the relativities of the 2001 valuations were altered considerably on objection, in some cases quite wrongly. On the other hand, there is evidence that as at 1 October 2005, there was a different market for different classes of properties. This is illustrated by the sale of “Barwhinnock”, comprising different country types, which analysed to a lower unimproved value than “Minnie Downs” and to which the Department has applied an unimproved value of $90/ha, or about 100% increase on the previous valuation.
Further evidence was given in later cases about “Barwhinnock”, which clearly established that it is different country and not comparable with the open downs country in the north of Tambo Shire. The circumstances of its valuation at approximately 100% increase on the previous valuation were also explained.[2]
[2] Lansdowne Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0130.
In the Lansdowne case, I found that comparisons of valuations based on the percentage increases from the previous valuations are not valid. Those remarks are equally applicable in this case.
In the circumstances, although perhaps not a perfect comparison, I consider that the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, is the most appropriate comparison for these open downs properties in the north of the Tambo Shire. I accept that the appellants prefer to relate the valuations of their properties to “Uanda”, which they consider to be the best property in the area. However, the evidence of Mr Haydon is that “Uanda” was valued by reference to “Minnie Downs”. The other properties in the area were also valued in the same manner.
Conclusion
Having regard to the whole of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Haydon adopted the most appropriate comparison with “Minnie Downs”. The sheep area value of “Minnie Downs” was $277 and Mr Haydon adopted a sheep area value of $270 for “Toolmaree”. Having regard to the differences between the two, that seems to me to be appropriate. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, that amounts to $216/ha. Mr Haydon has applied an unimproved value of $215/ha, for an unimproved value of $2,200,000. That also seems to be in correct relationship to the valuation applied to “Uanda”. In my view, the evidence supports his valuation and the appeal should be dismissed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of “Toolmaree” is affirmed at Two Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,200,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0