McGavin and Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 85
•7 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: McGavin and Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0085 PARTIES: Sandra A McGavin and Allan Edward Walker
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0391 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation. DELIVERED ON: 7 May 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD 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 "Gowan" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($2,347,000). 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 – sheep area values – 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
Mrs McGavin and Mr Walker are the owners of a grazing property known as "Gowan", containing an area of 18,179.784 ha, situated about 73 km south of Blackall. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $2,500,000, or $137.50/ha, to that property. The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $1,200,000.
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 was one of a number of cases 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 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.
Mr Walker's Evidence
Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr AE Walker, one of the owners of "Gowan". Mr Walker explained that in order to measure the various types of country he had hired a helicopter to traverse the property and with GPS equipment had calculated the various types of country, particularly concentrating on the areas of virgin scrub, the areas of pulled scrub and the areas which had been blade-ploughed. He and his manager had ground-proofed those areas as best they could by vehicle.
From those measurements, Mr Walker had calculated that there were 3,997 ha, or 22%, of downs country, which comprised three categories, 2,744 ha of good Mitchell grass downs, 783 ha of downs carrying feathertop and 470 ha of claypans. That contrasts with the area of 7,300 ha (40%) of downs as classified by the Department.
Mr Walker was concerned that the difference between his measurements and those of the Department would have a major impact on the overall valuation. Furthermore, not all the downs country was deep rooted Mitchell grass country; the claypans grew no grass and the carrying capacity was reduced on the feathertop infested areas.
Mr Walker's measurements indicated that there were 12,386 ha of scrub country, which he categorised as follows:
1,885 ha pulled scrub, but carrying heavy regrowth;
4,818 ha of pulled scrub with good buffel grass;
1,076 ha had been pulled, but with only light grass;
3,316 ha virgin remnant scrub, with no potential for development; and
1,291 ha blade ploughed, but with poor response.According to Mr Walker, the blade-ploughed area is poor country. Even after recent heavy rains, the results were disappointing, as the grass was only about six inches high. He could not understand why the former owner had gone to the expense of blade-ploughing that scrub as it was of little benefit.
Mr Walker was also concerned that the Department had included the claypans which grew no grass, together with the channels, which were more productive. He thought that the area of 470 ha of channels should be categorised separately.
Taking into account the large remnant area of scrub, Mr Walker's estimate of the overall carrying capacity of "Gowan" was between 1 sheep to 1.65 ha and 1 sheep to 1.7 ha.
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 "Gowan" 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.
Mr Haydon classified the property as follows:
2,300 ha of downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha;
5,000 ha of downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.5 ha;
5,500 ha of scrub, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha (5,036 ha measured as non-remnant or developed scrub, the balance being shade lines and shade clumps);
2,000 ha of open scrub, not developed, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha;
2,000 ha of channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha;
880 ha of hard ridges (in the centre of the western part), carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2.2ha; and
500 ha of remnant scrub, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 3 ha.
His assessment of carrying capacity was 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, or 11,362 sheep.
Mr Haydon was unable to reconcile his classifications with Mr Walker's measurement of the scrub area. He said that the Department had historically assessed approximately 6,000 ha of scrub on "Gowan" and that had been confirmed by the regional eco-system mapping from which he had measured the non-remnant, (or developed) scrub at 5,036 ha. On the other hand, Mr Walker had said that about 9,070 ha had been developed in the various categories.
Mr Haydon suggested that some of the areas which the Department had categorised as "shaded downs" may have been cleared. However, that does not explain why such cleared areas would not show as white (non-remnant) on the regional eco-system mapping. Mr Haydon said that if Mr Walker was correct and the area treated was approximately 9,000 ha, then the regional eco-system map was wrong. If that was correct, the effect would be that a greater area than had been assessed would still be able to be cleared, which would increase the unimproved value.
For his assessment of the area of downs country, Mr Haydon relied on the Department's historical record but also on the WARLUS land system map which showed the downs type country as brown. He suggested that there might be a difference in terminology and what the Department had classified as shaded downs had been included by Mr Walker in the area of scrub.
Mr Haydon confirmed that he had not categorised the areas of claypan separately. He did not dispute that there may be 470 ha of unproductive claypans which had been included in his 2,000 ha of channels at an overall carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2 ha.
The Issues
The major issue in this case is the categorisation of the country. There is a considerable difference between the area of scrub country measured by Mr Walker from the helicopter, and the measurements by Mr Haydon from the various mapping. There was also disagreement about the area of downs country.
It seems to me that there may well be a difference in terminology. What Mr Walker has measured as scrub may include some of the more open timbered areas, which the Department categorised as downs, albeit shaded downs. It may also arise from the intrusion of gidyea onto areas which were previously more open. With the thickening of timber, it may no longer be appropriate to categorise that country as "open or shaded downs".
However, there was simply insufficient evidence to be able to make a definitive ruling on the areas of scrub and the areas of downs. It therefore seems to be more fruitful to try to assess an appropriate carrying capacity for "Gowan", than to attempt to resolve the differing areas of country without further evidence.
In view of my ruling that the areas of remnant scrub should include shade lines and shade clumps, Mr Haydon conceded that there was a greater area of remnant scrub than he first assessed. That, together with his concession concerning the areas of claypan, led him to the conclusion that the carrying capacity of "Gowan" may well be more appropriate at Mr Walker's estimate of 1 sheep to 1.65 ha.
The question remained as to the appropriate sheep area value to be applied in the circumstances.
"Gowan" is in reasonable proximity to the test case "Ravensbourne" and also to the other test case "Minnie Downs". "Ravensbourne" is a smaller property, while "Minnie Downs" is of much the same area. The two sales referred to in the determination of the unimproved value of "Ravensbourne" are "Eastwood", a largely developed scrub property and "Mineeda", a property consisting largely of open downs.
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, or 6,269 sheep, at a sheep area value of $280/ha, $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, or 14,785 sheep, at a sheep area value of $277/ha, $4,100,000.
·The sale of "Eastwood", 10,097 ha, applied value $178/ha, or $1,800,000.
Carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 7,767 sheep, at a sheep area value of $232/ha, $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, or 10,044 sheep, at a sheep area value of $289/ha, $2,900,000.
Mr Haydon reasoned that "Gowan" is most comparable to "Eastwood", because of the development costs incurred on both properties. "Minnie Downs" has a larger proportion of downs country requiring no development costs. Having regard to the differences between the properties, Mr Haydon considered that a sheep area value of $213 was appropriate compared with the $232 per sheep area value for "Eastwood".
Determination
I accept Mr Haydon's opinion that "Eastwood" is the most appropriate comparison with "Gowan". Although "Gowan" has a smaller proportion of scrub country requiring costly development, the weight of the evidence is that it is not of the quality of the "Eastwood" scrub, nor is the balance country as productive. However, the sheep area value must be greater than the $180 determined for the similar sized property "Romulus", which has more disabilities.
Having regard to that evidence, I see no reason to alter Mr Haydon's sheep area value of $213. However, as explained above, in my view the carrying capacity should be adjusted to 1 sheep to 1.65 ha or 11,018 sheep. At a sheep area value of $213, that amounts to $2,347,000, or approximately $129/ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Gowan" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($2,347,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0