McKeering v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2004] QLC 99
•18 November 2004
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: McKeering v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0099 PARTIES: Kathleen B and Phillip B McKeering
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2002/0405 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: An Appeal against an Unimproved Valuation- Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Shire of Aramac DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Longreach MEMBER: Mr RE Wenck ORDER: The appeal is allowed. The valuation made by the chief executive is set aside and the unimproved value as at 1 October 2001 determined in the amount of One Hundred and Sixty-seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($167,500). CATCHWORDS: Statutory Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Unimproved valuation
Land Classifications - Land system mapping - Desert Uplands land resource data base
Sales Evidence - Analyses by other valuers - Location considerations - Rainfall - Beast Area Values
Relativity - Mass valuation methodology - Inappropriate if based on incorrect valuations
Disability Allowances - Departmental policy - Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia - Heartleaf poison
APPEARANCES: Mr PR Whip, Valuer, PRW Agribusiness, for the appellants
Mr D Lang, Crown Law, for the respondentBackground
Mr and Mrs McKeering are the registered proprietors of the cattle grazing property known as "Stirling" in Aramac Shire. The property is situated about 58 km north-east of Barcaldine and about 38 km south-east of Aramac.
As at 1 October 2001 the chief executive ("the Department") made an unimproved valuation of the property which the owners believed to be excessive. They exercised their rights of objection but being dissatisfied with the Department's decision on the objection filed an appeal with this Court.
The valuation appealed against was the responsibility of Mr Robert R Taylor, Senior Valuer with the Department in Longreach. He gave oral evidence in support of the valuation.
Mr Peter R Whip, registered valuer in private practice, appeared on behalf of the appellants, conducted their case and gave oral evidence in support of the appellants' estimate of value. Oral evidence was also given by Mrs McKeering.
Property Particulars
Real Property Description: Lot 4 on CNA56, GHFL2/3772, Parish of Highlands
Area:19,676 ha
Valuation Appealed Against: $200,000
Owners' Estimate of Value: $128,000
Location and Access:
Mr Taylor described the access as being via the Coreena Road over about 40 km of earth formed surface and 18 km (16.86 km according to Mrs McKeering) of bitumen surface to Barcaldine or via the earth formed Politic Road to Aramac. In Mr Taylor's opinion Barcaldine as the major centre was the influencing factor in the description of the location of the property.
It was both Mrs McKeering's and Mr Whip's opinion that "Stirling" should be regarded as an Aramac property, that township being the local centre. Mrs McKeering's evidence was that access to the property was unavailable from either Aramac or Barcaldine for periods totalling up to three weeks in a normal season, the longest delays being caused by flooding of Aramac Creek over a low-level causeway.
Nature of Land:
By Mr Taylor:
"2,380 ha (12%) developable gidgee scrub
6,000 ha (31%) box, leopardwood, bauhinia
11,296 ha (57%) desert country with spinifex, including 1,770 ha hard jump-up areas. Includes 2,040 ha fenced out, heartleaf affected. Some heartleaf in SE area."By Mr Whip:
"Approximately 3,300 ha (17%) of gidgee scrub and associated country (RD2 on attached land system mapping). Areas of Prickly Acacia.
Approximately 3,282 ha (17%) of better box country (RD1 on attached land system mapping).
Approximately 214 ha (1%) of brown soil downs type country (RD4 and AR1 on attached land system mapping). Areas of Prickly Acacia.
Approximately 4,622 ha (24%) of mixed bloodwood, gum and lighter box (AB on attached land system mapping).
Approximately 1,540 ha (8%) of harder mixed ironbark country with bendee, lancewood, poplar box and gum (CO on attached land system mapping).
Approximately 6,520 ha (33%) of yellowjack Spinifex country, some applejack with scattered heartleaf poison with areas of red sandy yellowjack country with thicker heartleaf poison (DT and GT on attached land system mapping).In his classification of country types, Mr Whip had utilised information generated from the "Desert Uplands Resource Data Base". The land system/unit mapping attached to his report was produced by the Queensland Government's Environment Protection Agency "Desert Uplands Strategic Land Resource Assessment Project Team (2002)". It was Mr Whip's evidence that he had "been involved heavily with the Desert Uplands community strategy over the past seven years". It had been his experience that the relevant land system mapping was extremely accurate. Mrs McKeering concurred with the accuracy of the mapping and generally with the result of Mr Whip's interpretation of the land system classifications.
The Department had not utilised this mapping system which had not been available at the relevant date of valuation. Mr Taylor's classifications were based on historical records and his own personal inspection of the property. Mrs McKeering vouched for the thoroughness of Mr Taylor's inspection.
It is not possible to match with any precision the broad description of country provided by Mr Taylor and the detailed system mapping. It was submitted by Mr Lang for the respondent that Mr Taylor's classification could be adopted with confidence as the system mapping did not become available until after the date of valuation and because inconsistencies in relativities could result if different classification methodology was adopted for individual properties. Be that as it may, the actual land systems are the one constant and in this matter the description of the country on "Stirling" and the relevant sale properties, as contained in Mr Whip's report, are accepted as being both consistent and accurate.
Nevertheless, in comparing the broad classifications by Mr Taylor and the precise classifications by Mr Whip, Mr Taylor's descriptions have clearly not overestimated the overall quality of the subject property.
The primary use which Mr Whip has made of the precise land system mapping was to assist in overall carrying capacity comparisons between the subject property and the sale properties. This is seen as a helpful comparison tool for valuation purposes, if adopted consistently. However, in the end result, it is the overall carrying capacity relative to the mix of country which is the important criterion, in relation to individual properties.
Carrying Capacity Estimates
By Mr Taylor:
About 940 beasts (one beast to 21 ha).
By Mr Whip:
Natural: One adult equivalent to 25 ha
Present: One adult equivalent to 21 ha
Potential:One adult equivalent to 21 ha (937AE)
In other appeals heard by the Court at the same sittings, in relation to cattle grazing properties, it had been Mr Taylor's evidence that the Department's estimates in the Longreach district were based on a mixed herd basis (see Keough and Wirth v DNR & M), with, where relevant, a conversion rate of one beast to 7 sheep. In this matter Mr Taylor mentioned the adopted conversion rate from sheep to cattle in his oral evidence regarding the sale property "Glenavon". Mr Whip took no issue with that evidence. There was no dispute of any significance with regard to the estimates of the carrying capacity for either "Glenavon" or "Stirling". However, even when there appears to be agreement on approximate total herd numbers, it would follow that if departmental estimates are made on the mixed herd, rather than adult equivalent basis, a more conservative estimate would result.
Evidence of Value
Mr Taylor's valuation was stated to have been made "by comparison with sales evidence, in particular with the sales on the attached schedule." Brief details of those sales and the analyses relied on by him are as follows:
"North Delta" - Barcaldine Shire - 31,258 ha - sold 25 February 2000 for $2,000,000, analysed unimproved value of $641,125 ($20.51/ha) - applied valuation 1/10/2001 - $580,000 ($18.56/ha) - estimated carrying capacity one beast to 16 ha - applied unimproved beast area value (BAV) $296.88 - described as "superior to the subject in location, superior in country type and carrying capacity. Larger property but superior overall."
"Ightham" - Jericho Shire (adjoining Aramac Shire) - 18,945 ha - sold 8 March 2001 for $900,000 - analysed unimproved value $265,288 ($14/ha) - applied valuation $260,000 ($13.72/ha) - estimated carrying capacity one beast to 18.8 ha - applied BAV $258.01 - described as "superior to the subject in location, superior in country type and carrying capacity. Superior overall."
"Alice River" - Jericho Shire (adjoining Aramac Shire) - 18,946 ha - sold 20 January 2001 for $1,315,000 - analysed unimproved value $173,223 ($9.14/ha) - applied valuation $165,000 ($8.71/ha) - estimated carrying capacity one beast to 24.2 ha - applied BAV $210.76 - described as "inferior to the subject in location, inferior in country type and carrying capacity. Inferior overall."
"Glenavon" - Aramac Shire - 8,968.6 ha - sold 28 June 2000 for $350,000 - analysed unimproved value $83,000 ($9.25/ha) - applied valuation $77,500 ($8.64/ha) - estimated carrying capacity one beast to 17.5 ha - applied BAV $151.22 - described as "inferior to the subject in location, superior in country type. Smaller property, much inferior location, inferior overall. Note: The existing valuation of this property appears low when compared to the other three listed above. It will require review during the next revaluation. Sales 1, 2 and 3 are located much closer to the subject than Sale 4 and are therefore considered more comparable."
Mr Taylor tendered a "Market Summary Report" which described the methodology now adopted by the Department for the production of regular mass valuations. Broadly, the methodology involves the investigation and identification of market movement, if any, in selected Sub Market Areas (SMAs), in the period since the previous valuation then the application of the identified movement in "blanket" percentage or "factorised" terms to the previous valuations within each SMA. Critical to the methodology is the assumption that, after a long history of revaluations, relativity between valuations of individual properties within SMAs is correct. There had been unprecedented market activity within the Department's Longreach valuation district, in the relevant period. While much higher increases had been identified and applied in other SMAs, the applied increase in the "Desert Uplands" had been 25%.
In the market summary report, under the subheading "Desert Country with Patches of Gidyea Scrub - Eastern part of Aramac and Barcaldine Shires" were the following comments:
"Demand for desert country throughout the revaluation period has not been as strong as that for the better quality scrub, and the downs country. Therefore, sales generally indicated that a lower set of values (and increases in valuation over the 1/10/1998 figures) were warranted.
In this area, six sales of mostly desert country were analysed. These are the sales of 'Lochnagar', "Ramona', 'Glenavon', 'Alice River', 'Ightham' and 'North Delta'. However the sales of 'Lochnagar' and 'Ramona' were not relied on as they indicated increases of 149% (factor 2.49) and 374% (factor 4.73), so the other four sales have been used. These four sales indicated that an increase in the existing values of around 25% should be applied throughout the desert country. This increase was generally applied, with some variations for large quantities of good quality scrub, and for areas of Mitchell Grass country (if any).
Increases indicated by the various sales are as follows:
'Glenavon' 34%
'Ightham' 38%
'Alice River' 46%'North Delta' 86% - located south of Barcaldine, includes quality scrub.
Beast area values analysed to the following:
'Glenavon' $161.98 carrying capacity 1 beast:17.5ha
'Ightham' $263.18 carrying capacity 1 beast:19 ha
'Alice River' $221.22 carrying capacity 1 beast:24 ha'North Delta' $328.17 carrying capacity 1 beast:16 ha
These beast area values indicate that the sale of 'Glenavon' analyses to a considerably lower rate per ha and beast area value than the other three. This is because 'Glenavon' is in a considerably inferior location to the other properties and because subsequent information has shown that the unimproved value applied to 'Glenavon' and a number of its neighbours is low compared to those applied further south, and will need to be reviewed in the next revaluation."
The valuation appealed against in the rounded amount of $200,000 was based on a pro-rata rate of $10.20/ha ($214.20 BAV) being a 25% increase above the previous valuation. Mr Taylor had noted the areas on "Stirling" affected by Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia. The total area affected was estimated to represent less than 10% (about 6%) of the total area of the property and no allowance had been made for reasons which will be discussed later.
Mr Whip's valuation of "Stirling" in the amount of $128,000 equated $6.51/ha (BAV $137.14). That had been the Department's valuation as at 1996 when the valuation of "Glenavon" had been $78,000. It is clear that it was Mr Whip's opinion that relativity between the valuations of "Stirling" and "Glenavon" had been reasonable back in 1996. However, as at 1 October 1998, the Department's valuation of "Glenavon" had become $62,000, a reduction of 21% while the valuation of "Stirling" had increased by 25% to $160,000. The valuations of both then increased by about the same percentage to $78,000, according to Mr Whip, ("Glenavon") and $200,000 ("Stirling") as at 1 October 2001. "Stirling" had been valued at about 25% less per ha than "Glenavon" in 1996. As a result of the mass valuation methodology adopted by the Department and the adjustment made to the 1998 valuation of "Glenavon", "Stirling" was now valued at about 17% greater on a per ha basis.
In his valuation report, Mr Whip described the property market relevant to the valuation period in these terms:
"The matter before the court has a date of valuation of 1 October 2001. Prior to, during and following this period the rural property market in the area experienced a relatively strong market in prices paid particularly for cattle properties. This largely influenced by the increasing buoyancy of the cattle market from late 1999 to early 2000. The cattle market showed dramatic increases in the latter part of 2000 and throughout 2001. Relevant comparable sales which occurred in the area over this period are listed on the attached schedule."
The sales to which Mr Whip made reference were of "Glenavon", "Ightham" and "Alice River". Mr Whip placed no reliance on the sale of "North Delta". He drew attention to the superiority of that property overall as described by Mr Taylor and the fact that not only had the sale indicated an analysed increase of 85.83% over the 1998 valuation, the Department had applied an increase of about 68% in comparison with the 25% in the Desert Uplands.
"Glenavon"
While there were some differences between the valuers in the assessment of the added value of various improvements, particularly fencing and water, the unimproved value analyses of the sale of "Glenavon" were similar (Mr Taylor $82,740 and Mr Whip $85,000). Their estimates of carrying capacity potential in terms of numbers were fairly close with Mr Taylor adopting one beast to 17.5 ha and Mr Whip, on a detailed land system break-up, one beast to 18 ha (rounded from 17.9 ha). Mr Taylor had described "Glenavon's" location as "much inferior" to that of "Stirling". Both Mr Whip and Mrs McKeering disagreed, arguing that although "Glenavon" was about 16 km further from Aramac, it did not have the wet weather creek flooding disability suffered by "Stirling". They did not accept that, although Barcaldine was much closer to "Stirling" than "Glenavon", its larger population or its associated infrastructure provided "Stirling" with any significant locational advantage. Mr Taylor was adamant that although community services were available in Aramac, proximity to the larger town of Barcaldine was a significant positive factor in terms of market demand.
While the "Glenavon" sale had formed an important part of the basis for the Department's 2001 valuation of lands in its SMA, Mr Taylor, in hindsight, resiled from that position. He accepted that the sale had been genuine, at arm's length and the purchaser was an experienced local. The sale, on his analysis, had been interpreted initially as supporting the application of a 25% increase above the previously existing valuation as at 1 October 1998. However, that 1998 valuation had resulted from a departmental decision which reduced the amount to less than that which had existed in 1996. Having become aware of the history of the Department's valuations of "Glenavon", Mr Taylor had reached the conclusion that the 1998 valuation was too low. Had the reduction which affected the 1998 valuation not been made by the Department, the June 2000 sale would have shown little, if any increase. That was inconsistent, in Mr Taylor's opinion, with the other market evidence on which he had relied. He concluded that rather than the June 2000 sale being a reliable guide to the market trend, it was either a "low" sale, or his analysis of the sale required review. He also concluded that, if the 1998 valuation of "Glenavon" was incorrect, the application of a factorised general increase had resulted in the 2001 valuation also being incorrect. Nevertheless he had decided not to correct the valuation and, as I understood his evidence, other "incorrect" valuations in the vicinity of "Glenavon", until the next revaluation. To support his revised opinion about the "Glenavon" sale showing a "low" land content, he believed that in the sale analysis the improvements may have been valued at in excess of their "added value" when the infrastructure on the relatively small property was sufficient to support a much larger property. While there may be some logic in that suggestion, it has to be considered also in light of the argument that a small property is generally expected to sell at a higher price per ha than a larger property of otherwise comparable country.
It is clear that if the sale of "Glenavon" was in fact out of line with the market evidence generally, then Mr Taylor's remaining sales would need to provide the evidentiary support for his valuation.
"North Delta"
The evidence was that the market value of "North Delta", which contains a relatively large area of desert country, is influenced by a component of good quality scrub country. The property is located in a nearby but different SMA which the Department had itself identified as commanding a much higher level of value overall as at the relevant date. Furthermore, the relativity between the valuations in the SMA of the subject property and that of "North Delta" had been identified by the Department as having altered significantly in the period leading up to the date of valuation (eg a 25% increase in the subject locality as opposed to 69% for "North Delta").
I am persuaded by Mr Whip's observations that the sale of "North Delta", either in isolation or in light of the other market evidence available, would not provide a reliable guide to the market value of "Stirling".
"Ightham"
As was the case with "Glenavon", there were differences of some significance between the valuations of some of the components of this sale property but insignificant difference in the analyses of unimproved value. The Department's analysis equated to $14/ha and Mr Whip's $14.25/ha. Mr Whip had relied on the Desert Uplands mapping system for his classification of the land systems, which is difficult to match with any confidence, with the broader classification descriptions used by the Department. Mr Taylor had inspected "Ightham" but had not been responsible for the sale analysis. From his inspection he was comfortable in accepting the classification of country adopted by others.
While there is agreement between the parties as to "Ightham" being superior to "Stirling", the degree of superiority is in dispute. That dispute extends to the difference by the valuers in the estimated carrying capacity from a rounded one beast to 19 ha (mixed herd basis) by the Department, to a rounded one beast to 16 ha (adult equivalent) by Mr Whip. For the purpose of the exercise to be considered by the Court, I will adopt the basis of comparison suggested by Mr Whip based on his experience with the accuracy of the land system mapping together with his personal inspection of "Ightham" and the analysis of its sale.
"Alice River"
Again Mr Taylor had not conducted the analysis of this sale. He had inspected the property and had been comfortable in accepting the analysis and classification of country adopted by others. Had there been no challenge to the departmental analysis or detailed classification of the country involved, then no problem would have arisen. However the filing and serving of experts' reports now required under the Land Court Rules 2000 is expected to identify areas in dispute between the experts. The Department's analysis and classification of country were significantly different to those of Mr Whip who had made relevant inquiries, inspected the property and analysed the sale. Those responsible for the departmental analysis were not called to support their opinions. The evidence of Mr Whip as to his analysis of the sale and classification of the land systems was persuasive and will be accepted. Mr Whip's analysis resulted in the sale showing a higher unimproved value ($275,000 or $14.51/ha) than reflected in the departmental analysis ($173,223 or $9.14/ha). The other significant difference was in the estimates of carrying capacity, Mr Whip finding the potential of "Alice River" to be a rounded one beast to 17 ha, on the methodology adopted, and the Department a rounded one beast to 24 ha. An unimproved BAV of $246.75 resulted from Mr Whip's analysis compared to $219.36 from the Department's analysis.
The significance of the carrying capacity dispute, as opposed to the analysed BAVs, is the proper comparison between "Alice River" and "Stirling". The Department through Mr Taylor said that "Alice River" is "inferior in country type and carrying capacity" with an estimate of one beast to 24 ha for "Alice River" and one beast to 21 ha for "Stirling". Mr Whip's opinion was that "Alice River" was superior with a carrying capacity of one beast to 17 ha compared to one beast to 21 ha for "Stirling". Mrs McKeering was adamant that, assisted by its better rainfall, "Alice River" had superior country and productive potential in comparison with "Stirling".
There is a difference of opinion as to whether the location of "Alice River" is inferior to that of "Stirling", as suggested by Mr Taylor.
Mr Whip was of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the sale of "Alice River" influenced a price higher than open market value. The purchaser had lost grazing rights on another property which had been sold. "Alice River" had been capable of meeting his immediate grazing needs and at the same time was producing significant agistment income from another source. Mr Whip believed those factors provided an inducement to the purchaser which was reflected in the sale price.
Another point of difference between "Alice River" and indeed properties easterly of the Aramac Shire/Jericho Shire boundary and "Stirling", was the opinion of both Mrs McKeering and Mr Whip that although there is no significant distance between "Alice River" and "Stirling", there is a significant difference in recorded annual rainfall (20.5 inches for "Alice River" and 17.9 inches for "Stirling"). Apart from the natural phenomena of rainfall decreasing from east to west they believe the local topography could be the reason for the difference between the two properties with the break in country occurring on the intervening "Springton", the watershed between west and east in this immediate locality. Mrs McKeering has specific experience with the country in both the Jericho and Aramac localities and is adamant that the superior rainfall east of "Springton" is a well recognised local feature as is the superior potential of the otherwise fairly similar country types. Mr Taylor had not expected that the rainfall difference between "Alice River" and "Springton" would have been as much as the 2.6 inches (65 mm) suggested by Mrs McKeering. Mrs McKeering's evidence was that the actual rainfall recordings had been made over the last two decades.
Through Mr Taylor was tendered an "Average Annual Rainfall Map - Based on standard 30 year period (1931-1969)". Isohyets on the map were for values in whole inches and indicated decreasing rainfall from east to west. The meandering 20 inch isohyet for that period was plotted to the west of both "Stirling" and "Alice River" and to the east of the township of Aramac. Although Mrs McKeering said that "Ightham" and "North Delta" enjoyed superior rainfall to "Stirling", and "Glenavon" a similar rainfall, each of those three properties are located to the west of the 20 inch isohyet. It would appear on Mrs McKeering's evidence and local experience that rainfall patterns may have altered from those indicated in the 30-year period to 1960. That seems to be a general belief in these western localities. Mr Taylor conceded that while the Department used the 1931-1960 rainfall map for reference purposes, actual rainfall measurements kept by individual property owners could not be ignored.
Mr Whip's evidence was that the average rainfall at Aramac for the past 95 years was 462 mm and at Jericho for the past 72 years 510 mm, generally consistent with the map tendered by Mr Taylor.
Findings - Evidence of Value
I have rejected the sale of "North Delta" for the reasons given. I will adopt, for comparison purposes, Mr Whip's assessment of carrying capacities, again for the reasons given. It follows that, despite Mr Taylor's opinion to the contrary, "Alice River" will be accepted as having overall superior quality country to "Stirling" and "Ightham" as having greater superiority to "Stirling" than is indicated by the Department's comparison of carrying capacities. In terms of carrying capacity potential there was no dispute that "Glenavon" is superior to "Stirling". On Mr Whip's assessment "Glenavon" is inferior to both "Ightham" and "Alice River".
However the significantly lower BAVs indicated by the analyses of the sale of "Glenavon" requires explanation before that sale could be adopted, in my opinion, as reliable evidence of value at the date of valuation in this matter. In comparison with "Ightham" and "Alice River", the degree of inferiority in carrying capacity is not accepted as a cogent reason for the extent of the disparity in BAV. Inferior location would no doubt be a reason for part of the disparity despite the appellants' argument that "Glenavon" does not suffer any disadvantage in comparison with "Stirling" or "Alice River". "Ightham" clearly has superior location and access in comparison with "Alice River" and "Glenavon". That tends to support Mr Whip's opinion that the sale price of "Alice River", showing an analysed BAV higher than "Ightham", and for slightly inferior country overall, might have been higher than market expectations at that time. The three factors of inferior country, location and access, are not accepted as accounting for the full disparity between the analysed unimproved BAV of, in particular, "Glenavon" and "Ightham". The sale of "Glenavon" took place about 10 months prior to that of "Ightham" in a period when the market was strong. That time lag alone would be expected to account for some of the disparity.
I have concluded that, on the basis of a reasoned comparison with "Ightham", either the sale of "Glenavon" is low or the analyses of the unimproved value shown by the sale may require review, as suggested by Mr Taylor. I am not persuaded therefore that a comparison with the valuation applied to "Glenavon" by the Department or the analysed unimproved value shown by its sale form an appropriate basis for the valuation of "Stirling" as at 1 October 2001.
Of the sales considered by both valuers, the sale of "Ightham" appears to me to provide the most reliable evidence of value for this statutory valuation purpose although some difficulties exist in the direct comparison process with "Stirling". Before considering the question of the Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia infestation, I have concluded that in this particular case, consideration of beast area values provides some assistance. "Ightham" is in Jericho Shire, but there was no real dispute as to the correctness of the valuation applied by the Department to "Ightham" at the same relevant date. On Mr Whip's assessment of carrying capacity potential, that applied value equates a BAV of about $220. Bearing in mind the inferior carrying capacity potential and access of "Stirling", in comparison with "Ightham", a BAV of $213.36 as derived from the Department's actual valuation of $10.16/ha for "Stirling", is excessive. However applied BAVs based on Mr Whip's estimates of carrying capacities, of $148.05 for "Alice River" in Jericho Shire and $156.55 for "Glenavon" are considered demonstrably too low, regardless of the "Glenavon" sale, just as is the BAV of $136.61 suggested by Mr Whip for "Stirling".
Before consideration of the effect of the Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia infestations, but with consideration to its Aramac Creek access disability, I have concluded that an unimproved valuation of $9/ha (BAV of about $190) would be reasonable for "Stirling", on my analysis of the evidence.
Prickly Acacia, Parkinsonia and Heartleaf
There is no dispute between the parties that an area of about 1,200 ha of "Stirling" is affected by Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia infestation. Areas within the desert type country are affected by Heartleaf. The evidence suggests that "Stirling" is the only property in its immediate locality which suffers disability from Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia. Mrs McKeering's evidence was that $45,000 has been spent on controlling Prickly Acacia in the past five years and she estimates, from experience gained on another property which the appellants own, that up to $100,000 will be spent on "Stirling" before Prickly Acacia control will be restricted to annual maintenance.
Heartleaf is a relatively common problem in areas of the desert country. Owners tend to risk grazing the affected country in "the real dry" but even then there can be severe stock losses. However as Heartleaf is recognised as a relatively common problem the level of overall value applied to that type of country takes its existence into account.
Mr Taylor had followed departmental policy in making no specific allowance on "Stirling" for the Prickly Acacia disability because the infestation does not exceed 10% of the total area of the property. He conceded that he is not entirely comfortable with that policy which he believes could be reviewed in light of recent and more stringent local government regulatory requirements. He is of the opinion that the disability can be a greater problem on some country types than, for example on open downs, where some shade benefit tends to partially offset the major disadvantages.
This question was discussed in other appeals relative to properties in the Winton district where it seems to me that the extent of disability in the type of country infested is more relevant than considerations related to the total area of the property. For example, the 1,200 ha of infestation on "Stirling" exists in the 8,380 ha of either developable gidyea country or the box, leopardwood bauhinia country as classified by Mr Taylor. The infested area represents about 14% of those classifications which comprise the better quality country.
Conclusion and Finding
The fair unimproved value of "Stirling" as at the relevant date is determined at $9/ha overall, before consideration of the Prickly Acacia and Parkinsonia infestation on about 1,200 ha of the better country types. I have further concluded that, in the absence of valuation evidence as to the value of the land actually affected by the infestation, or the degree of worsement on that specific area, an allowance of $10,000 or about 50 cents/ha if related to the total area of the property, represents reasonable recognition of the disability which existed at the relevant date.
The valuation will be determined therefore on the basis of $8.50/ha overall amounting to a rounded total of $167,500.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The valuation made by the chief executive is set aside and the unimproved value as at 1 October 2001 determined in the amount of One Hundred and Sixty-seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($167,500).
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0