Medill v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 206
•13 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Medill v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 0206PARTIES: Robert W Medill
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and
Water
(respondent)FILE NOS: AV2006/0324 and RV2006/0325 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: Appeals against revenue valuations. DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2008 DELIVERED AT: Barcaldine HEARD AT: Barcaldine MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDERS:
1. In appeal AV2006/0324, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Avro" for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Five Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Dollars ($562,000). 2. In appeal RV2006/0325, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Avro" for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Five Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Dollars ($562,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Barcaldine - comparisons with determinations of valuations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classifications 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.[1] These are appeals by a landowner in the Shire of Barcaldine against the unimproved value applied to his land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) for rating and rental purposes under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).
Background
[2] Mr RW Medill is the owner of a grazing property known as "Avro", containing an area of 4,134 ha, situated about 27 km east of Ilfracombe and about 47 km west of Barcaldine, fronting the bitumen sealed Landsborough Highway. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $620,000, or $150/ha, to that property for rating purposes. “Avro” is held under grazing homestead perpetual lease tenure and the provisions of the Act require that the Department make a separate valuation of land held under leasehold tenure for rental purposes. Accordingly, the Department issued a separate valuation for rental purposes for the same amount of $620,000. Mr Medill appealed against those valuations, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value was $300,000 in each case.
[3] The appeals were lodged on Mr Medill’s behalf by his agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide-ranging but general in nature, essentially contending that the unimproved values are 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.
[4] These appeals were among a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determination of selected cases in the Shires of Aramac and Barcaldine. The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and 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
[5] Mr DR Medill, son of the owner gave evidence on his father’s behalf. Mr Medill lives on the adjoining property, “Arundel”, which is run in the conjunction with “Avro”. Mr Medill was concerned that the previous valuation of “Avro” as at 1 October 2000, was significantly below the valuations of “Tara”, “Big Tara” and “Ashgrove”. The present valuation of “Avro” was $150/ha, whereas “Tara” had been determined by the Land Court at $140/ha and “Big Tara” was determined by consent at $147/ha. “Ashgrove”, a sale relied upon by the appellant in the “Tara” case, was found by the Court to have a value of $133/ha. In Mr Medill’s opinion, the valuation of “Avro” must have a huge loading because of its bitumen road access and small size.
[6] Mr Medill contended that the relativity of the valuations of the four properties was incorrect. He described “Avro” as a very open property, with very little shade. In his opinion, “Tara” and “Big Tara” would have better shade, while “Ashgrove” was well shaded. Furthermore, “Avro” had large areas of loose country, whereas “Tara” was firmer and far better downs country. He tendered a series of photographs showing the loose downs soils in the middle of the property and its sparsely shaded nature. In his opinion, the Department had recognised the superiority of “Tara” and “Ashgrove”, as it had applied carrying capacities of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha and 1 sheep to 1.4 hectares respectively.
[7] Mr Medill gave evidence of the problems and expense of dealing with prickly acacia on “Avro”. He said that his father had spent a lot of money and effort to control prickly acacia and its regrowth. He tendered a schedule showing the control measures carried out, including the cost of chemical and diesel, of spraying contractors and of dozing. Although the prickly acacia was under control, that had been achieved at considerable expense and there is still regrowth.
[8] Mr Medill conceded that the prickly acacia on “Ashgrove” was worse than on “Avro”, but that was due to their efforts to keep it under control. He also agreed that there was a smaller proportion of downs country on “Ashgrove” than on “Avro”, but reasoned that the Department must have considered that “Ashgrove” had a better carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.4 ha.
[9] Mr Medill also maintained that what had been generally good Mitchell grass country on “Avro” had not recovered from the recent drought. After about 12 inches of rain, the Mitchell grass had not responded, the pasture being mainly Flinders grass. That had severely limited the carrying capacity of the property, which was conservatively stocked to avoid the risk of overgrazing.
The Evidence for the Department
[10] Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PD Schefe, who explained that he had assessed the unimproved value of "Avro" by reference to the Department's historical records, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery.
[11] He described “Avro” as all open downs country. The Department’s file notes describe the property as:
“Open Mitchell grass downs, brown clay soils, loose in northern and western part, firmer in the eastern and southern part. Lightly shaded with whitewood, odd boree and vinetree in southern part. Odd whitewood through middle. No shade in northern end.”
[12] According to the Department’s records, “Avro” was infested with about 650 ha of prickly acacia which had continually been treated over 30 years. The records also indicate that an interview with the owner in February 2004 had disclosed that minimal regrowth was occurring and it was considered that the problem was under control. No allowance for prickly acacia had been made in the Department’s valuation. The records showed the Department’s assessment of carrying capacity was 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, or 2,756 sheep.
[13] However, Mr Schefe reviewed the valuation of “Avro” following the determination of the test case, “Tara”, at $140/ha, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 3 ha and also the finding by the Land Court that if “Ashgrove” had been valued alone, it would have a value of $133/ha, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha. Mr Schefe reconsidered the valuation of “Avro” and proposed a revised valuation of $140/ha.
[14] Mr Schefe conceded that “Avro” had looser downs country which was inferior to the downs country on “Tara” and was less shaded. Country for country, he conceded that “Avro” is inferior to “Tara”.
[15] On the other hand, Mr Schefe maintained that “Ashgrove” is inferior to “Avro”, because of the area of remnant scrub on “Ashgrove”, which now cannot be cleared under the Vegetation Management legislation. Although the prickly acacia infestation on “Avro” was largely under control, there was still a significant area of about 750 ha of prickly acacia on “Ashgrove”.
[16] Mr Schefe reasoned that because the Court had determined a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha on “Tara” and 1 sheep to 1.4 ha on “Ashgrove”, the carrying capacity of “Avro” would be somewhere between those two properties. He proposed a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, despite the fact that the Department’s records show a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha.
[17] Although his proposed valuation of $140/ha is the same as that determined for “Tara”, Mr Schefe concedes that “Tara” is better quality country. However, he thought it was appropriate because the Court had determined that if it was not for the inferior access and the water disabilities of “Tara”, its valuation would have been determined at $146/ha. In his opinion, those valuations would be in correct relativity, having regard to the bitumen road access of “Avro”. The parties had agreed that water can be accessed at shallower depths on the northern side of the railway line (where “Avro” is situated), is shallower than on the southern side of the railway line (where “Tara” is situated).
| Conclusion | ||||
| [18] | In my opinion, the parameters in this case are clear cut. “Tara” was determined at $140/ha, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha. If it had not been for the deeper water and the inferior access, “Tara” would have been determined at $146/ha. | |||
| [19] | The “Ashgrove” sale was held to have a valuation of $133/ha, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha. No allowance had been made for the prickly acacia infestation, except to the extent that it affected the carrying capacity. No determination of the valuation of “Ashgrove” was made as a separate entity, because it had been amalgamated with the adjoining property. | |||
| [20] | The evidence in this case indicates that the country on “Avro” is inferior to the country on “Tara”. On a relativity basis, Mr Schefe has recommended that the valuation of “Avro” be reduced to the same rate of $140/hr as “Tara” taking into account its bitumen road frontage and shallower water. Mr Medill concedes that the country on “Ashgrove” is inferior to that on “Avro”, taking into account the prickly acacia infestation on “Ashgrove”. However, if the prickly acacia was excluded, he was not so sure that it was an inferior property. | |||
| [21] | On the evidence, taking into account the area of heavily timbered country on “Ashgrove” which cannot be cleared, I am of the view that “Avro” should have a slightly higher value per hectare than “Ashgrove”. The prickly acacia control measures on “Avro” have been largely successful, whereas whatever measures have been taken on “Ashgrove”, there remains an area of infestation. | |||
| [22] | The Department’s historical carrying capacity of “Avro” is 1 sheep to 1.5 ha. When compared to the carrying capacities of “Tara” and “Ashgrove”, that carrying capacity does seem to be somewhat conservative. Mr Schefe has recommended a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha. However, as the Department has not undertaken an inspection of all properties in the area, I am reluctant to make a determination of the carrying capacity. | |||
| [23] | Instead, I prefer to compare the properties on a per hectare basis. Having regard to the determinations of “Tara” and “Ashgrove”, I have come to the conclusion that “Avro” should be valued at a rate per ha between them. I will adopt $136/ha, or $562,000. | |||
| Orders: | ||||
|
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0