Mills v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 236
•17 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Mills v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0236
PARTIES:Shane T Mills
(appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NOS:AV2006/0202 and RV2006/0203
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDINGS: Appeals against an annual valuation and a rental valuation.
DELIVERED ON: 17 June 2008
DELIVERED AT: Winton
HEARD AT:Winton
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeals are allowed, the valuations of the Chief Executive are set aside and the unimproved value of “Amelia Downs” for rating and rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Winton Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties – direct comparison with determinations of selected cases – effect of prickly acacia infestation – Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellants
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent
These are appeals by a landowner in the Shire of Winton against the unimproved value applied to his land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) as at 1 October 2005 under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).
Background
Mr ST Mills is the owner of a property known as "Amelia Downs", containing an area of 10,051.38 ha, with access by the bitumen sealed Winton to Cloncurry Road. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,000,000, or $99.49/ha, to that property for both rating and rental purposes.
At the time the property was owned by RS & RA Blacket, who appealed to the Land Court against both the rating and the rental valuations, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $370,000, in each case.
The appeal was lodged on their behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal in both cases 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.
Those appeals were filed in the Land Court registry on 12 July 2006. However, in November 2007, "Amelia Downs" was purchased by Mr Mills. Under the provisions of s.46(2) of the Act, Mr Mills has the right to carry on his name the appeals lodged by the Blacket's.
Mr Mills also retained Mr Boyd to represent him at the hearing of these appeals. As with other landowners represented by Mr Boyd, these cases were tried by fast-track hearing, whereby evidence was confined to comparisons with the determinations of the valuations of selected cases, "Bonnie Downs" and "Belmont"[1], and to the determinations of the valuations of other properties in the area.
[1]Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036 and Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0009.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Evidence was given by Mr ST Mills, who was concerned that the valuation of "Amelia Downs" at $99.49/ha, was higher than the valuations of two nearby properties, "Moreena" at $94.74/ha and "Ingle Downs" at $92.95/ha. In 2001, "Amelia Downs" had been valued at a lower rate per hectare than either of those two properties.
Mr Mills disagreed with the Department's traditional carrying capacity of "Amelia Downs" at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha. Although he had owned the property for a short time, from his conversations with the previous owner, Mr Blacket, he had formed the opinion that the carrying capacity of "Amelia Downs" in terms of cattle was 700 head of breeders. At a conversion rate of 1 beast to 7 sheep, that was 4,900 sheep, or 1 sheep to 2 ha. However, under cross-examination by Mr Isdale, Mr Mills conceded that he presently running 1,100 head of cattle, which at the same rate of conversion would be 7,700 sheep equivalent.
Mr Mills described "Amelia Downs" as comprising 7,500 ha of downs, 1,000 ha of channels and 1,551 ha of light ironstone pebbly ridge. By comparison with the "Moreena" and "Ingle Downs", he was of the view that the country on "Amelia Downs" was inferior to the country on those two properties.
Mr Mills was aware that the Department had made allowance for prickly acacia infestation in the valuations of some properties in the area. He gave evidence that "Amelia Downs" was infested with prickly acacia. He had been told by Mr Blackett that the previous owners had expended $10,000/annum on prickly acacia eradication, which was necessary because "Amelia Downs" is downstream from untreated neighbouring country.
Taking into account the ironstone ridgy country, the channels, the prickly acacia infestation and the lighter carrying capacity, when compared with the valuations applied to "Moreena" and "Ingle Downs", Mr Mills was of the opinion that "Amelia Downs" should be valued at $82.50/ha.
The Evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr DA Routh, who assessed “Amelia Downs” by reference to the Department’s historical record, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. He had subsequently inspected "Amelia Downs" and revised his valuation. He now leads evidence to a valuation of $870,000, or $86.56/ha.
Mr Routh described "Amelia Downs" as:
"… predominantly open Mitchell grass downs mostly pebbly with stony patches. Lightly shaded with coolibah along creeks and gullies, the balance is sparsely shaded with odd whitewood and vinetree. There is 750 ha on the eastern boundary which is made up of rough broken stony toprock hills. Adjacent broken stony flats are sparsely grassed and interspersed with areas of claypan."
He classified the country as comprising:
8,451.38 ha (84%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha; and
1,600 ha (16%) scalded rises and claypan, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2 ha.Although he had described the property somewhat differently, Mr Routh did not disagree with Mr Mill's general description of the country, conceding that the area of chancels described by Mr Mills was included in his classification of the downs country. Nor did he disagree with Mr Mills' assessment of the carrying capacity of 700 breeders. However, Mr Routh explained that he would apply a slightly higher conversion rate to breeders than dry cattle, with an estimate or of the order of 5,880 sheep, which well supported his carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha.
Mr Routh recognised that "Amelia Downs" was infested with prickly acacia, which he described as a "typical" infestation for the area. On his inspection of the property, he ascertained the view that the prickly acacia was largely confined to the channels. However, he was of the view that probably 5% to 6% was affected, less than the 1,000 ha estimated by Mr Mills.
Mr Routh was of the opinion that "Amelia Downs" was not nearly as badly affected by prickly acacia as "Ayrshire Downs", "Talkara" or "McKenzie", where allowances in the valuations had been made. He concluded that no allowance should be made for the prickly acacia infestation on "Amelia Downs". Nearly every downs property in the area has some prickly acacia infestation and, in his opinion, the infestation on "Amelia Downs" was typical of those properties.
Mr Routh's revised valuations of "Amelia Downs" were based on the determinations by the Court of the valuations of the selected cases, "Bonnie Downs" and "Belmont". He also had regard to the valuations for which he now contends for "Moreena" at $87.15/ha and "Ingle Downs" at $85.50/ha. He is of the opinion that his amended valuation of $86.56/ha is appropriate and that the valuation of $82.50/ha contended for by Mr Mills was too low.
The Issues
There is essentially little between Mr Mills and Mr Routh in their respective descriptions of the country and, when analysed, its carrying capacity. The real issue between them is the extent and effect of the prickly acacia infestation.
Mr Mills contended that the infestation is substantial and costly to control and warranted an allowance, which he understood had been made to the valuation of other infested properties. However, Mr Routh, who had inspected the property and other properties in the area, was of the opinion that the infestation was not as severe as on other properties where allowances had been made, including the "Ayrshire Downs" aggregation adjoining "Amelia Downs". In Mr Routh's opinion, no allowance in the valuation was warranted.
It is common ground the prickly acacia infestation on "Amelia Downs" that it is largely confined to the channels, but there is some dispute over the area affected. While Mr Mills understandably contends that an allowance should be made for the ongoing cost of treating the infestation, Mr Routh is of the opinion that the infestation does not warrant an allowance.
In the circumstances, I must accept Mr Routh's opinion. As a registered and experienced valuer, he is in the better position to assess how the prickly acacia infestation compares with those on other properties. His assessment is that compared with more heavily infested properties, no allowance should be made in the present cases.
Therefore, I propose to accept Mr Routh's revised valuation in comparison with the Court determinations which have recently been applied to nearby properties, "Moreena" at $88.42/ha, "Ingle Downs" at $86.90/ha. Mr Routh's revised valuation also seems to be in conformity with the Court determinations made to the adjoining property "Ayrshire Downs", at $84.11/ha, and to "Talkara" at $87.59/ha. I will therefore determine the unimproved value of the 10,051 ha property at $86.56/ha, which amounts to $870,000.
Order
The appeals are allowed, the valuations of the Chief Executive are set aside and the unimproved value of “Amelia Downs” for rating and rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0