Mitchell v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 114
•15 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Mitchell v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0114
PARTIES:Ian J Mitchell and Pauline J Mitchell
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0156
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation
DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2008
DELIVERED AT: Blackall
HEARD AT:Barcaldine
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Scotstoun” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Seventy-one Thousand Dollars ($871,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Aramac Shire – classification of country – carrying capacity – sheep area values – comparison with determinations of valuations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases - 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 against the unimproved value applied to their land situated in the Shire of Aramac 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 and Mrs Mitchell are the owners of a grazing property known as “Scotstoun”, containing an area of 7,470.208 ha, situated about 30 km west of Aramac on the bitumen sealed Aramac-Muttaburra Road. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $950,000, or $127/ha, to that property. The owners appealed against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $425,000.
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 appeal was one of 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 to the sales relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard.
The evidence
Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr TN Elliott, their son-in-law, who is the owner of the selected case, “Glenample”, which is separated from “Scotstoun” by the Aramac-Muttaburra Road. In Mr Elliott’s opinion, “Scotstoun” comprises:
· 75% downs country, consisting of two type, the front country (nearest the road) is firmer down, while the back country (towards the north) is more ashy, growing a large proportion of Flinders grass;
· 20% pulled country, ranging from thick gidyea scrub to more open boree forest which has been pulled twice, in 1985 and again in 2000, growing buffel grass and Mitchell grass, but with numerous sandalwood suckers which Mr Elliott considers will have to be re-pulled;
· 5% gidyea scrub shade lines and riparian areas which the owner had been instructed not to pull.
Mr Elliott did not express a view as to carrying capacity. However, I inferred that he agreed with the carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha applied by the valuer for the Department in 2001, which was mentioned in the determination by the Land Court of the unimproved value of “Scotstoun” in 2004.[1]
[1] Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0100 at [162] to [174].
The evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PD Schefe, who assessed the valuation of “Scotstoun” using the Department’s historical records, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. He described “Scotstoun” as comprising:
5,270.208 ha (71%) downs (1-1.4 ha) and
2,200 ha (29%) developed scrub (1-1.4 ha)
According to Mr Schefe, the Department’s records describe the downs country as open well grassed brown soil downs timbered with scattered whitewood, vinetree, boree and mimosa, and including about 200 ha of flood plain. The developed area was described as originally thick gidyea and boree on heavy brown clay soil. Mr Schefe estimated the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 5,335 sheep.
In defending the Department’s valuation of $127/ha, Mr Schefe referred to the selected case “Glenample”, which has an area of 16,406 ha and which comprises a mixture of downs and developed gidyea country. Following a hearing of that case, the Court determined an unimproved value of $112/ha.
However, Mr Schefe placed most reliance on the sale property, “Brendallan”, which has an area of 7,351 ha, to which the Department had applied $126.50/ha and a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.41 ha, or 5,213 sheep.
“Brendallan” has only 12% of developed scrub country, compared with 29% developed scrub on “Scotstoun”. However, according to Mr Schefe, not all of the developed country on “Scotstoun” was thick gidyea. He contends that the regional ecosystem mapping indicates that much of the area would have been only moderately timbered gidyea and boree country.
The issues
There seems to be little argument about the area and quality of the downs country. However, there was some contention about the quality of the pulled country. It seems clear from the evidence that some of the pulled country includes more moderately timbered gidyea and boree country which may well have been more open than the thick gidyea scrub. The most recent regional ecosystem mapping shows that area to have been pulled. The 5% remnant area referred to by Mr Elliott, seems to consist of a small area of thick scrub indicated on the RE mapping, but mostly riparian areas, comprising Coolibah, leopard wood and boree country, as well as claypan areas.
Mr Schefe made comparisons with the selected case, “Glenample”, determined by the Land Court at $112/ha, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha and a sheep area value of $168. However, he considered that “Scotstoun” was most aligned with the sale property, “Brendallan”, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.41 ha and a sheep area value of $178, to which $126.50/ha had been applied.
While there are different proportions of downs and developed country on “Glenample” and “Scotstoun”, “Glenample” is over twice the size of “Scotstoun” and the evidence is that the developed country is more heavily suckered and not as well grassed. On the other hand, “Brendallan” is similar is size to “Scotstoun”, but situated adjacent to Aramac and has a smaller proportion of developed scrub. However, it seems that not all the developed country on “Scotstoun” was originally heavy gidyea scrub.
Conclusion
Taking all the evidence into consideration, the sheep area value of “Scotstoun” must be higher than $168 for “Glenample”, but less than the sheep area value of “Brendallan” at $178. In my view a sheep area value of $175 would be appropriate.
Mr Schefe adopted a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, but that seems to be in conflict with the carrying capacity assessed by the previous valuer who gave evidence in the Land Court in 2004. For the purposes of this case I propose to adopt a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, which for the 7,070 ha property amounts to 4,980 sheep. At a sheep area value of $175 that amounts, when rounded to an unimproved value of $871,000, or $116.50/ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Scotstoun” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Seventy-one Thousand Dollars ($871,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0