Noble v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 86
•7 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Noble v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0086
PARTIES:Ranald Cormack Noble
(appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0395
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 “Tarbarah” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000).
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 appellant
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent
This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Blackall against the unimproved value applied to his 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
Mr Noble is the owner of a grazing property known as “Tarbarah”, containing an area of 10,265.56 ha, situated about 80 km south-west of Blackall. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $1,550,000, or $150/ha, to that property. Mr Noble appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $765,000.
The appeal was lodged on his behalf by his 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 case was 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 Noble’s evidence
Because “Tarbarah” is some distance from the test case “Ravensbourne” and the other tests cases and sales, Mr Noble contends that they are not comparable. However, both “Tarbarah” and “Ravensbourne” consist basically of a mixture of downs and gidyea country. Mr Noble has measured the various areas of country from an aerial photograph, using the dot point system, which he considers to be quite accurate. He has validated that method by comparing it with measurements taken by a global positioning system.
Mr Noble’s classification of “Tarbarah” is as follows:
5,433 ha (53%) Mitchell grass downs, on approximately 1,000 ha of which the Mitchell grass has not recovered following heavy rain, growing lot of roly poly;
585 ha (5.5%) lightly shaded downs, mainly in the south-east;
1,294 ha (12.5%) of pulled scrub, with some regrowth areas;
582 ha (5.5%) gidyea encroachment onto the downs, with some encroachment also onto the shaded downs;
441 ha (4%) of virgin scrub;
162 ha (1.5%) creek channels;
982 ha (9.5%) of flooded creek channels, which flood very quickly with little warning to move sheep;
786 ha (7.5%) of claypans which grow only herbage and light grasses for a short period, but which grow nothing for most of the year.Mr Noble runs only sheep on “Tarbarah”. Although the carrying capacity fluctuates depending on the season, he estimates that an average capacity would be about 6,500 sheep, or approximately 1 sheep to 6 ha. However, he contended that the sheep area value adopted by Mr Haydon of $234 appeared to be high compared with the sheep area value of “Eastwood” at $232, because “Eastwood” was in a better rainfall area, being situated further to the east.
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 “Tarbarah” by utilising the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery. The various areas had been measured using a computer based measuring system.
Mr Haydon classified “Tarbarah” as follows:
5,500 ha (54%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha;
1,702 ha (17%) developed scrub, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha;
1,866 ha (18%) open forest, red/brown soil ridges, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha;
1,150 ha (11%) channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 2 ha;48 ha remnant scrub.
Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity of “Tarbarah” at 1 sheep to 1.55 ha, or 6,623 sheep.
Mr Haydon explained that he had measured the area of developed scrub from the regional ecosystem map by a computer measuring system, which he said had an error factor of only about 3%. If the map was accurate, he was confident that his measurement was correct. He thought that Mr Noble may have included some of the thicker regrowth in his area of virgin scrub.
Mr Haydon said the distinction was important because the area shown as non-remnant on the regional ecosystem mapping (in white), was the area which the Department recognised had previously been cleared and which (except in exceptional circumstances) could be maintained into the future. However, the remnant scrub, which he had measured at about 48 ha, but which Mr Noble had measured at 441 ha, could not be cleared because of the restrictions imposed by the vegetation management legislation.
Mr Haydon’s adopted sheep area value of $234 was derived by comparison with the test cases, “Ravensbourne”, where a sheep area value of $280 had been determined for a property with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, and the other test case, “Minnie Downs”, a larger property, with only a small percentage of gidyea country, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, where a sheep area value of $277 had been determined.
However, both those test cases are situated further to the east, in what Mr Haydon regarded as a more favourable area with a higher rainfall. He also made allowance for the extent of flooding on “Tarbarah”.
Under cross-examination, Mr Haydon acknowledged that he had included the claypan areas in the 1,150 ha of channels, but accepted Mr Noble’s evidence as to their extent and very light capacity. However, Mr Haydon considered that he had sufficiently taken the flooded area into account in the sheep area value which he had adopted.
The Issues
Although Mr Noble and Mr Haydon had classified the property somewhat differently, they were in general agreement as to the area of downs country. However, they were some hundreds of hectares apart in their assessment of the area of developed scrub and the area of virgin scrub. Mr Noble had measured an area of 582 ha where gidyea had encroached onto the downs country. Mr Haydon thought that some of that may have included areas which had at one time been cleared but which had since regrown.
There was some disagreement about the other areas. Mr Noble’s classification was more particular than that of Mr Haydon, who conceded that Mr Noble would have the better intimate knowledge of the country. However, there is little difference between them in the overall carrying capacity of the property.
Conclusion
The major differences between Mr Noble and Mr Haydon were in respect of the area of developed scrub and the area of remnant scrub. In this series of cases, the Department has relied heavily upon the regional ecosystem mapping to measure the areas of non-remnant scrub, which is shown in white on the RE maps. While it is possible that those maps are incorrect, until they are proved otherwise, they represent the areas of non-remnant scrub which had previously been cleared and which the Department considers are capable of being redeveloped by the clearing of suckers and regrowth in the future. The areas of remnant scrub can also be measured utilising that mapping.
In the circumstances, the regional ecosystem mapping has not been proved to be incorrect. Mr Haydon has offered an explanation as to why Mr Noble’s measurements differ from his own. That was unable to be resolved. However, in the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, I will accept the measurements made by Mr Haydon of the non-remnant and remnant scrub areas.
Mr Haydon readily conceded that Mr Noble would have the better knowledge of the quality of the various types of country on “Tarbarah”, particularly the areas of gidyea encroachment and claypan. I intend to adopt the carrying capacity assessed by Mr Noble at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, or 6,416 sheep.
In my view, the best comparison is the Court’s determination of the test case “Ravensbourne”, but allowance must be made for the fact that “Tarbarah” is situated some 80 km south-west of Blackall, in a lighter rainfall area. “Tarbarah” also has a greater extent of flooding than “Ravensbourne”. In the circumstances, I accept Mr Haydon’s adopted sheep area value of $234 for the subject property.
Mr Noble thought that the sheep area value was too close to that of the sale property, “Eastwood”, where the sheep area value was $232. However, “Eastwood” is a property which has approximately 80% of developed gidyea country. The sheep area value on “Eastwood” reflects the cost of developing that area. On the other hand, “Tarbarah” has a much smaller proportion of developed country.
Therefore, adopting a sheep area value of $234, which at a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, or 6,416 sheep, amounts to approximately $1,501,000. I will adopt an unimproved value of $1,500,000, or approximately $146 per ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Tarbarah” as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000).
JJTRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0