Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2004] QLC 98
•18 November 2004
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0098 PARTIES: DE, JW and PG Ogg & Ors
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NOS: AV2002/0166; AV2002/0167 and AV2002/0168 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeals against Unimproved Valuations - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Winton Shire DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Winton MEMBER: Mr RE Wenck ORDERS: (1) Appeal AV2002/0166 - "McKenzie"
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 Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($225,000).
(2) Appeal AV2002/0167 - "Talkara"
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 Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000).
(3) Appeal AV2002/0168 - "Ayrshire Downs"
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 Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000).
CATCHWORDS: Statutory Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Unimproved valuation
Valuation Methodology - Factorised increase - Sales evidence - Direct comparison - Existing relativity between valuations
Disability Allowance - Prickly Acacia infestation
APPEARANCES: Mr PG Ogg and Mr JW Ogg for the appellants
Mr D Lang, Crown Law, for the respondent
Background
These three appeals were heard together, the individual blocks being held in separate ownership by members of the Ogg family, although run as a family aggregation. The appeals are against unimproved valuations as at 1 October 2001.
Appeal AV2002/0166 relates to that part of the aggregation known as "McKenzie"; AV2002/0167 to "Talkara" and AV2002/0168 to "Ayrshire Downs".
In the case of "McKenzie" and "Ayrshire Downs" the valuations first appealed against were subsequently reduced pursuant to s.68 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) and the reduced valuations became the subject of the appeals. In the case of "Talkara", evidence was led by the chief executive (the Department) to a lower figure.
The grounds of appeal in each case were:
"Relativity with other properties.
Any matter we deem relevant."No objection was taken by the Department to the unspecified nature of the second ground. Mr Peter G Ogg attended the hearing and gave oral evidence in support of a tendered written statement. Mr John Ogg assisted in the conduct of the appellants' case.
Section 45 of the Act provides as follows:
"(3) An appeal shall be initiated by filing a notice of appeal in the Land Court registry.
(4) Such notice shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such grounds shall be upon the owner."
The appellants have strong views as to what they see as excessive valuations and some of them have appeared in the Land Court previously. Should they exercise their rights in the future, they should take note that the grounds of appeal are intended to identify matters of which the respondent should be aware in order to prepare his defence. It would be unfortunate if the appellants were denied the opportunity to argue specific grounds which might be considered by themselves to be relevant if those grounds are not capable of identification through the Notice of Appeal.
Evidence for the Department was given by Mr RR Taylor, Senior Valuer employed by the
Department at Longreach, who was responsible for the valuations appealed against. Tendered through him were valuation reports for each block and a market summary report for the Longreach District Western Downs Country.
The Individual Appeal Blocks
AV2002/0166 - "McKenzie"
Registered Proprietors: David E, John W and Peter G Ogg
Real Property Description: Lot 1 on MK8, Parish of Werna
Area:13,060 ha
Location and Access: 77 km north-west of Winton via the bitumen Winton-Kynuna Road (Matilda Highway) for 55 km then the formed earth Wockingham Creek Road.
Services:Electricity and telephone available but not connected.
Nature of Country
By Mr Taylor:
560 ha Wockingham Creek channels.
Balance open Mitchell Grass downs, mostly pebbly with stony patches and areas of bare stone. Lightly shaded with coolibah along creeks and gullies, balance sparsely shaded with odd Whitewood and Vinetree.
An area of 2,622 ha is affected by Prickly Acacia infestation affecting 20% of the property. The area has been partially cleared but much of the infestation is untouched.Carrying Capacity
The historical departmental estimate of carrying capacity as adopted by Mr Taylor is one sheep to 1.8 ha. That estimate was described as representing the sustainable carrying capacity over a long term period. The appellants disagree with the Department's estimate and that aspect will be discussed later.
Valuation Appealed Against
By Mr Taylor:
13,060 ha @ $20 = $261,200 - Adopt $260,000
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 7.5% $19,500
$240,500Adopt $240,000
Appellants' Estimate of Value - Notice of Appeal - $60,000
AV2002/0167 - "Talkara"
Registered Proprietors: Peter G and Sally Ogg
Real Property Description: Lot 15 on WM32 and Lot 1 on PER7155:PO45/7155, Parish of Ayrshire
Area:11,246 ha
Location and Access: 50 km north-west of Winton via the bitumen Winton-Kynuna Road (Matilda Highway).
Services:Electricity and telephone connected. Mail run twice per week.
Nature of Country
By Mr Taylor:
400 ha of channels of Wockingham Creek
Balance open Mitchell Grass downs, with stony patches and areas of bare stone and a large ashy area throughout the north-east. Lightly shaded with coolibah along creeks and gullies, balance open to sparsely shaded.
An area of 2,030 ha is affected by Prickly Acacia infestation affecting 18% of the area of the property. The area has been mostly cleared but regrowth throughout this area is occurring annually.Carrying Capacity
By Mr Taylor:
Reassessed from the historical departmental estimate of one sheep to 1.6 ha to one sheep to 1.8 ha. The appellants also disagree with the revised estimate.
Valuation Appealed Against
$240,000 - Evidence was led by Mr Taylor to the following valuation:
11,246 ha @ $20.50 = $230,543 - Adopt $230,000
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 2.5% $5,750
$224,250Adopt $225,000
Appellants' Estimate of Value - Notice of Appeal - $60,000
AV2002/0168 - "Ayrshire Downs"
Registered Proprietors: David E, Geoffrey and John W Ogg
Real Property Description: Lot 14 on WM31 and Lot 1 on PER7169:PO45/7169, Parish of Ayrshire
Area:13,755 ha
Location and Access: 50 km north-west of Winton via the bitumen Winton-Kyununa Road (Matilda Highway).
Services:Electricity and telephone. Mail run twice per week.
Nature of Country
By Mr Taylor:
2,650 ha channels of Wockingham and associated creeks.
10,355 ha open Mitchell Grass downs, mostly pebbly with stony patches and areas of bare stone. Lightly shaded with coolibah along limited creeks and gullies, balance of downs is open to sparsely shaded. Mimosa scattered throughout. Infested with feather top throughout and black spear along the road frontage.
750 ha rough broken stony toprock hills. Timbered with lancewood. Adjacent scalded broken stony flats very sparsely grassed and interspersed with areas of claypan.
An area of 4,185 ha is affected by Prickly Acacia infestation, affecting 30% of the area of the property. The area has been mostly cleared but extensive regrowth throughout this area is occurring annually.Carrying Capacity
By Mr Taylor:
One sheep to 1.8 ha. The owners disagree with this assessment.
Valuation Appealed Against
By Mr Taylor:
13,755 ha @ $20 = $275,100 - Adopt $275,000
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 6% $16,500
$258,500Adopt $260,000
Appellant' Estimate of Value - Notice of Appeal - $60,000
Evidence of Value
Although there was limited sales evidence in Winton Shire, a number of sales had occurred in adjacent localities within Aramac and Longreach Shires. Some of those sales had been considered by the Department to be "low" and an unreliable guide to the overall strong market which had seen an unprecedented volume of sales during the three-year period relevant to the valuation (1 October 1988 through to 1 October 2001). Some other sales generally closer to the valuation date had been considered to be too "high" to be applied with confidence. The sales which had been adopted by the Department as providing basic evidence for a statutory valuation of this nature in this locality had fallen well within the overall range of value indicated by the local market. Just as the low and the high sales had been rejected, the adopted sales were considered by the Department to reflect a conservative level of value on a demonstrably rising overall market.
The mass valuation methodology adopted by the Department involves the selection of "Sub Market Areas" (SMAs) and the assessment of the market movement in those areas weighted against the previously existing valuation. Critical to the methodology is reliance on the assumption that over a long departmental valuation history reasonable relativity has been established between valuations of land within SMAs or, where applicable, between comparable country in adjacent SMAs. Where differing market trends between SMAs are identified, the previously existing relativities of valuations are adjusted. Where incorrect relativities within an SMA are identified, adjustments are made "manually".
In the case of the western downs country both within Winton Shire and adjacent shires within the Longreach valuation district, the Department took the view that a 50% increase above the previously existing valuations reflected a conservative assessment of the market trend within the valuation period. Sales which supported that increased level were applied in full. There was but one sale in Winton Shire, the sale of "Luckham", which had reflected that increase. There were others in or partially within Winton Shire which reflected, on analysis, higher increases, which had not been adopted as basic evidence for reasons, in one case, associated with the inclusion of livestock which had not been inspected by the Department's valuers at or near the date of sale, and in another case because the purchaser owned adjoining lands. Others were rejected because the massive increase as indicated was not regarded as a basis for a suitably conservative valuation. There were no sales within Winton Shire which would have supported adjustment of the previous valuations of the sale properties by less than a 50% increase.
As with all other Winton Shire appeals heard by the Court against the 1 October 2001 valuation, Mr Taylor relied on the sales of "Luckham" in Winton Shire, "Leebrook" and "Roseberry Downs" in Aramac Shire and "Tandarra" in Longreach Shire.
Brief details of those sales are as follows:
"Luckham" of 10,443.7 ha, with an estimated carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.6 ha, sold in November 2000, nearly one year prior to the date of valuation, to show an analysed unimproved value of $22.12/ha or an increase of 51.48% above the previous valuation of that property as at 1 October 1998, with an applied valuation as at 1 October 2001 of $22/ha (50% increase).
"Leebrook" of 7,727 ha, estimated carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.4 ha, sold in April 2001 to show an analysed unimproved value of $38.57/ha, an increase of 56.84% above the 1998 valuation, with an applied valuation of $36.88/ha (50% increase).
"Roseberry Downs" of 11,732 ha, estimated carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.6 ha, sold in June 2000 to show an analysed unimproved value of $32.82/ha, an increase of 52.55% above the 1998 valuation, with an applied valuation of $32.82/ha (approximately 50% increase).
"Tandarra" of 21,238 ha, estimated carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.7 ha, sold in January 2001 to show an analysed unimproved value of $27.81/ha, an increase of 53.43% above the 1998 valuation, with an applied valuation of $27.19/ha (50% increase).
Of the basic sales adopted as support for the valuations of all appeal properties within the Shire, the sale of "Luckham", while of superior country and not in the immediate locality, was considered by Mr Taylor to provide the best evidence for the valuation of the subject appeal blocks. There were greater difficulties involved in comparison of the other sale properties, each of which were significantly superior to the subject blocks, both through the nature of the country and location. However those sales supported the relativity between the 1998 valuations of the actual sale properties and the consistent trend of a 50% increase through to the relevant date in 2001.
In the cases of the "McKenzie" block and "Ayrshire Downs", Mr Taylor accepted that their 1998 valuations were in correct relativity with other valuations generally within the western downs localities and more specifically the 1998 valuations of the sale properties.
The general increase was applied accordingly then an allowance made in recognition of the Prickly Acacia infestation for which, apparently, no allowance had previously been made.
In the case of "Talkara", after his inspection and then a reinspection, Mr Taylor had formed the opinion that the nature of the country was somewhat inferior to that previously described by the Department and that its carrying capacity was more correctly equivalent to the other two blocks in the aggregation. He manually adjusted the valuation to a lower level than had resulted from the 50% increase first applied. From that reassessed basic level he then made an allowance for the Prickly Acacia infestation.
Matters in Dispute and Findings
Nature of Country
In Mr Taylor's description of the nature of the country reference was made to the downs being "mostly pebbly with stony patches and areas of bare stone". The appellants made reference to gidyea stone covering, conservatively, 20% of each block and being so dense on and below the surface (to at least 2 feet (60 cm)) that it "impedes Mitchell grass and other annuals and forbs to grow. The plants find it extremely difficult to establish a deep root system in the thin soil".
It was the appellants' evidence that gidyea stone was "a problem which was brought up with DNR on their inspection". There is nothing to suggest that Mr Taylor had not been aware of the degree to which the gidyea stone existed both on and below the surface after his inspection.
Prickly Acacia
It was the appellants' evidence, and not refuted, that the extent of the Prickly Acacia infestation on "Talkara" had not been fully recognised by Mr Taylor until a thorough reinspection had taken place. Mr P Ogg believes that even so it affects a slightly greater area than had been reassessed by Mr Taylor on that block. Mr Ogg is critical of the manner in which the allowance for this disability had been calculated. Mr Taylor had adopted a departmental policy which accepts that Prickly Acacia is a widespread problem but not one which is considered to have a negative effect on unimproved value until in excess of 10% of the area of an individual property is infested. His evidence was that once the infestation exceeded 10% of the area of the property a departmental standard had been devised, apparently based on market evidence, which provided a pro-rata allowance based on the relationship between the total area of infestation and the area of the affected property.
In the case of "Talkara" it was Mr Taylor's opinion that variation of the standard was warranted because much of the mapped infested area had been cleared and was capable of pasture production although maintenance was still required to control seedling regrowth. Mr Ogg argued that because of past infestation and the nature of the pest, a prudent purchaser would be aware that the seed bed existed and ongoing maintenance of regrowth, at significant cost, would be necessary to prevent future loss of pasture.
In relation to "McKenzie" and "Ayrshire Downs", Mr Taylor did not deny that an inspection to the same degree of thoroughness as had occurred on "Talkara", had not been possible prior to the hearing. However he said that the mapping contained within his reports had been computer-generated based on the inspection which had been possible and then consultation with Mr Ogg. Assistance had also been obtained through mapping which had been supplied to him by Mr Ogg. Mr Ogg agreed that consultation had taken place but insisted that the mapping contained in Mr Taylor's report did not reflect the advice he had given. Mr Taylor was unable to produce the mapping given to him by Mr Ogg. There were many similarities between the Prickly Acacia areas identified by Mr Taylor in his report and the areas shown on a map included in the statement tendered by Mr Ogg. However, Mr Taylor's oral evidence indicated that, despite his limited inspection, he had not fully adopted the extent of infestation, particularly on "McKenzie", as suggested to him by Mr Ogg during the consultation.
Mr Ogg was unable to provide any cogent basis upon which an allowance should be made for Prickly Acacia infestation. However, he clearly has an in-depth knowledge of the extent of infestation on the three blocks which Mr Taylor could not hope to achieve in the time permitted on a normal inspection.
While an intending purchaser would not be expected to carry out a more thorough inspection than did Mr Taylor, it seems to me that a prudent, fully informed person would take a more pessimistic view as to the existing and potential effect of the problem than did Mr Taylor. In each case I will increase the allowance made by Mr Taylor for the disability.
In the case of "McKenzie" I will increase the allowance to 10% from 7.5% as I have been persuaded that the infested area is greater than that adopted by Mr Taylor.
In the case of "Talkara", Mr Taylor's allowance of 2.5% will be increased to 3.5% to give greater recognition to the ongoing maintenance involved in controlling regrowth on that part of the infested area which has been treated.
In the case of "Ayrshire Downs" I will increase Mr Taylor's 6% allowance to 8% for two reasons. The first is to give greater recognition to the ongoing maintenance problem and also the possibility that there may be a slightly greater area of infestation than was assessed by Mr Taylor. The second reason is that in the absence of specific details of the standard adopted by the Department, insufficient recognition appears to be given to the relationship between the infested area and the area of the type of country affected. As an example, the 4185 ha of infestation on "Ayrshire Downs" comprises 30% of the area of the total property and the allowance appears to be related to that percentage. The total property includes 750 ha of rough stony lancewood hills. As the infestation is contained within the more valuable areas, the effect would increase to 32% of the area of those superior classifications. While the allowance is made against the overall valuation, it seems to me that the standard adopted by Mr Taylor may not properly identify the extent of disability on the country types actually infested.
Carrying Capacity
On the basis of his reassessment of the carrying capacity of the "Talkara" block, from one sheep to 1.6 ha to one sheep to 1.8 ha, all blocks are now considered by Mr Taylor to have a sustainable carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.8 ha, over a long-term period, higher in the better seasons and lower in the poor seasons.
The appellants believe such an assessment to be unrealistic. They say at best, in good seasons one sheep to 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) might be sustainable but as a long-term estimate one sheep to 8.5 acres (3.4 ha) would be practical and "will stop any man-made droughts and will respond to rain much better". They say that their long family experience in this locality has led them to be efficient grass managers and to treat pasture as a crop essential to their long-term livelihood.
There is a common complaint from appellants in this and other areas once predominantly used for sheep that departmental estimates of carrying capacity are too optimistic and unsustainable over the range of seasons now commonly experienced. It seems clear that the appellants are genuinely concerned to practise sustainable grass management which would not allow the level of carrying capacity estimated by the Department. It is accepted that even experienced graziers will have different opinions as to the capacity of the various classes of country. However from a statutory valuation point of view, it seems the primary use of the departmental estimates of carrying capacity, which were probably better accepted in the distant past, is for comparison and relativity purposes. It is not so much a question of whether those estimates are too high or otherwise, but whether they have been applied consistently from one property to another. In other words, if the appellants here are correct in their belief that the Department's estimates are too high at one sheep to 1.8 ha for the subject properties, then they would be expected to have a similar view as to the Department's estimate of one sheep to 1.6 ha for the "Luckham" country, as one example, but generally on all other properties in this locality.
Another point is that it appears that the appellants, realistically, are considering the deleterious effect on carrying capacity caused by the infestation of Prickly Acacia. The Department's carrying capacity estimate is based on the full potential carrying capacity of the country developed overall from its unimproved state but excluding the effect of infestation. Allowance for the infestation is made in unimproved value monetary terms, rather than in carrying capacity terms.
For the purposes of considering the question of relativity between valuations, the carrying capacities assessed by the Department through Mr Taylor will be adopted. It appears that the appellants while disputing the overall carrying potential of the land, accepted that there was some consistency between the three appeal blocks.
Level of Basic Value
It was the opinion of the appellants that the sale of "Luckham" should not have been accepted as reflecting fair market value. Although "Luckham" did not provide an economic living area, the sale price was high, in their opinion, not only because of its relatively small area but also because the purchaser was said to have been over anxious to obtain the available grass for his livestock. It was alleged that the purchaser "couldn't make it pay" because it was not big enough and then he moved on. Apart from the circumstances of the sale, in the appellants' opinion the "Luckham" country was significantly superior country to their appeal blocks.
The appellants did not accept that "like with like" comparisons could be made between their "marginal" country and the better country in the area in which "Luckham" was situated and more particularly in the localities of the remaining three sales used by Mr Taylor.
The appellants believe that there is no sales evidence to support the valuations appealed against and that the previous valuations should have been reduced rather than increased. When pressed for a cogent estimate of value Mr Peter Ogg suggested that a figure of "5 cents per acre" was more realistic. In a matter in which the family obviously took seriously such a comment was of no assistance to the appellants or to this Court.
I am satisfied that while the sales evidence in isolation is not ideal, there is sufficient overall evidence available for the Court to accept that, if the previous relativity between the 1998 valuations of the downs country was reasonable, then an increase of 50% as at 1 October 2001 was realistic in this general locality. Although there was a suggestion by the appellants that the purchaser of "Luckham" was over anxious, Mr Taylor was of the opinion that the sale price had been well supported by the market generally and the evidence was that the property had been resold after the date of valuation, but within about two years of its original purchase, for a significantly higher price. While "Luckham" is small in area, so are the three subject blocks, which are required to be valued separately whilst in differing ownership.
The Court has had the benefit of considering Mr Taylor's evidence in relation to other appeal properties and in particular, a group of properties easterly of Winton, where the "Luckham" sale was also considered the most comparable evidence of value. Part of Mr Taylor's evidence was that the Department's relativity between valuations had recognised that values for comparable downs country within Winton Shire increased gradually from west to east. On that evidence it might have been expected that unimproved values for comparable downs country would have decreased gradually with distance from east to west. These properties are westerly of, for example, the "Luckham" sale. In a hypothetical situation it would have been expected that if "Luckham" was valued at a rounded $22/ha, with an estimate carrying capacity of one sheep to 1.6 ha, country of comparable location and access to "Luckham" easterly of Winton but capable of carrying one sheep to 1.8 ha would have been valued at no more than say $19.50/ha.
All other things being equivalent it would have then been expected, with values reducing gradually to the west, that the basic valuation of "McKenzie", might have been less than $19.50/ha and probably less than $19/ha. Its access is apparently inferior to that of "Luckham", according to Mr Taylor's report, but probably marginally so in dry weather. The basic valuation of "McKenzie" before the Prickly Acacia disability allowance was, however, $20/ha.
Mr Taylor had maintained the previously existing basic relativity between "Luckham" and "McKenzie". The above analysis would place in doubt the veracity of the previously existing relativity when it resulted in a basic valuation of $20/ha rather than $19/ha or less. However Mr Taylor said in his oral evidence (Transcript p.60):
"Now I believe it is inferior to the property 'Luckham' which is probably the best piece of evidence and then it is noticeably inferior to the other three, but at the same time we have to be mindful of the existing relativity and also between the subject properties here and properties further to the north in Flinders and McKinlay Shire."
It may be assumed then that as relativity had to be maintained with valuations also to the north as well as to the east, values may be seen by the Department to increase to the north as well as to the east. The difficulty facing the Court however is that there is no evidence which confirms that the previously existing relativity is verified by sales to the north. Mr Taylor went on to say (also Transcript p.60):
"... I believe that the sale of 'Clio' would be a good piece of evidence if it had been sold at a price that included no stock whatsoever, then I would say it was a better piece of evidence than the sale of 'Luckham', but unfortunately that is not the case, so we then have to go to the next piece of evidence."
It is observed that "Clio" is located adjacent to the north-west of "McKenzie" apparently within both Winton and Richmond Shires. According to the schedule in Mr Taylor's market summary report, it contains an area of 28,946 ha and the sale including stock was analysed to show an unimproved value of $19.59/ha. However a valuation of $18.31/ha was applied (equivalent to a sheep area value of $32.96 with the departmental estimate of carrying capacity being one sheep to 1.8 ha). The sale was rejected by the Department due to uncertainty as to the true value of the livestock. The valuation of $18.31/ha is assumed to take into account the much larger area of "Clio" in comparison with the subject individual blocks.
While the question of relativity between the subject valuations and those of properties in the Shires to the north may require future reconsideration, the evidence before this Court does not support a basic value of $20/ha for the "McKenzie" block. I have decided to adopt a basic value of $19/ha before the allowance for Prickly Acacia. I have given consideration to the area difference between "Clio" and this block in adopting $19/ha.
Both "Talkara" and "Ayrshire Downs" have bitumen highway access. Mr Ogg says that highway and stock route frontage brings special problems particularly from tourist traffic and the need for the provision of fire-fighting equipment. Fires have been caused by the nature of traffic and the tourist-related users of the highway many of whom are ignorant of fire safety. He accepts that bitumen road access is an advantage over earth road access but he would prefer it to be "handy" rather than "adjacent". The problems as described by Mr Ogg in his oral evidence are accepted as real.
While I accept that adjacency to highway frontage can have disadvantages, I am not persuaded that they outweigh the advantages of bitumen road frontage, from a market value perspective. The relativity between the valuation of "McKenzie" and the valuations of the bitumen frontage blocks "Talkara" and "Ayrshire Downs", as established by Mr Taylor, reveals little, if any, premium for that superior access. If that was the case, it would conflict with Mr Taylor's evidence in other matters as to the advantages, in value terms, of bitumen road access. On the assumption that there have been other considerations which have also influenced Mr Taylor's opinion in these matters, I will not further disturb the relativity between the valuations of the three blocks. Using "McKenzie" as the benchmark, before Prickly Acacia considerations, on the reduced valuation of $19/ha, retention of Mr Taylor's relativity results in basic valuations of $19.50/ha for "Talkara" and $19/ha for "Ayrshire Downs".
Summary of Findings
The valuation of "McKenzie" will be determined as follows:
13,060 ha @ $19/ha $248,140
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 10% $24,814
$223,326Rounded to $225,000
The valuation of "Talkara" will be determined as follows:
11,246 ha @ $19.50/ha $219,297
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 3.5% $7,675
$211,622Rounded to $210,000
The valuation of "Ayrshire Downs" will be determined as follows:
13,755 ha @ $19/ha $261,345
Less allowance for Prickly Acacia 8% $20,907
$240,438Rounded to $240,000
Orders
(1)Appeal AV2002/0166 - "McKenzie"
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 Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($225,000).
(2)Appeal AV2002/0167 - "Talkara"
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 Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000).
(3)Appeal AV2002/0168 - "Ayrshire Downs"
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 Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000).
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
2
0
0