Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 159
•12 August 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0159
PARTIES:David E Ogg, John W Ogg and Geoffrey G Ogg
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:RV2006/0293
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against a rental valuation
DELIVERED ON: 12 August 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Winton
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett
ORDER:The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the “Ayrshire Downs” Permit to Occupy for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Hundred and Ninety-seven Thousand Dollars ($297,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – Permit to Occupy over stock route – grazing property in Winton Shire – relativity with valuations of adjoining parcels – increment in value for size – disabilities of the land – compulsion value – 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 in the Shire of Winton against the unimproved value applied to their 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
The Ogg family are the owners of an aggregation of three properties, “Ayrshire Downs”, “Talkara” and “McKenzie”. Separate appeals have been lodged against the valuations of each of the three properties. The valuation of “Ayrshire Downs” was determined by consent at $1,157,000, or $84.11/ha. Following the hearings of the other two appeals, the valuation of “Talkara” was determined at $985,000, or $87.59/ha,[1] while the valuation of “McKenzie” was determined at $1,050,000, or $80.40/ha.[2] The subject appeal is in respect of a Permit to Occupy comprising 3,530 ha over stock routes within “Ayrshire Downs” and between “Ayrshire Downs” and “Talkara”. The subject land is an irregular Y shape over the stock routes along the Landsborough Highway (Winton-Cloncurry Road) and the Wokingham Stock Route. It is situated approximately 50 km north-west of Winton on the bitumen sealed Winton-Cloncurry Road.
[1] Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 157.
[2] Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 158.
As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $330,000, or $93.49/ha, to that parcel of land. The owners appealed against that valuation, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value is $2,500. Their grounds of appeal are similar to the grounds of their appeals against the valuations of “Talkara” and “McKenzie” and need not be repeated here.
The Evidence
Mr PG Ogg gave evidence on behalf of the appellants, while registered valuer, Mr DA Routh, gave evidence on behalf of the Department. There was general agreement between them as to the type of country on the Permit to Occupy, which Mr Routh described as about 70% downs and approximately 30% channels, with a small area of hard stony unproductive country on the western boundary.
There was also general agreement about the disabilities suffered by the land. Apart from its awkward shape, the bitumen sealed Landsborough Highway severs the southern arm of the stock route Y, the road itself being fenced on both sides. That would cause management difficulties if that parcel was used as a separate entity. The stock route boundaries are generally not separately fenced, but incorporated into the aggregation. Mr Ogg made the point that they get limited use of the land. The Permit to Occupy is over stock routes, which must be shared with travelling stock.
Mr Routh was aware of all those difficulties. Having recently inspected the aggregation, he concluded that the valuation of the Permit to Occupy area should be reduced from $93.48/ha to $89.24/ha, which would be in correct relativity to the valuation determined by consent for the parent parcel of “Ayrshire Downs” at $84.11/ha.
Mr Routh maintained that if the subject land did not suffer from the various disabilities, it would be valued somewhat higher. He was of the view that a 3,530 ha parcel would attract a higher rate per ha than the much larger parent parcel. Mr Ogg disagreed, being of the opinion that only the adjoining owners would be interested in a parcel of land so far from town with those disabilities.
Conclusion
In my view the highest and best use of the land is as an adjunct to “Ayrshire Downs”. I agree with Mr Ogg that only the adjacent landowners would be interested in purchasing it. Mr Routh took the view that the owners would be prepared to pay a premium for the land as an adjunct to the aggregation. At worst, they would pay a premium in order to prevent another person holding the land, which ran through their aggregation.
In my view, that is not the appropriate test. In accordance with the willing buyer, willing seller test in Spencer v The Commonwealth,[3] no element of compulsion value can be considered.
[3] (1907) 5 CLR 418.
In the circumstances, I propose to apply the same rate per ha as was determined by consent for the parent parcel of “Ayrshire Downs”. Therefore, the 3,530 ha Permit to Occupy will be valued at $84.11/ha, or $297,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved valuation of the “Ayrshire Downs” Permit to Occupy for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Hundred and Ninety-seven Thousand Dollars ($297,000).
JJ TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
3
0