Rich v Chief Executive, Department of Lands; Richardson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1995] QLC 154
•30 November 1995
|
BRISBANE
30 November 1995
Appeals against Annual Valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Shire of Blackall.
Harvey Fred Rich
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV93-522)Daphne May Rich
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV93-523)
Barry R and Helen M Rich
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV93-528)
Barry R and Helen M Rich
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV93-529)
Clement Robert Richardson
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV93-254)
(Hearing at Blackall)
D E C I S I O N
These are five appeals against annual valuations made by the respondent as at 31 March 1992. Although they were not all heard together, they are in respect of valuations of land in the north-east of Blackall Shire and which comprise areas of desert and gidyea country. The issues which arise are similar and it is therefore convenient to deal with them together.
Much of the background to these matters was provided by Mr Fred Rich of "Tilbury", who was then Mayor of the Blackall Shire Council and who had been Chairman of that Shire for many years. Mr Rich and his family were pioneers in the development of gidyea and desert country from the 1950s.
Evidence was also given by Mr Barry Rich of "Boorara" and by Mr Clem Richardson of "Allandale". Evidence for the respondent was given by Mr Gordon Kelsey, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Kelsey also acted as advocate for the respondent.
Background
Blackall Shire basically comprises three broad categories of land, downs, gidyea and sandy eucalypt forest, known as desert. However, few properties contain one class of country only, usually comprising various proportions of downs and gidyea or desert and gidyea. At the time of the relevant valuation as at 31 March 1992, the total valuation for all rateable properties in the Shire was reduced by 36.62%. Only 23 properties, including the subject properties, received no reduction at all.
Those 23 properties were valued at rates per hectare ranging from $1.53 to $10.67. The five subject properties were valued as follows:
Unimproved Value
"Tilbury" 9,278 ha $ 99,000 $10.67 per ha
"Boorara" 5,944 ha $ 53,000 $ 9.00 per ha
"Allandale"
aggregation 27,018 ha $ 148,000 $ 5.50 per ha
"Milroy" 3,423 ha $ 30,000 $ 8.76 per ha
"Devon" & "Castleroi" 12,786 ha $ 83,000 $ 6.49 per ha
Apart from the lands in the Town of Blackall, which Mr Rich said were reduced by about 10%, it seems that the downs and gidyea properties received reductions of 40%, while the desert properties and the mixed desert and gidyea properties were left unchanged.
Mr Kelsey was not the valuer originally responsible for the 1992 valuation of Blackall Shire. As that valuer had left the Department, Mr Kelsey had been given the task of defending the valuations the subject of these appeals.
From the information obtained by Mr Kelsey, it seems that the Departmental valuers had clear evidence from the sales of downs country in the Central West that the unimproved value of such country had fallen substantially since the previous level of values made as at 31 March 1990.
It also seems that from evidence derived from sales in shires to the east of Blackall Shire that the Departmental valuers responsible for that area concluded that the unimproved value of that type of country had remained unchanged. It was therefore decided that the unimproved value of the desert type country on the eastern side of Blackall Shire should also remain unchanged. (Further evidence of the Department's approach to the valuation of the Central Western Shires was given by Senior Valuer, Mr Peter Whip, in the appeals by JA Schulz in the Shire of Aramac (AV94-195 and AV94-374) the decisions in which were delivered today. However, Mr Whip was not involved in the valuation of Blackall Shire.)
The unimproved values of the predominantly gidyea properties were also reduced by 40%. According to Mr Kelsey, this had been done in error, as it had been intended that the value of gidyea country, at least in Blackall Shire, should also remain unchanged.
Mr Kelsey investigated the subject appeals, inspecting each of them and the available sales of "Lochinvar" in the neighbouring Barcaldine Shire and of "Lou Lou Park" in Jericho Shire. As a result of his investigations, Mr Kelsey concluded that far from being reduced, four of the valuations should be increased while the other was substantially correct.
Understandably, Mr Kelsey did not have the time to investigate the relativity of values in the whole of Blackall Shire or of the area of desert country in the north-east of the Shire. He gave evidence of some piecemeal attempts to correct relativity where these matters had been brought to the respondent's attention, but these are not relevant to the present appeals.
Mr Kelsey said that the Department has been unable to rectify the relativity problems because of a lack of staff. They remain unresolved as the valuations were not altered in the subsequent 1993 and 1995 valuations.
Mr Kelsey stressed that his defence of these appeals was based solely on direct comparison with the two sales and he had no regard to the relativity of the valuations of the subject lands with those of other lands.
The Sales Evidence: The Sale of "Lochinvar"
"Lochinvar" is a freehold property of 9514 hectares. It sold on 13 February 1992 for $575,995. The sale was analysed by the Department to show an unimproved value of $95,000, or $10 per hectare.
Mr Kelsey's classification of the country on "Lochinvar" is as follows:Approximately 1,414 ha (15%) gidyea scrub
Approximately 3,750 ha (39%) silverleaf ironbark forest with some gidyea influence
Approximately 650 ha (7%) silverleaf ironbark forest broken by channels
Approximately 3,100 ha (33%) sandy desert
Approximately 600 ha (6%) claypan
"Lochinvar" is situated on the bitumen sealed Capricorn Highway, about
35 kms east of Barcaldine. In a direct line, it is about 60 kms from the closest of the subject lands. Although more favourably situated, it contains similar mixtures of country and is therefore directly comparable.
For comparison purposes, Mr Kelsey made the following apportionment to the various country types from the analysis of the "Lochinvar" sale:
1,414 ha broken gidyea @ $21.00 = $29,649
3,750 ha silverleaf ironbark with gidyea
influence @ $13.50 = $50,625
650 ha silverleaf ironbark sandy frontage @ $ 4.00 = $ 2,600
3,100 ha desert @ $ 4.00 = $12,400
600 ha claypan @ $ 2.00 = $ 1,200
$96,519
Adopt 9514 ha @ $10 = $95,140 rounded to $95,000.
The use of the "Lochinvar" sale was attacked by the appellants. They contended that it was a one-off sale with special circumstances attaching to it. They felt that it could not be used as evidence of establishing a trend in values. They had inspected "Lochinvar" and were of the opinion that there was more gidyea country than had been classified by the Department.
Mr Fred Rich said that he thought the sale price for "Lochinvar" was extremely high for a property with such a large proportion of relatively poor desert country.
The appellants had also discussed the transaction with the purchasers of "Lochinvar", who informed them that the sale had initially been negotiated on the basis that the sheep passing with the property were to be shorn and the wool was to remain the property of the vendors. However, at a later stage the vendor "threw in" the wool as an incentive to close the sale.
The contract shows that the "Wool on Sheep's Back" was apportioned at $50,000, while the sheep were apportioned at $9,000. Mr Kelsey said that on the basis of discussions held with the vendor and a Dalgety's agent, Departmental valuers had valued 6,000 sheep at $6.00 per head in wool, a total of $36,000. They had used that figure for the purposes of the analysis of the "Lochinvar" sale to an unimproved value.
At the hearing, Mr Barry Rich produced a facsimile letter from the purchasers of "Lochinvar" indicating that 6,438 sheep were included in the sale price. The letter went on to state that those sheep were shorn and the wool sold. The sheep were then sold off-shears. Net proceeds of the sale of the sheep and the wool amounted to $95,610.22.
Mr Kelsey gave evidence of the details of a conversation allegedly held between a Departmental officer and one of the purchasers. She is alleged to have said that at the date of contract, the market for sheep and wool was down. The sheep were shorn in February (940) and April (the balance) and the sheep sold between April and May. The wool was sold in June and July. By then the market had improved considerably. However, the official wool price indicator for that period does not support this, as it fell from 605 cents per kg on 14 February 1992, to 545 cents per kg on 26 June 1992, although it did rise briefly to a high of 648 cents per kg on 5 March 1992.
It had been suggested to Mr Kelsey that the parties to the sale of "Lochinvar" may still be in conflict over the issue.
It seems that the sale of "Lochinvar" also included a substantial quantity of plant and machinery which was interest free (or payment deferred) for five years. Mr Kelsey said that the Department's analysis of the sale attributed $69,140 to the value of plant and machinery. The contract apportioned the value of plant and machinery at $82,285.
Although much of the evidence is hearsay, sufficient doubt has been raised about the circumstances and the value of the various items which passed with the sale to render it somewhat unreliable as a basis for the valuation of the subject lands. First, it is a single sale. There is no evidence that it is supported by any other sale in the area. Second, it included a significant amount of plant and machinery, payment for which was either interest free or deferred for some five years. Third, it included sheep and wool, the value of which is at best uncertain at the date of sale.
If the sale was supported by other sales evidence, then more confidence could be placed upon it, but as the only sale of mixed desert and gidyea country, in my view it would be unwise to make the definitive judgments about the value of the various classes of country that the Department appears to have made.
The Sale of "Lou Lou Park"
The sale of "Lou Lou Park" of 20,700 ha, took place in January 1992, for $250,000. This sale was analysed by the Department to show an unimproved value of $37,160, or $1.80 per hectare. As at 31 March 1992, an unimproved value of $36,000 was applied to it.
"Lou Lou Park" is situated approximately 130 kms north of Jericho and, according to Mr Kelsey, comprises approximately 20,000 ha (97%) poor spinifex desert, with scattered heartleaf, and 700 ha (3%) broken gidyea and brigalow country, unsuitable for development.
Mr Kelsey was of the opinion that this sale was useful in setting the lower limit of value for inferior desert country. He added that there were other sales in shires to the east of the subject area which supported the approach taken by the Department of leaving the values of the desert country unaltered. However, details of these sales were not produced and the oral evidence was all hearsay and not very convincing, as there seemed to be special circumstances attaching to most, if not all, of the sales referred to by Mr Kelsey.
Therefore, while "Lou Lou Park" sale may set the lower level of value for interior desert country, if the sale of "Lochinvar" is removed from consideration, there is no sales evidence of the value of gidyea country or of the better type of desert.
On the basis of the sales evidence produced by Mr Kelsey, I cannot find that the valuations appealed against are supported by the sales of "Lochinvar" and "Lou Lou Park".
Relativity
Evidence produced by the appellants showed that unimproved values applied to properties of essentially all gidyea country, varied from $10.51 per hectare to $11.75 per hectare. Mr Kelsey attempted to counter this evidence by saying that the valuations of gidyea country were reduced by 40% in error. However, there is no evidence that this is so and under s.13(7) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, they must be deemed to be correct unless proved otherwise.
Mr Kelsey referred me to the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Grahn v. Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, where at p.328-29, the Court said:"The decision of the High Court of Australia in Brisbane City Council v. The Valuer-General ((1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283) and the decisions of the Land Appeal Court in cases such as WM and TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General ((1983) 9 QLCR 44) and R and MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General ((1989) 13 QLCR 13) are authority for the following propositions:
(a)It is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, so long as the valuations are soundly based. It is, however, untenable to adopt a value for one parcel on relativity with another which has no sound basis. (R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13, at p.16 and cases cited in it).
(b)The best basis for assessment of unimproved value is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels of land (WM and TJFischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, at p.46; R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13, at p.17).
(c)Section 13(7) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 creates a presumption that the value in money terms shown by the Valuer-General in his notice of valuation is correct (Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, at p.56).
(d)Once it is shown that:
(1)in making the valuation the Valuer-General acted upon a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact; or
(2)the valuation was made by a method fundamentally erroneous,
the presumption created by section 13(7) is rebutted (Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, at pp.56-7).
(e)Whilst maintenance of correct relativity is of considerable importance for rating valuations, the use of the principle of relativity should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant (even if not ideal) sales evidence (WM and TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, at p.46).
(f)If possible, the Valuer-General should obtain uniformity between different blocks in the same land category or type, but should do so (preferably by reference to sales of comparable land) by correcting inaccuracies rather than by making an inaccurate assessment in order to secure uniform error (R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13 at pp.16-17 and cases cited in it).
Bearing those propositions in mind, it is best to approach this case by considering first the position regarding sales evidence then considering the relativity of the valuations of the subject blocks with the valuations of comparable blocks of land. "
However, in the present cases it has not been shown that the valuations of the gidyea country were made in error. The valuer who made the valuations was not called and only he could fully explain what was in his mind when he made those valuations. Therefore, the presumption created by s.13(7) is not rebutted.
The long title of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 states that it is "An Act to make better provision for determining the valuation of land for rating and taxing purposes ...". It is fundamental to that purpose that the Chief Executive achieve, as closely as possible, the correct relationship of valuations one to another.
The importance of maintaining valuation relativity has been emphasised on many occasions. (See for example King Ranch Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd v. Valuer-General (1968) 35 CLLR 255.) While this should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant sales evidence, as the Land Appeal Court held in Grahns' case, in the present cases I have grave reservations about the use of the sale of "Lochinvar", the sales evidence upon which the value of the gidyea country purports to be based.
As the presumption created by s.13(7) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 is not rebutted, the valuations of the other gidyea lands are deemed to be correct. Therefore, it is clearly wrong to value the gidyea country on the subject lands at up to $19.00 per hectare as contended by Mr Kelsey. Accordingly, I propose to determine the value of the gidyea areas on the subject lands at up to $11 per hectare, in accordance with the valuations applied to other gidyea lands in the Shire.
There is no dispute between the parties that the gidyea country is more productive and more valuable than the desert country and I propose to value the various categories of desert in proportion, bearing in mind that the analysis of the "Lou Lou Park" sale sets the lower level of value for desert country.
I now turn to consider each of the subject appeals.
"Tilbury" - HF Rich (AV93-522)
"Tilbury" or GHFL 5876, is in respect of Lot 15 on Plan EV29, Parish of Evora, and contains an area of 9,278 hectares. It is situated approximately 43 kms north of Blackall, with access by formed earth and gravel roads.
Mr Kelsey described the property as comprising 3,340 hectares of gidyea scrub with forest influence, 3,394 hectares of silverleaf ironbark and box country with gidyea influence, 1,154 hectares of lighter silverleaf ironbark country and 1,390 hectares of sandy desert.
He stated that the land is used for cattle grazing and is adequately watered by sub-artesian bores, dams and earth tanks.
"Tilbury" has been valued at $10.70 per hectare for a total valuation of $99,000.
However, following his inspection of "Tilbury", by comparison with the sale of "Lochinvar", at the hearing Mr Kelsey recommended that the valuation be increased to $11 per hectare or $102,000. He reasoned that the gidyea scrub country should be valued at $19 per hectare, the silverleaf ironbark country at $9 per hectare, the lighter silverleaf ironbark country at $5.50 per hectare and the sandy desert at $2.75 per hectare. This produced a total valuation of $104,176 which Mr Kelsey recommended be rounded off to $11 per hectare, or $102,000.
Mr Rich described "Tilbury" somewhat differently. He admitted that he had not measured the areas by planimeter, but had estimated that the areas of the various categories of the country are as follows:2,783 ha (30%) gidyea
2,320 ha (25%) mixed desert scrub and eucalyptus
928 ha (10%) better class ironbark, some box
1,391 ha (15%) hard ironbark, some desert oak
928 ha (10%) bloodwood, gum, desert oak, sandy soil
928 ha (10%) bloodwood, gum, ironbark, heavy loose sand
In other words, for simplicity, he said that the property can be categorised as 30% gidyea, 70% desert.
Mr Rich said that the reference to mixed scrub could be misleading, as it is a desert-type of country with a variety of timbers. He felt that Mr Kelsey was a little confused with this category, but stated that it is definitely of the inferior desert type.
He did not totally disagree with Mr Kelsey's statement, but felt that they were describing the same country in different ways. He made the point that what he called "mixed desert scrub and eucalyptus" had no gidyea or brigalow. It was basically a matrix of eucalypt with clumps of other timber, such as dead finish, sandalwood, leopard wood, wilga, currant bush, wonga-vine, etc., growing in clumps rather than a wall of scrub.
Mr Rich said that the better class of eucalypt or desert country can be developed quite well. Development increases its productivity immensely, but it is very costly to maintain because of regrowth. He considered that the preferred option for controlling regrowth is to repull desert country, as it is too expensive to control large areas with velpar.
Mr Rich said that because of the extent of development on "Tilbury", it was now difficult to appreciate just what the country was like unimproved. Mr Kelsey admitted frankly that when he inspected the country, he had to rely heavily upon Mr Rich's assistance to determine what the country was like originally.
Mr Rich considered that "Tilbury" is superior to "Milroy", although they have much the same proportion of gidyea country. He explained that 35% of the desert country on "Tilbury" is of the better type as opposed to only 20% on "Milroy". Also "Milroy" has 40% of hard poorish desert country, while "Tilbury" has 10% poor desert country, 10% medium desert country and 15% medium to poor desert country.
After considering the whole of the evidence and in view of my findings in relation to the sale of "Lochinvar" and the relative values of gidyea and desert country, I have come to the conclusion that "Tilbury" should be valued as follows:
3,340 ha gidyea @ $11 per ha = $36,740
3,394 ha better forest @ $6 per ha = $20,364
1,154 ha lighter ironbark forest @ $4 per ha = $ 4,616
1,390 ha sandy desert @ $2.75 per ha = $ 3,823
Total $65,543
or $7.06 per hectare
Adopt 9,278 hectares @ $7 per ha = $64,946, rounded to $65,000
"Milroy" - Daphne May Rich (AV93-523)
"Milroy", or GHFL 02/3725, is described as Lot 7 on Plan EV38, Parish of Yalleroi, containing an area of 3,423 hectares. As at 31 March 1992, the respondent valued that land at $30,000, or $8.80 per hectare.
"Milroy" is located approximately 56 kms north of Blackall with access by means of earth and gravel roads. It is used for the purpose of cattle grazing in conjunction with "Tilbury", and is watered by sub-artesian bores, dams and earth tanks.
According to Mr Kelsey's report, "Milroy" comprises:
1,164 ha gidyea scrub with some minor forest influence
171 ha forest with scrub influence (silverleaf ironbark, box and scattered gidyea)
1,506 ha silverleaf ironbark and box with scattered desert oak with some gidyea influence
582 ha light silverleaf ironbark, gum, bloodwood, desert oak and ironwood
Based on the sale of "Lochinvar", Mr Kelsey contended that the valuation of $30,000 was somewhat low and recommended that it be increased by applying $18 per hectare to the gidyea country, $9 per hectare to the mixed scrub and forest country and $2.75 per hectare to the sandy desert country. The result was a valuation approximating $11 per hectare, which he rounded off to $37,000.
Mr Rich described "Milroy" somewhat differently. His estimate of the various classes of country was as follows:1,130 ha (33%) gidyea, brigalow
240 ha (7%) mixed desert scrub and eucalyptus
685 ha (20%) better class ironbark and box
924 ha (27%) hard ironbark with desert oak and some wattle
445 ha (13%) gum bloodwood with desert oak sandy soil
In other words, he described "Milroy" as consisting of 33% gidyea and 67% desert. However, he was of the opinion "Milroy" is inferior to "Tilbury", as the desert country is generally inferior and regrowth problems have been experienced where there is desert oak and wattle.
After considering the whole of the evidence I have come to the conclusion that because there was brigalow through the gidyea scrub on "Milroy", it should be valued at somewhat less than the $11 on "Tilbury". I have therefore decided to adopt Mr Kelsey's area at a value of $10 per hectare for the scrub. I have also come to the conclusion that there is less better forest country than has been assessed by Mr Kelsey. Mr Rich is in a far better position to describe the original state of the subject land. Therefore, without any pretensions to precision, I intend to adopt an area of 1,000 hectares for the better forest at a value of $6 per hectare. On Mr Kelsey's classification, this would leave an area of 677 hectares of lighter forest for which I propose to adopt $4 per hectare and 582 hectares of sandy desert for which $2.75 per hectare seems reasonable.
Therefore, the unimproved value of "Milroy" will be determined at:1,164 ha gidyea scrub with some brigalow influence @ $10 per ha = $11,640
1,000 ha better forest @ $6 per ha = $ 6,000
677 ha lighter forest @ $4 per ha = $ 2,708
582 ha sandy desert @ $2.75 per ha = $ 1,600
TOTAL $21,948
or $6.41 per hectare
Adopt 3,423ha @ $6.40 per hectare = $21,907, rounded to $21,000
"Boorara" - Barry R and Helen M Rich (AV93-529)
"Boorara" is described as GHFL 02/3741, Lot 2 on Plan EV44, Parish of Rostrevor, containing an area of 5,944 hectares. As at 31 March 1992, the respondent valued that land at $60,000 and, following an objection, the valuation was reduced to $53,000.
"Boorara" is located approximately 56 kms north of Blackall with access by means of formed earth and gravel roads. The property is used for the grazing of cattle in conjunction with "Devon" and "Castleroi". It is watered by sub-artesian bores, dams and earth tanks.
Mr Kelsey's report describes "Boorara" as comprising:
1,300 ha gidyea scrub
3,039 ha silverleaf ironbark and box with a gidyea influence
1,605 ha harder silverleaf ironbark
Mr Barry Rich disagreed with Mr Kelsey's classification of the country. He said that he had estimated the various areas by using a measuring grid from a property plan compiled with the help of a DPI property planner. Mr Rich is involved in the local Landcare group and had prepared a property plan using DPI land use studies.
Mr Rich said that much of the gidyea on "Boorara" is fragmented, which causes inefficient utilisation of pastures due to the overgrazing of the developed gidyea country. He went on to say that the better desert country has low development potential and higher management costs. He contended that there should be a difference in their respective values which reflected the fact that developed gidyea is relatively maintenance free while developed desert is not.
Mr Rich's classification of the country on "Boorara" is as follows:1,250 ha (21%) gidyea
2,593 ha (44%) better forest
2,100 ha (35%) sandy desert
Mr Rich said that the gidyea on "Boorara" had less value than on other gidyea blocks because of its fragmentation, its gilgais and the fact that it contains a proportion of what is classed by the DPI as U2 gidyea, a stunted type of gidyea. He disagreed with Mr Kelsey's classification because he thought that an area of sandy desert had been included in Mr Kelsey's classification of the better forest and that it would more appropriately be included with the harder desert country.
He contended that by comparison with the values applied to other desert blocks in the area, the value of the better desert on "Boorara" and on "Castleroi" should be valued at the maximum of $6 per hectare, while the poorer country should be valued at a maximum of $3.50 per hectare.
In this case, I find that Mr Rich's classification should be preferred to that of Mr Kelsey. Mr Rich has a property plan which was prepared with professional assistance, using aerial photography and DPI land use studies. He calculated the area of each of the classes of country using a measuring grid. Mr Kelsey conceded that as much of the country has been developed, it was difficult to know just what the original country comprised. Mr Rich was, therefore, in a better position to know what the country was like before development.
I have come to the conclusion that the following values should be applied to the country on "Boorara":
1,250 ha gidyea country @ $10 per ha = $12,500
2,593 ha better forest @ $6 per ha = $15,558
2,101 ha sandy desert @ $4 per ha = $ 8,404
TOTAL $36,462
or $6.13 per hectare
Adopt 5,944 ha @ $6.10 per ha = $36,258 rounded to $36,000.
"Devon" and "Castleroi" - Barry R and Helen M Rich (AV93-528)
"Devon" and "Castleroi", GHFL 2/3724 and GHFL 3/5893, are described as Lot 3 on Plan EV30, Parish of Yalleroi, Lot 1 on Plan EV27, Lots 4 and 5 on Plan EV23, Lots 6, 7 on Plan EV 24 and Lot 12 on Plan EV1, Parish of Evora, containing a total area of 12,786 hectares. Although these lands are not adjoining and there are some 7 kms between the boundaries of the two, they have been amalgamated for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. As at 31 March 1992, the respondent valued those lands at $83,000, or approximately $6.50 per hectare.
The properties are located approximately 43 kms north-east of Blackall, with access by means of formed earth and gravel roads. They are used for cattle grazing in conjunction with "Boorara". They are watered by an artesian bore, sub-artesian bores, dams and earth tanks.
Mr Kelsey described "Devon" as comprising 4,968 hectares of silverleaf ironbark desert. He described "Castleroi" as comprising 1,329 ha gidyea scrub, 4,691 ha silverleaf ironbark and box, and 1,798 ha of sandridge and gidyea swamp.
Mr Barry Rich could not agree with Mr Kelsey's classification. He said that "Devon" was not just one class of country. In his opinion it contained about 1% of gidyea scrub, about 16% of better forest, while the balance 83%, comprised hard red desert.
He said that some of the hard country on "Devon" had been blade-ploughed, as it had some of the worst regrowth. While this had been successful, it had been completed only about three years and he does not know how long it will last.
In respect of "Castleroi", Mr Rich felt that Mr Kelsey had included areas of sand in with the gidyea country, while others had been included in his classification of the silverleaf ironbark country.
Mr Rich said that "Castleroi" is a poorer block than "Boorara" and contains large expanses of sand, while the red country is a harder type of country. However, he said that in the south-east corner the gidyea is as good as any in the Shire. He had estimated that there was more gidyea than Mr Kelsey, but he said that his estimate included some mixed scrub consisting of gidyea, box, dead finish, bauhinia and leopard wood.
Mr Rich's classification of the combined properties is as follows:1,384 ha (11%) gidyea
2,784 ha (22%) better forest
8,618 ha (67%) sandy desert and poorer soils.
As with "Boorara", I propose to adopt Mr Rich's classification. It was measured in the same way. Having regard to my previous findings, I propose to determine the valuation of "Devon" and "Castleroi" as follows:
1,384 ha gidyea @ $11 per ha = $15,224
2,784 ha better forest @ $6 per ha = $16,704
8,618 ha sandy desert @ $3 per ha = $25,854
TOTAL $57,782
or $4.51 per hectare
Adopt 12,786 ha @ $4.50 per ha = $57,537, rounded to $57,500.
The "Allandale" Aggregation - Clement Robert Richardson (AV93-524).
The "Allandale" Aggregation comprises four properties:
"Allandale", Lot 3 on Plan TB5, Parish of Harden;
"Chippendale" Lot 2 on Plan EV74, Parish of Evora;
"Lisgool West" (Cutzies), Lot 5145 on Plan PH 733: PH 5145 (Lisgool West Holding); and
"Unavale", Lot 2 on Plan MX 40, Lot 3 on Plan MX 19 and Lot 4 on Plan MX 36, Parish of Champion.
The combined area of the four properties is 27,018 hectares.
As at 31 March 1992, the respondent valued those lands at $148,000, or approximately $5.50 per hectare. Mr Richardson appealed to the Land Court advising that his estimate of the unimproved value is $88,800.
The country on each of these properties was described by Mr Richardson and by Mr Kelsey, thus:
Mr Richardson's Description Mr Kelsey's Description
"Allandale" "Allandale"
Approx. 2,500 acres (1000 ha) 750 ha mainly gidyea scrub with
gidyea and brigalow country scattered brigalow
Approx. 12,000 acres (4800 ha) 5,065 ha SLIB and sandalwood with
ironbark, desert oak, ironwood, areas of box, desert with mixed red
bloodwood and bush currajong soils
Approx. 2,000 acres (800 ha) 869 ha broken gullies, SLIB with
leopardwood, wilga, dead finish, box, scattered gidyea and sandalwood
with erodable soils.
"Chippendale" "Chippendale"
Mostly gidyea, some red country 1,214 ha good gidyea scrub with
with ironbark and box. a smaller area of lighter forest
influence.
"Lisgool West" "Lisgool West"
Mostly wire grass. 5,100 ha SLIB desert with box, dead
First paddock, spinifex, approx 12,000 finish and sandalwood.
acres (4,800 ha) ironbark ironwood 1,200 ha NLIB with wattle tableland
some supplejack (vinetree), dead and light poor red soils.
finish, box, desert oak, corkwood, 1,240 ha bendee and lancewood jump- black wattle. up and breakaway gullies.
Second paddock, 5,500ha hard country,
gullies coming off the hills,
Paradise Creek runs along southern
side, no permanent waterholes.
"Unavale" "Unavale"
This country varies considerably, 3,700 ha brigalow scrub merging to
mountain country on the western side, silverleaf ironbark and box.
gullies coming off the mountains. 4,280 ha sandy silverleaf ironbark
Approx. 14,000 acres (5600 ha) desert and box.
country, box, pine, ironbark, butter 700 ha poor tablelands
bush, bendee,lancewood, black wattle. 900 ha bendee,lancewood, jump-up
Approx. 1200 acres (480 ha) brigalow, and breakaway gullies
some rubbish red country. 2,000 ha heartleaf.
Approx. 2,000 acres (800 ha) butter
bush, mulga, ironbark, blackbutt.
Approx. 2,000 acres (800 ha) heavy box,
ironbark, blackbutt, dead finish,
brigalow. (A dry creek runs through
this country.)
Approx. 1,200 acres (480 ha) including
about 500 acres (200 ha) brigalow, bad
sandy country, ironbark, bloodwood,
pine, black-wood, black wattle.
Approx. 2,500 acres (1000 ha) ironbark,
box, gum, bloodwood, black wattle.
Approx. 5,500 acres (2200 ha) mixture
desert country; trees, ironbark,
gum, pine, brigalow, black wattle.
(A dry creek runs through this country.)
For the purposes of his valuation, Mr Kelsey combined the various types of country on each of the four properties and applied the following values:
1,214 ha gidyea @ $22.50/ha = $ 27,315
750 ha gidyea with forest influence @ $19/ha = $ 14,250
3,700 ha brigalow with forest influence @ $12.25/ha= $ 45,325
15,314 ha desert @ $3.75/ha = $ 57,428
1,900 ha poor tableland @ $1.40/ha = $ 2,660
2,140 ha bendee jump-ups No value
2,000 ha heartleaf No value
TOTAL $146,978
Adopt 27,018 ha @ $5.50 per ha = $148,599
Allow $148,000.
Mr Kelsey's report stated that the aggregation is located approximately 65 kms north-east of Blackall, with access by means of formed earth and gravel roads. It is used for cattle grazing and is adequately watered with sub-artesian bores, dams and earth tanks.
In giving evidence, Mr Richardson emphasised the awkward shape of the aggregation and the fact that "Chippendale" is located remote from the other properties which adjoin one another. He said that he has to run the waters twice a week, a distance of approximately 50 miles (over 80 km).
Mr Richardson said that he purchased "Allandale" in July 1964. "Chippendale" was made available as an additional area to "Allandale". He had purchased the other properties since. Mr Richardson said that "Chippendale" was mostly gidyea country, with some ironbark and box country. The whole area had been developed except for shade lines. The results were reasonably good, with a little regrowth on the eastern side. Buffel grass was well established.
Mr Richardson drew a distinction between the cost of developing gidyea country and the cost of developing desert country. He felt that the most effective way to develop desert country was to blade plough it after the initial clearing. He had blade ploughed in excess of 6,000 acres (2,400 ha) on "Allandale" and "Unavale" at a cost of $40 to $45 per acre. Sometimes the blade ploughing was carried out immediately after initial development and sometimes not for six to ten years. He felt that desert country reverts to its original state in that period.
Even with blade ploughing, Mr Richardson said that the contractors think it will last for only about eight years. However, he thought that blade ploughing had a two-fold benefit; it got rid of the regrowth and it improved the water retention of the soil. He said that the cost of treating desert country included, pulling $10 per acre, raking $8 per acre, seeding $5 per acre, blade ploughing $40 per acre, a total of $63 per acre or about $25 per hectare. On the other hand, Mr Richardson said that gidyea country could be treated by pulling at a cost of $12 per acre, and seeding at a cost of $5 per acre, a total of $17 per acre, or about $7 per hectare. To this must be added the cost of treating regrowth which, he said, in most cases, in gidyea country could be undertaken by burning twice.
"Lisgool West" was described by Mr Richardson as the poor, bad type of desert country. He said that he had pulled some 700 to 800 acres of this country but the Lands Department would not give him a permit to pull any more as it was thought to be not worth pulling. There were about 12,000 acres of spinifex on "Lisgool West".
Mr Richardson expressed the opinion that any country was only worth what people could get out of it. Most of his aggregation was country that no-one else had wanted when he had taken it up.
Mr Richardson disagreed with the Department's analysis of the sale of "Lochinvar". He had inspected it and estimated the value of the improvements. While he conceded that he was not a valuer, he thought that he had a knowledge of improvements from his long practical experience as a grazier.
Mr Richardson also knew the sale of "Lou Lou Park", which he described as "a pretty ordinary desert block". He thought that the price obtained was a good price for that type of country, as he considered it to be very poor country for stock, especially cattle.
Mr Richardson did not greatly disagree with Mr Kelsey's description of country for the various blocks in the aggregation. However, he said that he would probably describe some areas differently. Like the other appellants, his principal argument was that the value of downs and gidyea country had been reduced, but not the value of the desert and gidyea country.
As Mr Richardson had no great disagreement with the description and classification of country, I intend to adopt Mr Kelsey's classification. After considering the evidence and the findings I have made in these matters, I adopt the following:
1,214 ha gidyea @ $11/ha = $ 13,354
750 ha gidyea with forest influence @ $10/ha = $ 7,500
3,700 ha brigalow with forest influence @ $8/ha = $ 29,600
15,314 ha desert @ $3/ha = $ 45,942
1,900 ha poor tableland @ $1.40/ha = $ 2,660
2,140 ha bendee jump-ups No value
2,000 ha heartleaf No value
TOTAL $ 99,056
or $3.66 per hectare.
Adopt 27,018 ha @ $3.70 per ha = $99,966, rounded to $100,000.
The Continuing Relativity Problems
Some comment must be made about the obvious relativity problems which exist in Blackall Shire and possibly other shires in the Central West. The valuer who was originally responsible for the valuations had left the Department and was not called to give evidence. It emerged during the hearing of these cases that only he could explain his reasoning for the valuations that he applied to the various types of land.
Mr Kelsey was given the task of defending the valuations in these appeals. That task was made more difficult and demanding by also acting as advocate for the respondent. However, the defence of these valuations was impossible and doomed to failure, even for a valuer of Mr Kelsey's experience and ability.
Mr Kelsey had not been involved in the 1992 valuation of the Central Western Shires. He had to start from the beginning by inspecting the subject lands and the two sales which he considered to be relevant. However, he did not have time to investigate the relativity of values in the Shire. His defence of the valuations was based solely on direct comparison with the sales, arguing on the basis of the Land Appeal Court's findings in Grahns' case.
I commend Mr Kelsey for the competent manner in which he carried out his duties. That the appeals have succeeded is no reflection upon him. The evidence produced by the appellants all too clearly showed that there were major relativity problems. It is also evident that despite my decisions in the subject appeals, these problems will still exist. The decisions are based on the evidence produced at the hearings and on my appreciation of that evidence. I am well aware that they are no substitute for inspections and comparisons of all properties in the area. Until the respondent can find the resources to carry out a comprehensive revaluation of the area, the relativity problems will not be resolved.
Decisions
In all five cases the appeals are allowed, the valuations of the Chief Executive are set aside and the unimproved values of the subject lands are determined as follows:
AV93-522 HF Rich ("Tilbury") $ 65,000
AV93-523 DM Rich ("Milroy") $ 21,000
AV93-529 BR and HM Rich ("Boorara") $ 36,000
AV93-528 BR and HM Rich ("Castleroi" and "Devon") $ 57,500
AV93-524 CR Richardson ("Allandale" Aggregation) $ 100,000
JJ Trickett
Member of the Land Court
0
2
0