Sanderson v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 133
•30 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Sanderson v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0133
PARTIES:Peter E Sanderson and Ann Sanderson
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0220
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation
DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Blackall
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of the “Westbourne”/“Sunny Downs” aggregation as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Three Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,100,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Tambo – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classification of country – carrying capacity – sheep area values – 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 then Shire of Tambo against the unimproved value applied to their 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 and Mrs Sanderson are the owners of an aggregation comprising two properties known as “Westbourne” and “Sunny Downs”, with a combined area of 14,365.3406 ha. “Westbourne” is situated about 35 km south of Tambo, while “Sunny Downs” is situated about 15 km further south and on the opposite side of the Ward River. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $3,100,000, or $215/ha, to that aggregation. The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $2,000,000.
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 was one of a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following determination of selected cases, “Ravensbourne” and “Minnie Downs” in the Shires of Blackall and Tambo.[1] 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.
[1] Walker & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0008.
The evidence for the appellants
Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr CH Turnbull, Chairman of the Tambo Valuation Consultative Group, who explained that the owners of open downs country in the north of the Tambo Shire are concerned about the change of relativity between the valuations of properties in the north and south of the Shire and the valuations of individual properties in the northern area. Mr Turnbull’s evidence was discussed in some detail in the reasons for the decision in Martin v Department of Natural Resources and Water.[2] There is no need to repeat that evidence.
[2] [2008] QLC 0132.
Evidence was also given by Mr Peter Sanderson, who described “Westbourne” as predominantly downs country, with about 486 ha of creeks and claypan and about 162 ha of virgin scrub. He described “Sunny Downs” as also predominantly downs country, but with a high red soil ridge with shallow soil, timbered with bloodwood, broadleaf ironbark, deadfinish and supplejack, which Mr Sanderson estimated to be about 6,000 acres (2,428 ha) in area.
Although incorporated in the one valuation, the two properties are situated on opposite sides of the Ward River, with the access to “Sunny Downs” comprising approximately 15 km of blacksoil road. When the Ward River runs, the property is isolated. According to Mr Sanderson, the severance creates many managerial problems, requiring shearing sheds on each property. In Mr Sanderson’s opinion, those difficulties would be taken into account by a prudent purchaser of the aggregation.
Like Mr Turnbull, Mr Sanderson did not accept that the selected property, “Minnie Downs”, was directly comparable to the subject properties. He maintains that it is a different class of country. He preferred to compare his properties with “Uanda”. However, he made the point that “Uanda” is close to town with bitumen road access.
When the relativity of values applied to the properties in the area was put to him, Mr Sanderson disagreed with the valuation of $223.50/ha applied to “Stirling Downs”, compared with “Minnie Downs” at $185/ha. He pointed out that “Stirling Downs” almost adjoins “Minnie Downs” and parts of the country are similar. In his opinion, “Stirling Downs” and “Westbourne” have very similar country. However, that comparison did not include the “Sunny Downs” property, because of the large proportion of red soil ridge country.
Mr Sanderson pointed out that despite his classification of country, “Westbourne” also had approximately 1,000 ha of the shallow soil ridge country, timbered with carbeen and bloodwood. In Mr Sanderson’s opinion, that ridge country could not be described as downs, but should be described separately on both “Sunny Downs” and on “Westbourne” and have a lighter carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 1 sheep to 1.4 ha.
The evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that he assessed the properties in the area by reference to the Department’s historical records, together with the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. Mr Haydon originally described the country on the “Westbourne” aggregation as comprising:
10,715 ha (75%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.2 ha
2,850 ha (20%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha
800 ha (6%) channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha
During the course of the hearing Mr Haydon conceded that the second category of downs would be more appropriately described as “undulating redsoil ridges (bloodwood)”. However, he maintained that the carrying capacity of that area would remain at 1 sheep to 1.4 ha.
Mr Haydon also conceded that Mr Sanderson was correct in referring to an area of 162 ha of virgin scrub. However, he was of the opinion that such a small area would neither affect the carrying capacity nor the unimproved value of “Westbourne”.
Mr Haydon acknowledged that in undertaking the valuations in the Tambo Shire, he had changed the previous relativity of valuations which had resulted following the objections to the 2001 valuations. However, he maintained that he had changed it for the better. For example, he agreed that “Uanda” was superior to the “Westbourne” aggregation per hectare, notwithstanding that following the objections to the previous valuations, a similar unimproved value had been applied.
Mr Haydon maintained that he had recognised the difficulty of managing the two properties, “Westbourne” and “Sunny Downs”. He acknowledged that the “Westbourne” property alone was very similar to “Stirling Downs”. He contends that the valuation of the aggregation would have been somewhat higher than the $215/ha applied, if allowance had not been made for the severance of the two parts of the aggregation and the access problems of “Sunny Downs”. In his opinion, the applied value made sufficient allowance for those disabilities.
In defending his applied valuation, Mr Haydon considered that the most appropriate comparison was the selected case, “Minnie Downs”, which the Court had determined at $185/ha. However, “Minnie Downs” is a larger property at 22,177 ha and has a lighter carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.5 ha. He rejected the criticism that “Minnie Downs” could not be compared with the subject land because it was a different type of country. In his opinion, a comparison between the two properties can validly be made.
The Issues
As Mr Haydon has conceded that his second category of downs country should be changed to better recognise that it is a different class of country, there is little between Mr Sanderson and Mr Haydon regarding the description of the country. Mr Haydon has recognised that the redsoil ridge country has a lighter carrying capacity than the blacksoil Mitchell grass downs, as contended by Mr Sanderson. He has also recognised the difficulty in having the two parts of the aggregation separated and the problems with access to “Sunny Downs” after any rain.
The only real issue between them is the comparability, or lack thereof, between the aggregation and the selected case, “Minnie Downs”. However, as I pointed out in Martin v Department of Natural Resources and Water, in my view the properties in this area of the Tambo Shire can validly be compared with “Minnie Downs”.[3]
[3] At [26].
Both Mr Sanderson and Mr Haydon agree that “Uanda” is superior per hectare to the “Westbourne”/”Sunny Downs” aggregation and that “Stirling Downs” is similar to the “Westbourne” part. However, for valuation purposes, when “Westbourne” is combined with the “Sunny Downs” part, the valuation of the aggregation must be at a lower rate per ha.
Conclusion
It seems to me that Mr Haydon has had regard to all the matters raised by Mr Sanderson. They differ as to the comparability of the aggregation to the “Minnie Downs” property. However, I have found that the two properties are comparable. The question is as to the degree of comparability.
“Minnie Downs” was determined by the Court at $185/ha. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, that is a sheep area value of $277. Mr Haydon has assessed the carrying capacity of the “Westbourne” aggregation at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha and, for comparison purposes, I see no reason to interfere with that. He adopted a sheep area value of $270 for the aggregation, recognising the difficulties associated with the separated parts. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, that amounts to $216/ha.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept that Mr Haydon has made the appropriate adjustments to the sheep area value and that his applied value of $215/ha is appropriate. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of the “Westbourne”/“Sunny Downs” aggregation as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Three Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,100,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0