Sanderson v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 121
•11 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Sanderson v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0121
PARTIES:Peter E Sanderson and Ann Sanderson
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:RV2006/0223
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING: An appeal against a rental valuation
DELIVERED ON: 11 June 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 “Wyanga” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($1,416,000).
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 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 a grazing property known as “Wyanga”, containing an area of 7,214.328 ha, situated approximately 40 km north-west of Tambo. It is located about 5 km by formed earth road from the bitumen sealed Landsborough Highway. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,500,000, or $208/ha, to that property. The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $900,000.
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 the determination of selected cases, “Ravensbourne” and “Minnie Downs”, 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.
The Evidence
Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr Peter Sanderson, while evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon. Mr Sanderson described “Wyanga” as comprising:
3,781 ha (52%) downs
2,833 ha (39%) scrub
600 ha (9%) channels
while Mr Haydon described the property as comprising:
3,339 ha (46%) downs
2,814 ha (39%) developed scrub
675 ha (9%) channels
386 ha (6%) remnant scrub
Apart from slightly different proportions of the types of country, there is little difference between Mr Sanderson and Mr Haydon. Mr Sanderson produced a map of the property upon which he had marked the various categories of country in different colours. As in the other cases in these sittings, Mr Haydon relied upon the Department’s historical records, together with the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. There is a great deal of similarity between Mr Sanderson’s map and the mapping sources used by Mr Haydon.
Their assessments of the area of scrub are remarkably similar. However, Mr Sanderson’s area includes his estimate of 405 ha of virgin scrub, while Mr Haydon had a separate category of remnant scrub which he had measured from the regional eco-system map. If Mr Sanderson’s area of downs is adjusted, his estimate of the area of downs would be reasonably close to Mr Haydon’s area.
Mr Sanderson considered the developed scrub on “Wyanga” to be fairly similar to the type of developed scrub on the selected case, “Ravensbourne”. While there are patches of brigalow regrowth through the area, Mr Sanderson said, there is not much trouble with regrowth on “Wyanga”.
However, according to Mr Sanderson, throughout the developed scrub area, there is an area of light sandstone ridge country with little topsoil. Buffel grass did not respond well on that country and in his opinion, it is too steep and fragile to blade-plough. The sandstone ridge country shows clearly on the satellite imagery produced by Mr Haydon.
Mr Sanderson was aware that the Department had traditionally regarded the carrying capacity of “Wyanga” as 1 sheep to 1.3 ha. However, having regard to the light country and the area of remnant scrub that is not able to be cleared because of the vegetation management legislation, Mr Sanderson contended that the carrying capacity should be 1 sheep to 1.35 ha. Although he had initially assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, Mr Haydon conceded that the carrying capacity should be extended to 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, or 5,344 sheep.
According to Mr Haydon, the most appropriate comparison for the purposes of this case was the selected case, “Ravensbourne”, with an area of 8,777 ha and a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha. The unimproved value of “Ravensbourne” has been determined by the Court at $200/ha, or a sheep area value of $280. Although the Department applied an unimproved value of $208/ha to “Wyanga”, Mr Haydon conceded that with the alteration of carrying capacity, the valuation should be reduced to $200/ha, the same rate as for “Ravensbourne”.
Mr Sanderson gave evidence that prior to the appellants purchasing “Wyanga”, the previous owner had constructed a 400 megalitre dam on MacFarlane Creek. The owners have a 170 megalitre waterworks licence for the irrigation of up to 40 ha, which they have used occasionally to irrigate sorghum and oats for the supplementary feeding of stock. However, Mr Sanderson emphasised that while it is an advantage, irrigation in this area is by opportunity only and cannot be relied upon.
Mr Haydon agreed that the waterworks licence was a positive attribute of the property. However, he did not believe that a prudent purchaser would pay a premium for it, having regard to its reliability. Therefore, no loading was made in the valuation for the existence of the waterworks licence.
The Issues
There is really little between Mr Sanderson and Mr Haydon in the classification of country or the carrying capacity of “Wyanga”. The real issue, as I see it, is the comparability to the selected case “Ravensbourne”.
“Ravensbourne” has a similar area to “Wyanga”. They both comprise a mixture of downs and gidyea country. However, a large proportion of “Ravensbourne” is not heavy Mitchell grass downs, but comprises lighter carrying red soil ridge country. The evidence is that the downs country on “Wyanga” is superior to the Mitchell grass country on “Ravensbourne”. However, “Wyanga” has a greater proportion of developed scrub country at nearly 40%, compared with the developed scrub country on “Ravensbourne” at just over 20%. “Wyanga” also has the light fragile sandstone ridge country through the developed scrub area.
Conclusion
Taking the differences between “Ravensbourne” and “Wyanga” into account, it seems to me that some allowance should be made for the cost of developing the larger proportion of scrub on “Wyanga”. However, that is somewhat offset by the superior quality of its Mitchell grass country. On balance, I am of the view that “Wyanga” should have a somewhat lower value per hectare than “Ravensbourne”.
Therefore, for the purposes of comparison, I propose to adopt a sheep area value of $265. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, “Wyanga” would carry 5,344 sheep. At a sheep area value of $265, that amounts to a rounded unimproved value of $1,416,000, or approximately $196/ha.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Wyanga” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($1,416,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0