Scholes v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 85
•11 October 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Scholes v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0085 PARTIES: Edward Charles and Robin Margaret Scholes
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0030 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDINGS: An appeal against an interim valuation. DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2007 DELIVERED AT: Blackall MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of the subject land is affirmed at Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($260,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – appeal against an interim valuation – small property close to Blackall - relativity of the valuation compared with valuations of larger properties – advantages of close proximity to town - Valuation of Land Act 1944. APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, Agent, for the appellants.
Mr W Isdale, of Counsel, Crown Law, for the respondent.
This is an appeal against an interim valuation made by the respondent under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944.
Mr and Mrs Scholes are the owners of a property known as "Lilydale", situated about 6 kilometres north of Blackall on the bitumen-sealed Landsborough Highway.
The interim valuation was required to be made when "Lilydale" sold in two parts. Mr and Mrs Scholes purchased the southern part of the property, while the northern part was sold to the Evans family. The Valuation of Land Act 1944 required that separate interim, or "split", valuations be made.
The part of "Lilydale" purchased by Mr and Mrs Scholes comprises an area of 3,451.175 hectares and was valued by the respondent as at 1 October 2001 at $260,000, or $75 per hectare. Mr and Mrs Scholes objected against that valuation and subsequently appealed to the Land Court, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value was $220,000.
With the agreement of the parties this matter was dealt with on the previously supplied written submission, together with further oral submissions heard at Blackall.
On behalf of the appellants, Mr Boyd contended that the unimproved value applied to "Lilydale" was excessive compared with the valuations applied to better quality country.
The parties essentially agree with Mr Boyd's description of the country as:
1,550 hectares (45%) downs
500 hectares (14.5%) gidyea
750 hectares (21.5%) coolibah
350 hectares (10%) sandridge
300 hectares (9%) claypanThe last three categories of country represent 40.5% of the total area and are regarded as inferior country.
In Mr Boyd's submission, the valuation of "Lilydale" at $75 per hectare is out of relativity with the valuation of other better quality properties, particularly "Navena", a property that is virtually all Mitchell grass downs, which has been valued at $79 per hectare. Mr Boyd makes the same submission with regard to valuations applied to a number of other properties situated to the north, "Mascot" at $75.77 per hectare, "Evora" at $65 per hectare, "Mooney Valley" at $76.80 per hectare, "Mellew"/"Mayfair" at $68.34 per hectare and "Allo-Omber" at $70 per hectare. None of those properties has the proportion of inferior quality country of the subject land.
On behalf of the respondent, Mr Haydon said that he was aware of the inferior quality country on "Lilydale", but the valuation of $75 per hectare includes allowances for size and the proximity to Blackall, compared with the other larger and more remote properties. In other words, the valuation of "Lilydale" reflects advantages which the other properties do not have. Although he concedes that the quality of country on "Lilydale" is not the same as that on "Navena" and the other properties, he contends that there is a market premium for small, well located properties. In this regard, he said that in making the interim valuation he had regard to the values applied to other small properties.
Conclusion
The subject land is situated only 6 kilometres north of Blackall on a bitumen sealed all weather road. Having regard to the submissions by Mr Boyd and Mr Haydon, I have come to the conclusion that there is logic in the approach adopted by Mr Haydon. Although the quality of country on "Lilydale" may not be the same as on "Navena" and the other downs properties mentioned by Mr Boyd, they are generally larger in area and all are situated more remotely from Blackall. In my view, there should be a premium applied to such small, well located properties, regardless of the areas of lighter country. I therefore adopt Mr Haydon's reasoning. The unimproved value applied to "Lilydale" should be relative to the values applied to other small properties in the area.
In the circumstances, Mr Boyd has not persuaded me that the unimproved value of "Lilydale" at $75 per hectare should be disturbed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of the subject land is affirmed at Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($260,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0