Skelton v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 134
•30 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Skelton v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0134
PARTIES:James C Skelton and Jennifer M Skelton
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NO:AV2006/0210
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 “Stirling Downs” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at One Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000).
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 Skelton are the owners of a grazing property known as “Stirling Downs”, containing an area of 8,725 ha, situated approximately 40 km south-west of Tambo. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $1,950,000, or $223.50/ha, to that property. The owners appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $1,360,000.
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” in the Shire of Blackall and “Minnie Downs” in the Shire of 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] 0132.
Evidence for the appellants was also given by Mr JC Skelton, who explained that his main concern was that the property had been overvalued because the Department had mis-described the country as consisting of all downs. He gave evidence that in June 2002, at the request of the owners, an officer of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service had undertaken a flora and fauna survey of “Stirling Downs”. Within the report by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, under the heading “Habitat Description”, was a table categorising the types of country on the property by reference to the regional eco-system codes. That table is reproduced hereunder:
2.1 Habitat Retention
RE Code Brief Description Hectares 4.3.3 Coolabah, river red gum, bauhinia open woodland on levees and banks of drainage lines on deep brown/grey soils. (Bio-diversity status – Of concern) 400 4.3.14 Curly and other Mitchell grass species + silky browntop on drainage lines, deep grey cracking clays. (Bio-diversity status – No concern) 600 4.9.1 Curly Mitchell, Feathertop and stargrass on deep grey and brown cracking clays. (Bio-diversity status – No concern) 4,962 4.9.6 Mitchell grassland with mixed species including Boree, Silver leafed ironbark, western bloodwood, Brigalow and whitewood on undulating deep cracking clay soils. (Bio-diversity status – No concern) 1,900 4.9.11 Gidgee woodland with false sandalwood, Wilga, commercial sandalwood and other species on brown or grey cracking clay soils, often with scattered gravel or stone cover. (Bio-diversity status – Of concern) 900
Mr Skelton agreed with those descriptions and referred particularly to the fifth category (4.9.11), the description of which clearly indicates that the country is not downs, but second rate country.
Mr Skelton was also concerned about the altered relativity in the 2001 valuations, when the unimproved value of “Uanda”, which he considered to be the best property in the area, had been reduced to much the same level as the valuation of “Stirling Downs”. He was of the opinion that the 2005 valuations by the Department had also resulted in an incorrect relativity.
Mr Skelton took issue with the Department’s traditional carrying capacity for the downs country in this area at 1 sheep to 3 acres (1 sheep to 1.2 ha). He maintained that over the last five years, the carrying capacity of “Stirling Downs” has been nothing like 1 sheep to 3 acres, which may have been appropriate in the better seasons of the 1950s and 1960s. However, because of the drought, Mr Skelton thought that the long-term average would be more like 1 sheep to 5 acres (1 sheep to 2 ha). In making comparisons between “Stirling Downs” and other properties in the area, Mr Skelton expressed the view that “Uanda” was regarded as superior, being heavier carrying downs country than “Stirling Downs” and was situated on the bitumen road, just out of Tambo, whereas “Stirling Downs” was 40 km from Tambo, with 16 km of dirt road, which was a problem for trucking stock.
However, while he thought that “Stirling Downs” and “Westbourne” were very similar, he thought that “Minnie Downs” was as good as, or even better than, “Stirling Downs”, because it was more shaded country. He agreed that “Toolmaree” was a bit lighter carrying country, as the grass was not as prolific.
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 “Stirling Downs” as comprising:
6,325 ha (72%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.2 ha
1,900 ha (22%) downs, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.4 ha
500 ha (6%) channels, carrying capacity 1 sheep to 1.8 ha
However, during the course of the hearing, Mr Haydon conceded that the second category of downs would be more appropriately described as “undulating red soil ridges (bloodwood)”. However, he maintained that the carrying capacity of that area would remain at 1 sheep to 1.4 ha. Overall, Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity of “Stirling Downs” at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 6,980 sheep.
When questioned about the categories of country assessed by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Mr Haydon thought that the detailed categorisation of the property, which was for the purposes of a flora and fauna survey, were broadly consistent with his more general classification, for the purposes of assessing unimproved value. He thought that it was largely a matter of terminology. Furthermore, the regional eco-system codes and the detailed descriptions were not specific to “Stirling Downs”, but applied broadly to the types of country over a wide area. The fact that RE code 4.9.11, referred to gidyea woodland etc, was inappropriate for “Stirling Downs”, where there would be few, if any, gidyea trees.
Mr Haydon did not agree with Mr Skelton’s assessment that “Stirling Downs” was similar in value per ha to “Minnie Downs”. In Mr Haydon’s opinion, “Stirling Downs” was only a little behind “Uanda” in terms of unimproved value per ha. Nor could Mr Haydon agree that “Stirling Downs” and “Westbourne” were similar, as Mr Haydon had valued the “Westbourne” aggregation, including “Sunny Downs”, which was severed by the Ward River, causing access and management problems.
The Issues
Mr Skelton relied heavily on the assessment by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service of the various types of country on “Stirling Downs”. However, as pointed out by Mr Isdale, that assessment was clearly focused on native flora and fauna, not on the capacity of the property to run sheep and cattle. That was clearly demonstrated, as Mr Isdale submitted, where the report referred to buffel grass as a weed and a threat. That demonstrated the particular focus of the survey, because there is ample evidence that landowners throughout the area regard buffel grass as good quality improved pasture.
With Mr Haydon’s concession that the terminology of his second category of downs country could more appropriately be described, I accept that he has recognised the lighter carrying capacity of that class of country. The differences are largely in terminology, as both categories of country are Mitchell grassland, albeit with somewhat different soil types.
There was a difference between Mr Skelton and Mr Haydon in terms of carrying capacity. Mr Skelton took into account the reality of the last five years of drought conditions. I accept that Mr Haydon’s carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha is based on historical long-term carrying capacities for the purposes of comparison from property to property.
“Stirling Downs” is in close proximity to the selected case “Minnie Downs”. Mr Haydon regards it as the most appropriate comparison. The Court determined the unimproved value of “Minnie Downs” at $185/ha. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, that is a sheep area value of $277. In my view, the evidence establishes that “Stirling Downs” is superior country to “Minnie Downs” overall. Having regard to the larger area of “Minnie Downs” and the proportion of more heavily timbered country resulting in a carrying capacity somewhat lower, I am of the view that Mr Haydon adopted an appropriate sheep area value for “Stirling Downs” of $280. At a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, that is $224/ha.
In the circumstances, the appellants have not been able to demonstrate that Mr Haydon’s valuation is incorrect. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of the “Stirling Downs” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at One Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000).
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0