Waite v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 18
•14 February 1997
|
BRISBANE
14 FEBRUARY 1997
Re: AV96-186 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Jondaryan Shire
J.H. Waite
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(Hearing at Dalby)
D E C I S I O N
As at 1 January 1996 the Department’s assessment of the unimproved value of land described as Lot 2 on RP 94769, Parish of East Prairie, was in the amount of $210,000. That valuation is calculated as $1,380 per ha for the total area of the property which is 152.2 ha.
The grounds of appeal relate to the susceptibility of the property to flooding and erosion. The appellant here, Mr John Waite, is the brother of Mr Angus Waite whose property adjoins to the east. A decision on an appeal against the Department’s valuation of that property is also delivered today (AV96-187). Mr John Waite gave evidence in support of the appeal. The grounds of the appeal relate to disabilities associated with flood flows. Mr Waite’s management practice has in recent years been to cultivate only one-third of the property and to allow the balance to go back to grass. The land comprises all black soil treeless plain country and there is no dispute that the property is near fully arable.
Mr Waite is concerned that if the subject land was continued to be cultivated to its full potential then it would eventually become so degraded as to be lost to future generations. As with his brother Angus, he has no confidence in the soil conservation theories and schemes promoted by the relevant Government agency. He was one of the first farmers in the area to practise strip cultivation but found it ineffective in combatting erosion. Mr Waite recognises that the Ashall Creek catchment water flow problems, which affect the subject property, are but part of a much wider area of erosion hazard. He tendered a 1977 report on a study of the Linthorpe and Aubigny catchments by officers of the Soil Conservation Branch of the Department of Primary Industries, as demonstrative of the extent and nature of the long-recognised problem.
Put simply it is Mr Waite’s opinion that his management strategies should be recognised in the valuation process and that the level of value applied should not be greater than that applied to mixed grazing and farming areas in the less valuable upper reaches of the catchment. His estimate of the unimproved value of the subject property is $100,000. Another problem associated with the particular land was the lack of unformed access immediately external to the property - again due to the effects of flooding erosion and deposition of silt.
The Department’s valuation was carried out by Mr B.R. Krause. He relied on the three sales scheduled in Appeal AV96-187. That evidence is contained within his report on this matter - a copy of which was provided to the appellant. Mr Krause has no doubt that the highest and best use of the land is for cultivation for the growing of grain crops. He says the incidence of flooding is common to much of the locality and it is recognised that even with the farming practice of strip cultivation, erosion damage occurs after severe flood events. In Mr Krause’s opinion, the topography of the plain lands and the boggy conditions which occur after rain do not warrant any reversion to grazing usage on a large scale. He is aware that the Department of Primary Industries does not encourage fencing or any farming practice which could have the effect of interfering with free flow of water on the plain and Mr Krause was aware of a conservation scheme proposed for the locality. As he saw it the effects, whether beneficial or adverse, of that scheme will need to be monitored with the passage of time. The particular disabilities suffered by the subject land from the flooding outbreaks from Ashall Creek (which now follows a route within the road reserve adjacent to the southern boundary), have been recognised in the valuation of $1,380 per ha, according to Mr Krause. Details of valuations applied to adjoining and nearby properties were provided in his report. Mr Krause is comfortable with the valuation on a relativity comparison although he conceded that specific allowances made for the disabilities over the years may have been “softened” slightly by the rounding process adopted in annual valuations.
It is clear that Mr Waite’s concerns for the future of his land are real. He has made the personal decision to utilise no more than one-third of the property, at any one time, for cultivation. However, the Department is obliged to carry out the valuation in terms of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. Subsection (1)(b) of that Act, provides the meaning of unimproved value in relation to improved land as follows:
“The capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.”
The market for land within an erosion hazard area, and as is owned by Mr Waite, is demonstrated by the sales evidence. Admirable as it may be for Mr Waite to impose limitations on his own use of the land for what he believes to be the interests of future generations, he, as a hypothetical vendor, would be regarded as imprudent not to market the land for its highest and best use potential. There is nothing before the Court then to prove, as the appellant, to be successful, is required to do, that the valuation appealed against is wrong, either in comparison with the sales evidence or in relation to the valuation of neighbouring properties.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0