Waite v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 7
•14 February 1997
|
BRISBANE
14 FEBRUARY 1997
Re: AV96-187 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Jondaryan Shire
A.R. and D.D. 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 unimproved value of land described as Lot 1 on RP 94769, Parish of East Prairie, County of Aubigny, containing 154 ha was assessed by the Department of Natural Resources as it now is, in the amount of $227,500, being $1,475 per ha.
The property is situated about 50 km west of Toowoomba with primary access via the bitumen Toowoomba/Cecil Plains Road, then 4 km of formed gravel road.
The land is described by the Department as comprising in general black soil treeless plain, mostly cultivated in the past with the exception of a grassed strip of about 10 ha along the southern boundary, retained for flood damage control. The land falls naturally from the south-east to the north-west and, in common with local farms, is regarded as floodplain country. The predominant use of the land is for the growing of grain and cereal crops with strip farming practices adopted in an attempt to mitigate erosion damage.
The appellants estimate the current unimproved value to be $155,000. This is based on what they consider to be a fairer comparison with valuations of other farms in the immediate locality. Grounds of appeal refer to the degradation which has resulted from flooding, causing loss of topsoil and creation of gullies and depressions. Flooding has also caused infestation of the arable land with weeds and noxious plants. In an effort to mitigate the effects of flooding, a management practice has been adopted to allow strips of cultivation to revert to grassland. Mr A. Waite who conducted the appellants’ case, estimated that between 16 and 20 ha of cultivation has been effectively lost through this practice. Nevertheless such practice is considered a necessary contribution in an effort to protect the future agricultural use of the property. Even so the subject property is experiencing loss of soil causing depressions and general working and access difficulties through concentration of water from upstream properties.
It is the appellants’ opinion that insufficient regard is paid in the valuation for farming practice which recognises erosion mitigation. They see it as wrong that those farmers who have employed policies such as maximum cultivation with little if any thought to conservation then with resultant land degradation, seem in their opinion, to receive the benefit of lower valuations.
Mr B.R. Krause, a registered valuer employed by the Department, made the valuation appealed against. It is his evidence that each of the grounds of appeal relating to the disabilities of the property were considered in the valuation process. The level of value applied had been supported, in his opinion, by the evidence provided by three sales. Brief details of that evidence was as follows:
(1)Dean to Ziesemer - 178.4 ha (Pittsworth Shire) - 30 May 1995, sold to show an analysed unimproved value of $1,464 per ha, with an applied valuation of $1,412 per ha. This sale land comprised arable light to medium black soil treeless plain with some flooding, which Mr Krause considered slightly inferior as land to the subject, although its access was slightly superior.
(2)McVeigh to Nothdurft - 163.2 ha (Pittsworth Shire) - sold 10 July 1995 showing an analysed unimproved value of $1,254 per ha, with an applied valuation of $1,250 per ha. The land comprised 143.2 ha of gentle to easy sloping agricultural treeless black soil plain, considered inferior to the subject land and valued at $1,345 per ha with 20 ha of easy sloping agricultural brigalow/belah scrub country valued at $550 per ha.
(3)O’Shea to Pfeffer - 161.8 ha (Pittsworth Shire) - sold 28 October 1995 showing an analysed unimproved value of $1,255 per ha, with an applied valuation of $1,250 per ha, the land comprising 140 ha of agricultural treeless black soil plain considered inferior to the subject and valued at $1,390 per ha; 12 ha of easy sloping agricultural forest with red/brown clay soils valued at $500 per ha and 9.8 ha eroded watercourse at $200 per ha.
Also set out in Mr Krause’s report was a map showing the valuations applied to other properties in the immediate locality of the subject. This, together with a tendered aerial photograph, was of assistance in understanding the overall evidence. While the pro rata valuations of several properties are less than that of the subject property, the relativity map, a copy of which was contained in the report provided to Mr Waite, showed that the relativity of the agricultural plain component is consistent with the explanations provided by Mr Krause, with many properties carrying a higher component valuation than that of the subject.
What is clear from Mr Waite’s evidence is that the problems emanating from the erosion problem are very real. He has gained little confidence from the soil conservation theories of the technicians operating as advisors in Government Departments. The appellants are demonstrably land care conscious and will sacrifice production capacity to mitigate degradation, based on their own experience, rather than any technical advice received.
They have not however, been able to show that regardless of the clear potential for increasing degradation, the unimproved value applied is unrealistic based on the sales evidence generally. If their fears for the future are proved by continuing or increased degradation, the question of value will still need to be resolved by interpretation of the market for such land.
I have not been persuaded that the valuation appealed against has been proved wrong based on any comparable sales evidence, nor that relativity between valuations of strictly comparable property has been demonstrated to be wrong. While their land care concerns are fully recognised, the appellants have been unable to carry the burden of proving that the valuation should be reduced on the grounds of their appeal.
The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0