Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 181
•28 August 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0181 PARTIES: Richelle N Walker
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0429 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation. DELIVERED ON: 28 August 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Blackall MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Glenusk" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Hundred and Fifty-three Thousand Dollars ($253,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Blackall Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties - direct comparison with determinations of valuations of other properties – Valuation of Land Act 1944 APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant.
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent.
This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Blackall against the unimproved value applied to her land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) as at 1 October 2005 under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).
Background
Mrs RN Walker is the owner of a grazing property known as "Glenusk", containing an area of 1,368.44 ha, situated about 31 km north-east of Blackall, with access by bitumen and formed earth and gravel roads.
"Glenusk" adjoins and is run in conjunction with the larger grazing property, "Westhill", which is owned by Mrs Walker's husband, Mr PL Walker. It is a relatively narrow strip of land joining the southern boundary of "Westhill" and comprises the land held under two term leases, with areas of 890 ha and 478.44 ha.
The provisions of the Act require the Department to make one valuation of the combined area for rating purposes and separate valuations of the land comprised in each of the term leases for rental purposes. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $275,000, or $200/ha, to "Glenusk" as a whole. Separate valuations for each of the leasehold parcels were also made by the Department at $177,500 and $108,000 respectively. Mrs Walker appealed against the valuation of "Glenusk", advising that her estimate of the unimproved value is $135,000. Separate appeals were lodged against each of the valuations of the leasehold parcels and those appeals have been determined separately.[1]
[1] [2008] QLC 0182.
The three appeals were lodged on Mrs Walker's behalf by her agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of each of the appeals are wide-ranging but general in nature, essentially contending that the unimproved values are 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.
As with other appeals by landowners represented by Mr Boyd, these cases was tried by fast-track hearing, whereby evidence was confined to comparisons with the determinations of the valuations of selected cases and the valuations of other properties in the area.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Evidence on the appellant's behalf was given by her husband, Mr PL Walker, who expressed concern that the Department had valued "Glenusk" at $200/ha, despite the fact that it comprises 65% scrub country. In his opinion, "Glenusk" could be likened to "Eastwood", which has 73% developed scrub country and to which the Department applied a valuation of $178/ha. Mr Walker thought that the Department may well have applied a premium to the valuation because of its relatively small size compared with most of the properties in the area.
Mr Walker produced a satellite image of "Glenusk" which showed the various types of country and upon which he had marked the areas of better downs country and lighter carrying timbered downs country.[2] He generally accepted what he thought to be the Department's classification of the country at 35% downs, 61.5% scrub and 3.5% forest/desert. However, he had not independently calculated the areas.
[2] Exhibit 7
In his written statement,[3] Mr Walker referred to what he understood to be the determination by consent of the valuation of the small property, "Cooee", which comprises 70% scrub country. He maintained that notwithstanding its close proximity to Blackall, it was determined at $192.50/ha, compared with the $200/ha applied to the subject land. However, it emerged in evidence that Mr Walker had been informed by Mr Boyd about "Cooee" and that he had little or no detailed knowledge of the property.
[3] Exhibit 4.
The Evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that he had assessed "Glenusk" by reference to the Department's historical record, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery.
Based on his measurements from that mapping, Mr Haydon had classified the country on "Glenusk" slightly differently to the classifications contained in Mr Walker's statement, which seemed to have been based on the Department's previous assessment of the property. Mr Haydon's classifications are as follows:
443.44 ha (32%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha;
660 ha (48%) developed scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha;
165 ha (12%) remnant scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2 ha; and
100 ha (7%) forest, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.4 ha.Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity of the property at 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, or 977 sheep.
In support of his valuation of $200/ha, Mr Haydon referred particularly to the determination of the valuation of the selected property, "Ravensbourne", at $200/ha. Although larger, "Ravensbourne" has a similar carrying capacity to Mr Haydon's carrying capacity of "Glenusk". "Ravensbourne" has 27% scrub country, the balance being largely downs and open red soil forest. While conceding that there was a larger percentage of scrub on the subject land, because of its relatively small size, Mr Haydon had added a small premium to the valuation. He regards his applied value of $200/ha as appropriate in the circumstances.
Mr Haydon also referred to the valuation applied by the Department to the sale property, "Eastwood", which was also mentioned by Mr Walker. That property is larger, with an area of 10,097 ha. The Department's applied value is $178/ha. "Eastwood" has a smaller proportion of downs and a larger proportion of scrub country. In Mr Haydon's opinion, the subject land must be valued higher per hectare. With a small premium for size, he maintains that the valuation applied to "Eastwood" supports a valuation of $200/ha on "Glenusk".
As in the "Westhill" cases, Mr Haydon referred to the determination by consent of the valuation of the nearby property, "Evora", at $190/ha. "Evora" has an area of 12,260 ha, with a larger proportion of downs and a smaller proportion of scrub country. However, with the small premium for size, applied to the valuation of "Glenusk", Mr Haydon was of the view that the valuation was in correct relationship to the valuation applied to "Evora".
Mr Haydon also referred to the determination by consent of the valuation of the 3,451 ha property, "Lilydale", at $215/ha. That property is close to Blackall on a bitumen road and has a somewhat larger proportion of downs and a smaller proportion of scrub. However, it also has 41% of channels, sandy ridge and flooded Coolibah country. In Mr Haydon's opinion, that valuation of a property of similar size and carrying capacity, supports the valuation of $200/ha applied to "Glenusk".
The Issues
There is little disagreement between Mr Walker and Mr Haydon about the classification of the country. Mr Haydon explained that he had measured the areas of the various types of country from the regional eco-system mapping. That changed the previous classifications to some extent. He attributes a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, to the whole of the 32% of downs country, whereas Mr Walker maintains that somewhat more than half of it is lighter carrying timbered country. Mr Walker accepts Mr Haydon's classification of the remnant scrub and forest/desert areas, simply because he was in no position to disagree.
Mr Walker contends for a valuation of $178/ha, the same rate per hectare that the Department has applied to the sale property, "Eastwood". However, "Eastwood" is a much larger property and, having regard to the differences in the proportions of scrub on each of them, I agree with Mr Haydon's assessment that "Glenusk" should be valued at a higher rate per hectare.
Mr Haydon relied on the Land Court determination of the valuation of "Ravensbourne" at $200/ha and also to the determination by consent of the valuation of "Evora" at $190/ha. However, both those properties are much larger and have a greater proportion of downs country.
Perhaps the most appropriate comparison in terms of size is the determination by consent of the valuation of "Lilydale", the area of which is much closer to that of the subject land. However, "Lilydale" has a somewhat larger proportion of downs and a much smaller proportion of scrub. It also has a large proportion of country associated with channels, sandy ridge and flooded Coolibah. It is situated near Blackall, which must enhance its value. Having regard to the situation and the areas of remnant scrub and desert country on "Glenusk", I am of the view that its valuation should be at a significantly lower rate per hectare than that applied to "Lilydale".
Conclusion
If it was not for the disparity in size, in my view the best comparison would be the valuation applied to "Eastwood" of $178/ha. However, "Glenusk" has a smaller proportion of developed gidyea country. When development costs are considered, it should have a higher rate per hectare.
Although Mr Haydon produced no market evidence to demonstrate that a property the size of the subject land would sell at a higher rate per hectare than larger properties, it is a well recognised principle of valuation that smaller properties often sell for higher rates per hectare than larger ones. That principle was recognised by this Court in recent cases in the Winton Shire, where the two components of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation were determined at slightly higher rates per hectare than the valuation of the aggregation itself, partly because the two components were smaller.[4] I propose to apply a slightly higher rate per hectare than would be appropriate if the property was the same size as "Eastwood".
[4] Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0107.
Having regard to all these matters, I have come to the conclusion that a valuation of $185/ha would be appropriate for "Glenusk". That amounts to a rounded unimproved value of two hundred and fifty-three thousand dollars.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Glenusk" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Hundred and Fifty-three Thousand Dollars ($253,000).
JJ TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
4
0
0