Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 182

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0182

PARTIES:

Richelle N Walker
(appellant)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)

FILE NOS:

RV2006/0430 and RV2006/0431

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland – General Division

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against rental valuations.

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT:

Blackall

MEMBER:

Mr JJ Trickett

ORDERS:

1.   In appeal RV2006/0430 the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the eastern part of "Glenusk" for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000).

2.   In appeal RV2006/0431 the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the western part of "Glenusk" for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($95,000).

CATCHWORDS:

Unimproved value – grazing property in Blackall Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties - direct comparison with determinations of valuations of selected cases – Valuation of Land Act 1944

APPEARANCES:

Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant.

Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent.

1. These are appeals by a landowner in the Shire of Blackall against the unimproved values 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

1. 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.

2. "Glenusk" adjoins the southern boundary of the larger property, "Westhill", which is owned by Mrs Walker's husband, Mr PL Walker.  The two properties are worked in conjunction. 

3. "Glenusk" comprises the land held under two term leases, Lot 18, Term Lease 219883 (the eastern part), containing an area of 890 ha and Lot 24, Term Lease 211150 (the western part), containing an area of 478.44 ha. 

4. The provisions of the Act require that the Department make a valuation of the whole property for rating purposes and separate valuations of each of the leasehold parcels 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 for $177,500, or $200/ha for the eastern part, Lot 18 and $108,000, or $225/ha, for the western part, Lot 24.  Separate appeals were lodged against each of the valuations and each appeal was dealt with separately.  In the present appeals, Mrs Walker advised that her estimates of the unimproved values are $100,000 for the eastern part, Lot 18 and $51,000 for the western part, Lot 24.

5. I have determined the unimproved value of "Glenusk" as a whole at $253,000, or $185/ha.[1]  In my reasons for that decision I have set out the background to these matters. 

   [1]            Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0181.

The Evidence for the Appellant

1. In his oral evidence, Mr Walker described the country on the eastern part as consisting of mostly pulled gidyea scrub, with two areas of desert type country and claypans on the creek.  There is an area of downs country on the north-eastern side, which Mr Walker has marked on the satellite image as comprising a small area of better downs and a somewhat larger area of lighter carrying timbered downs.  However, he did not attempt to estimate the areas of the various types of country. 

2. As with "Glenusk" as a whole, Mr Walker referred to the valuation applied by the Department to "Eastwood" of $178/ha, contending that the subject land could not be valued at $225/ha unless the Department had applied a considerable premium for its small size. 

3. In respect of the western part of "Glenusk", Mr Walker describes the land as basically pulled gidyea country, with small areas of virgin scrub and with some open downs and timbered downs.  The satellite image shows two small areas of better downs country and compact area of lighter carrying timbered downs. 

4. Although he had not estimated the various areas, Mr Walker agreed that the western part had a higher proportion of the better downs and was superior country hectare for hectare.

The Evidence for the Department

1. Mr Haydon described the country on the eastern part as comprising:

   205 ha (23%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha;
        420 ha (47%) 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/desert, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.4 ha.

   Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity overall at 1 sheep to 1.45 ha, or 614 sheep.

2. In respect of the western part, Mr Haydon classified the country as comprising:

   238.44 ha (50%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha; and
        240 ha (50%) developed scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha.

   His carrying capacity overall was 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 368 sheep.

3. Mr Haydon's evidence in support of his valuations is discussed in my reasons for the determination of the valuation of "Glenusk" as a whole.  They need not be repeated here.  The valuations of each of the smaller parts of "Glenusk" are essentially apportionments of his valuation of the whole property.

The Issues

1. Both Mr Walker and Mr Haydon agree that the country on the western part of "Glenusk" is superior to the country on the eastern part.  Although Mr Walker has not estimated the various areas of the different types of country, he was in no position to disagree with Mr Haydon's classification of the country on the eastern part.  However, in respect of the western part, Mr Walker did not accept Mr Haydon's classification of 50% downs and 50% scrub.  He thought that there might be more scrub than downs.

2. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must accept the classifications made by Mr Haydon.  However, from the satellite imagery and the mapping attached to Mr Haydon's statement, if the remnant areas are taken into account, there does seem to be a slightly greater proportion of scrub country.  In any case, there is agreement that the western part is superior hectare for hectare to the eastern part.  Therefore, it should have a higher valuation per hectare.  I also accept that there should be small premium for size in the rate per hectare adopted for these parcels compared with the valuations of larger parcels, on the same basis as was discussed in my reasons for the decision in the "Glenusk" case.

3. Having regard to the country on each of the parts of "Glenusk", I have come to the conclusion that the valuations should be $180/ha for the eastern part and $200/ha for the western part.  When rounded, the valuations are $160,000 and $95,000 respectively.

Orders

1.In appeal RV2006/0430 the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the eastern part of "Glenusk" for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000).

2.In appeal RV2006/0431 the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the western part of "Glenusk" for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($95,000).

JJ TRICKETT

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT