Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 178

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0178

PARTIES:

Phillip L Walker
(appellant)

v.

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

FILE NO:

RV2006/0427

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland – General Division

PROCEEDING:

An appeal against a rental valuation.

DELIVERED ON:

25 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 the eastern part of "Westhill" (Lots 13 and 14) for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million Three Hundred and Eighty-seven Thousand Dollars ($1,387,000).

CATCHWORDS:

Unimproved value – part of grazing property in Blackall Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties - direct comparison with determinations of valuations of other properties – apportionment of valuation of whole property  for rental purposes - 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. This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Blackall against the unimproved value applied to his 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. Mr PL Walker is the owner of a grazing property known as "Westhill", containing an area of 13,706.998 ha, which comprises two grazing homestead perpetual leases, the western part, Lot 18 (GHPL 3/5815) containing an area of 6,206.011 ha and the subject land, the eastern part, Lots 13 and 14 (GHPL 3/6015), containing an area of 7,500.987 ha. 

2. 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 $2,900,000, or $210/ha, to "Westhill".  Separate valuations for each of the leasehold parcels were also made for $1,500,000, or $240/ha, for Lot 18 and $1,450,000, or $193/ha, for the subject land, Lots 13 and 14.  Separate appeals were lodged against each of those valuations and each appeal has been dealt with separately.  In the present appeal, Mr Walker advised that his estimate of the unimproved value is $780,000. 

3. I have determined the unimproved value for "Westhill" as a whole at $2,740,000, or $200/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 0176.

The Evidence for the Appellant

1. Mr Walker gave evidence in this case as he did in the other two "Westhill" cases.  In his written statement he describes the country as comprising developed scrub, with two large areas of virgin scrub, a large area of desert country and a smaller area in the south-east corner, with the balance of the country open to lightly timbered downs country with claypans.  Because of the nature of the country, he considers it to be inferior on a per hectare basis to "Westhill" as a whole. 

2. Mr Walker contends that the Department's valuation is out of relativity with the valuation of the nearby property, "New Farm", the valuation of which he maintains was settled by negotiation at $169/ha.  No further evidence was given about "New Farm", but I note that the property was described as having over 60% scrub country, of which 15% is remnant scrub.  That comparison was of no assistance in resolving the present matter.

3. Mr Walker further contends that there are many other determinations of valuations of lands comprising both downs and scrub country which are well below the valuation of $193/ha applied to the subject land.  In his opinion, a valuation of $165/ha would be appropriate.

The Evidence for the Department

1. As with the other "Westhill" appeals, evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that he had assessed this part of the property in the same manner as he had assessed "Westhill" as a whole.  He classified the country on the subject land as follows:

   3,500 ha (47%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha;
        2,700 ha (36%) developed scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha;
        400 ha (5%) remnant scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.6 ha; and
        901 ha (12%) forest/desert with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.4 ha.

   Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, or 5,556 sheep.

2. In defending his applied value of $193/ha, Mr Haydon referred to the determination of the Land Court of the valuation of "Ravensbourne" at $200/ha and to the sale property, "Eastwood", to which the Department applied $178/ha, the details of which are described in the "Westhill" decision.  He also referred to the consent determination of the valuation of $190/ha of the nearby property, "Evora", which is also described in the "Westhill" decision. 

3. Mr Haydon maintains that the valuations of those properties support his application of $193/ha to the subject land.  At his assessed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, the resulting sheep area value of $260 appears to him to be in correct relativity with those of the other properties.  In particular, he considers "Evora" to be the most comparable, but maintains that the subject land has superior location and access.

The Issues

1. As with the appeal against the valuation of the other part of "Westhill", there seems to be little disagreement about the description of the country.  However, as with the western part of the property, Mr Haydon considers the downs country to be similar to some of the best in the area, whereas Mr Walker emphasises the lighter carrying claypan areas throughout the downs country. 

2. There is also the continuing issue of carrying capacity, with Mr Walker maintaining that Mr Haydon's carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha is excessive.  Having regard to the areas of scrub, both developed and remnant, and to the area of desert country, together with the claypans on the downs country, there would seem to be good reason for the Department to review the carrying capacity at the time of the next valuation.  However, for present purposes I will make no finding as to the carrying capacity.

3. The valuation of "Ravensbourne" was determined at $200/ha.  It is a property which has a smaller proportion of scrub and no desert country.  The Department has applied $178/ha, to "Eastwood", a property with a larger proportion of scrub, but with no desert country.  It therefore seems to me that the valuation of $193/ha on the subject land is excessive.

4. This view is confirmed when regard is had to the determination by consent of the valuation of the nearby property, "Evora", at $190/ha.  That property has a larger proportion of downs, a smaller proportion of scrub and a smaller proportion of desert.  Under cross-examination by Mr Boyd, Mr Haydon conceded that this eastern part of "Westhill" is inferior to "Evora". 

5. Having regard to the whole of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that a valuation of $185/ha should be applied to the subject land.  That amounts to a rounded valuation of $1,387,000.

Order

The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the eastern part of "Westhill" (Lots 13 and 14) for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-seven Thousand Dollars ($1,387,000).

JJ TRICKETT

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT