Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 177
•25 August 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0177 PARTIES: Phillip L Walker
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: RV2006/0428 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 western part of "Westhill" (Lot 18) for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($1,365,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Blackall Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties - direct comparison with determinations of other properties – apportionment of valuation of the 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.
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
Mr PL Walker is the owner of a grazing property known as "Westhill", with a total area of 13,706.998 ha, comprising two grazing homestead perpetual leases, the western part, Lot 18, with an area of 6,206.011 ha and the eastern part, Lots 13 and 14, with an area of 7,500.987 ha. Under the provisions of the Act, the Department is required to value the whole of the property as one parcel for rating purposes and each of the GHPL's for rental purposes.
As at 1 October 2005, the Department valued the whole of "Westhill" at $2,900,000, or $210/ha. I have determined the appeal against that valuation at $2,740,000, or $200/ha.[1]
[1] Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0176.
The present appeal is in relation to the western part, Lot 18, GHPL 3/5815, containing an area of 6,206.011 ha. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,500,000, or $240/ha, to that land. Mr Walker's estimate of the unimproved value of Lot 18 is $690,000.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Lot 18 comprises the western side of "Westhill", which Mr Walker describes as open to lightly timbered downs country with two areas of scrub, part of which is developed and part undeveloped. According to Mr Walker, there is good downs country on the western side of this parcel, but the balance of the downs has large areas of claypans, with an area of open boree and gidyea country in the south-west corner. Mr Walker explained that he had not calculated the areas of the various types of country because he thinks about the property as a whole, rather than its individual components. However, he regarded the Department's carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 4,965 sheep, as excessive, maintaining that the family had never run that many sheep on Lot 18 when "Westhill" was a sheep property.
Mr Walker was concerned that the valuation of $240/ha was only slightly lower than the valuation of $250/ha applied to "Alice Downs", which he regards as one of the best properties in the Shire. In his opinion, $240/ha is out of relativity with the valuation of $222.50/ha applied by the Department to "Mineeda", a property comprising largely downs country with some developed gidyea scrub, situated only 10 km east of Blackall. By comparison, Mr Walker is of the opinion that the valuation applied to the subject land is excessive.
Mr Walker also referred to the valuation of a property known as "Tarves", which he regards as superior to the subject land, but to which the Department has applied a similar valuation per hectare. However, it emerged in cross-examination that Mr Walker had only limited knowledge of that property.
On the basis of the valuations applied to those properties, Mr Walker contends that a valuation of $185/ha would be more appropriate for the subject land.
The Evidence for the Department
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 western part of the property in the same manner that he had assessed "Westhill" as a whole. He had classified the country on Lot 18 as follows:
5,306 ha (85%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha;
700 ha (11%) developed scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha; and
200 ha (3%) remnant scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 3 ha.Mr Haydon assessed the carrying capacity overall at 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, or 4,965 sheep.
In defending his applied value of $240/ha, Mr Haydon referred to the determination by the Land Court of the valuation of "Ravensbourne" at $200/ha and to the valuation of $178/ha applied to the property "Eastwood". He also referred to the consent determination of the valuation of the nearby property, "Evora", at $190/ha.
Mr Haydon maintains that the valuations of those properties support a valuation of $240/ha on the subject parcel. At his assessed carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha, he considers that the resulting sheep area value of $300 appears to be in correct relativity with those of the comparison properties.
The Issues
Essentially the principal issue in this case is the valuation applied to the subject land. There is some disagreement about the description of the country. 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 through part of the downs country.
There was also an issue about the carrying capacity. Mr Haydon maintains that a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha is appropriate, while Mr Walker thought that it was excessive. As with the "Westhill" case, I am reluctant to make a finding about the carrying capacity of this parcel of land, but suggest that the matter should be considered by the Department at the time of the next valuation of the area. At 1 sheep to 1.2 ha, the downs country is rated as equivalent to the best in the area, whereas as the evidence indicates that a proportion of it has claypan areas.
Lot 18 only one property removed from the comparison property, "Evora", the valuation of which has been determined by consent at $190/ha. Mr Haydon seems to have reviewed the carrying capacity of "Evora" from 1 sheep to 1.3 ha to 1 sheep to 3.5 ha. On the evidence, I am of the view that the country on the subject land is superior to that on "Evora" and that its valuation should be somewhat higher.
It is common ground that this western part of "Westhill" is superior to the eastern part and that it should have a higher unimproved value. It is also common ground that this is the best country on "Westhill" and that it should have a higher valuation per hectare than the property considered as a whole. There is no suggestion in these cases that a premium should be applied for size in the valuation either of the parts of "Westhill". Therefore, essentially the valuation of the two parts of "Westhill" are an apportionment of the valuation of $2,740,000 determined for the property as a whole.
Taking all those matters into account, I have come to the conclusion that the subject land should be determined at $220/ha. That amounts to a rounded valuation of $1,365,000.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of the western part of "Westhill" (Lot 18) for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($1,365,000).
JJ TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0