Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 176
•25 August 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Walker v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0176 PARTIES: Phillip L Walker
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2006/0426 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual 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 "Westhill" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($2,740,000). 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.
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", containing an area of 13,706.998 ha, situated about 31 km north-east of Blackall, with access by bitumen and formed earth and gravel roads.
"Westhill" comprises land held under two grazing homestead perpetual leases, with areas of 7,500.987 ha and 6,206.011 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 those leases 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 by the Department at $1,450,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. Mr Walker appealed against the valuation of "Westhill", advising that his estimate of the unimproved value is $1,360,000. Separate appeals were lodged against each of the valuations of the leasehold parcels and those appeals have been determined separately.[1]
[1] [2008] QLC 0177 and [2008] QLC 0178.
The three appeals were lodged on Mr Walker's behalf by his 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 to the determinations of the valuations of other properties in the area.
The Evidence for the Appellant
Mr Walker disagreed with the Department's classification of the country on "Westhill" as 64% downs, 29% scrub, and 7% desert, with no indication as to whether the country was good, fair or poor. He produced a satellite image on which he had marked various types of country and a computer produced map, indicating the developed scrub, the remnant scrub, the better downs and the lighter downs, as well as the areas of desert.[2] However, he did not estimate the areas of each type of country.
[2] Exhibits 3 and 4.
Mr Walker conceded that there were areas of very good downs, but they were generally open and lacking in shade. The area which he described as lighter downs, or open to lightly timbered, contains a proportion of creek channels and scalded claypans. That area is more lightly grassed than the better downs and has a lower carrying capacity. The claypan areas, in particular, grow very little.
Mr Walker disagreed with the Department's assessment of 600 ha of remnant scrub. He gave evidence the remnant areas were measured by a land development contractor, utilising a regional eco-system map which he had obtained from the Department's website. The contractor measured the remnant area at 785 ha, compared with the Department's assessment of 600 ha. Mr Walker also gave evidence that soil tests carried out recently on the downs country showed that the salt content was very high, indicating that the downs was quite stressed. However, he produced no documentation relating to those tests. When cross-examined by Mr Isdale, Mr Walker did not know whether the salt content was comparable with that of other nearby properties, such as "Evora" and "Alice Downs".
In his written statement, Mr Walker referred to a number of Court determinations of other properties in the area.[3] However, it emerged in cross-examination that those comparisons were made on the basis of information which he had obtained from Mr Boyd. Mr Walker appeared to have little knowledge about the detail of those comparison properties.
[3] Exhibit 2, para [8].
In Mr Walker's opinion, the Department had overestimated the carrying capacity of "Westhill" at 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 10,544 sheep. Although the property now ran mainly cattle, it had once been a sheep property, having been held by Mr Walker's family since 1966. He maintained that when the property was running mainly sheep, they had never run more than 7,000 sheep and 200 cattle. At a conversion rate of 7 sheep to 1 beast, that equates to approximately 8,400 sheep.
Mr Walker rejected any comparison with the selected case, "Ravensbourne", because of the large proportion of red soil forest ridges and slopes which, he maintains, is quite different to the country on "Westhill".
Mr Walker preferred to make comparisons with the valuation of "Evora" and "Alice Downs", both of which are situated only one property removed from "Westhill". According to Mr Walker, "Evora" does not have the same proportion of desert and developed gidyea country as "Westhill". The appeal against the valuation of $195/ha on "Evora" was negotiated by the parties and determined by the Land Court by consent at $190/ha. Mr Walker considered the country on "Evora" to be superior to the country on "Westhill" and on that basis, he contends for a valuation of $175/ha.
The Evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, who explained that he had assessed "Westhill" by reference to the Department's historical record, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional ecosystem mapping and satellite imagery.
His classification of the country appears in his statement[4]:
8,807 ha (64%) downs, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha;
3,400 ha (25%) developed scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.25 ha;
600 ha (4%) remnant scrub, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.6 ha; and
900 ha (7%) forest/desert country, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 2.4 ha.Mr Haydon assessed the overall carrying capacity of "Westhill" at 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, or 10,544 sheep.
[4] Exhibit 5.
In defending his valuation of $210/ha, Mr Haydon had regard to the determination of the Land Court of the valuation of "Ravensbourne". That property has an area of 8,777 ha, comprising 26% downs, 37% open forest, 23% developed scrub, 4% remnant scrub and 10% channels and claypans. The Court determined the valuation at $200/ha and found a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha, resulting in a sheep area value of $280.
He also referred to the sale property, "Eastwood", with an area of 10,097 ha, comprising 16% downs, 73% developed scrub, 6% channels and 4% remnant scrub, to which the Department had applied an unimproved value of $178/ha. With a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, the resulting sheep area value is $232.
Although Mr Haydon referred to the selected case, "Minnie Downs", it is considerably larger and he did not seem to place any great reliance upon it.
Mr Haydon also referred to the negotiated agreement by the parties and the Court's determination by consent of the valuation of the nearby property, "Evora", at $190/ha. The country on "Evora" comprises 58% downs, 22% open to shaded red soil downs (described by Mr Haydon as "open forest"), 12% developed scrub, 4% remnant scrub and the remainder forest/desert. Mr Haydon had revised the carrying capacity to 1 sheep to 3.5 ha, resulting in a sheep area value of $255. Being only one property removed, Mr Haydon regarded "Evora" as the most comparable, maintaining that "Westhill" has slightly superior country, carrying capacity, location and access.
Under cross-examination by Mr Boyd, Mr Haydon conceded that he had incorrectly described the 22% open to lightly shaded red soil country on "Evora" as "downs". However, he claimed that it was a matter of terminology and that his estimate of carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha was appropriate.
The Issues
Although Mr Walker took issue with the Department's description of the country on "Westhill", the evidence indicates general agreement between him and Mr Haydon. A comparison between Mr Walker's marked satellite image and the various maps attached to Mr Haydon's statement shows they are referring to the same areas. Mr Walker's description of lighter downs country with the creek channels and claypans, was not challenged. Clearly that area is not all first-class downs country and it would seem to be necessary for the Department to review its carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.2 ha for at least part of the 8,807 ha of the country Mr Haydon describes as "downs".
Although Mr Walker contends that the area of remnant scrub is greater than the 600 ha measured by Mr Haydon, there was no explanation as to how the contractor had arrived at the area of 785 ha. In any case, the difference of 185 ha would have little effect on the overall carrying capacity of the property. Similarly, in the absence of further evidence regarding the soil tests of the salt content of the downs country, it is not clear whether such results would be confined to "Westhill", or would relate generally to the downs country in the Blackall area.
The principal issue relates to the comparison with the determination by consent of the valuation of "Evora" at $190/ha. Mr Walker is of the opinion that "Evora" is superior country because it has a greater proportion of downs and smaller proportions of developed scrub and desert. However, Mr Haydon maintains that he had initially misdescribed the 22% of open to lightly shaded red soil country as "downs". He now describes it as more like the red soil ridge country on "Ravensbourne".
That area of red soil country is clearly depicted on the satellite image attached to Mr Haydon's statement. If it is similar to the red soil ridge country on "Ravensbourne", it is country which would carry buffel grass and Mr Haydon's carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha could be appropriate.
Notwithstanding the lighter downs country on "Westhill", Mr Haydon maintains that overall "Evora" is slightly inferior. It seems that in reaching the settlement of the valuation of "Evora", Mr Haydon reviewed its carrying capacity from 1 sheep to 1.3 ha to 1 sheep to 1.35 ha. That results in a sheep area value for that property of $256.50.
Although Mr Walker casts some doubt on the Department's assessment of carrying capacity of "Westhill" at 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, he had some difficulty in relating its carrying capacity to a sheep basis, probably because the property has been running cattle.
While on the state of the evidence I am reluctant to make a finding as to the carrying capacity of "Westhill", the Department should have a closer look at that carrying capacity and its comparison with "Evora" at the time of the next valuation of the area.
For present purposes, I accept Mr Haydon's opinion that "Evora" is slightly inferior to "Westhill". If the area of lighter downs was classified separately and had a similar carrying capacity to the red soil country on "Ravensbourne", the proportions of country are not vastly dissimilar. Putting aside comparisons on a carrying capacity or sheep area basis and considering the comparison properties hectare for hectare, I have come to the conclusion that a valuation of $200/ha for "Westhill" would be appropriate. That amounts to a rounded unimproved value of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars.
Order
The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Westhill" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Two Million, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($2,740,000).
JJ TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0