Zatta v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2001] QLC 24
•12 April 2001
|
BRISBANE
12 APRIL 2001
Re: AV99-66, 67, 68 and 69
Appeals against Unimproved Valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Local Government: Hinchinbrook
Sante and Livia M Zatta
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellants own four properties which were valued by the respondent Chief Executive under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act1944 as at a relevant date of 1 October 1997. The significance of that date is that the values have to be determined as they stood at that date and not at any date before or after. The Chief Executive placed a value on Appeal AV99-66 of $190,500, whilst the appellants contend for a figure of $103,000. In the case of Appeal AV99-67 the appellant contends for a figure of $72,000 as against the Chief Executive's valuation of $155,000. The Chief Executive's valuation for AV99-68 is $169,500 as against the appellants' estimate of $86,500. In Appeal AV99-69 the Chief Executive's valuation figure was $258,000, whilst the appellants contend that the valuation ought to be $127,000.
One of the co-owners of the land the subject of three of the above appeals, Mrs Zatta, appeared for the appellants and for her husband as appellant in AV99-67. Peter Geoffrey Simmonds, a registered valuer, provided valuation evidence in support of the Chief Executive's valuation. The matters in issue are of narrow compass and, accordingly, I will not set out the grounds of appeal in detail.
The lands, the subject of these appeals, are together farmed by the appellants and have been improved by them so that the land may be used for cane-growing purposes. The lands are generally located north-west of Abrergowrie township and north-west also of the town of Ingham which is the main centre in the area. There was some disagreement between the parties as to the distance between the subject lands and the Ingham Central Business District and I will come to those matters shortly.
Mr Simmonds employed historical records together with an inspection of the subject lands to arrive at a description of each. In its original state the property, the subject of Appeal AV99-66, was undulating light to medium forest which appears to have comprised mainly poplar gum, bloodwood and messmate timber. The arable land on that property measured by Mr Simmonds to cover an area of 32.6 ha comprises a mix of sandy loams and sandy clay loams to loamy clays and wet clays. The total area is 34.33 ha.
The AV99-67 property also comprised undulating light to medium forest which originally supported a stand of trees comprising mainly messmate, bloodwood and Moreton Bay ash. The arable land comprises a mix of dark loamy clays, clay loams and wet clays. Mr Simmonds described this property as being prone to flooding wash and there is stone in the paddocks which rises when the land is cultivated. I will return to the matter of stone shortly. In Mr Simmonds' opinion this property comprises 30.48 ha of arable land out of a total of 35.08 ha.
The property the subject of Appeal AV99-68 originally comprised gently undulating to level medium to heavy forest bounded by Gowrie Creek feeder gullies on the western side and with one internal deep gully. The original forest there appears to have comprised mainly bloodwood, poplar gum, grey gum and Moreton Bay ash. The arable land on that property comprises a mix of sandy loams and sandy clay loams to loamy clays and wet clays and Mr Simmonds calculated an area of 29 ha as being arable out of the total 32.66 ha.
The property contained in AV99-69 is described as being flat to gently undulating paddocks broken by terraces and gullies. In its original state the property comprised medium to heavy forest and scrub with the majority of stony soils, the original forest probably comprising messmate, blue gum, poplar gum and wattle timber with light scrub along the creeks. The arable land comprised a mix of sandy loams to loamy clays and wet clays. This property is prone to seasonal inundation which damages the internal bridge and creek bank areas. Most of this property is affected by rock and stone in the paddocks. Mr Simmonds measured 50 ha of this land as arable and 29.62 ha as non-arable.
Mrs Zatta accepted the above descriptions as being accurate, however, it was the matter of distance from the Ingham Central Business District as included in Mr Simmonds' valuation with which she took exception in the case of three of the appeals. In Appeal AV99-66 Mr Simmonds calculated the distance as 40 km, whereas Mrs Zatta says this ought to be 52 km. In the case of Appeal AV99-67 her figure is 60 km, whilst Mr Simmonds included a figure of 45 km in his valuation report. Finally in the case of AV99-69, Mr Simmonds said the distance was 40 km, whilst Mrs Zatta's figure is 50 km.
Mr Simmonds said that he recalled measuring the distance to the home block by vehicle odometer and then calculating the rest by the use of aerial photography. He said that during the inspection he drove back and forth across the farms thus making it difficult to calculate the distance by odometer. He properly conceded that Mrs Zatta,, who with her husband has lived on and worked the subject properties for in excess of 30 years, would be expected to have an accurate appreciation of the distance to town from the nearest boundary of each of the properties. Accordingly, I accept Mrs Zatta's estimates as being accurate.
Unfortunately Mrs Zatta was not able to assist me as to any particular allowance that might be made with respect to the errors in distance calculation included in Mr Simmonds' valuation, nor was I provided with any general suggestion as to how this matter might be dealt with. Given this vacuum in the evidence I invited Mr Simmonds to consider the matter during an adjournment and to provide me with expert advice. Mr Simmonds did this, however, his advice was that having regard to the relativities between the valuations of the subject properties and other properties, together with the quantum of allowance made for distance on the subject lands and others, his conclusion was that notwithstanding the assumption that some of his distances were in error no further allowance should be made. He acknowledged that with changes in the micro-economic circumstances confronting cane farms in future years, further allowance for distance may need to be needed, however, as at a relevant date of 1 October 1997 sufficient allowance was made in the valuation provided by him on behalf of the Chief Executive.
In appeals against the valuations of the Chief Executive there is a responsibility placed upon the appellant to discharge the burden of proving the grounds of appeal. That generally involves the provision of evidence upon which the Court can act. The Court cannot properly make allowance for matters without guidance being provided from the evidence. The state of the evidence in this matter of distance is that the appellants have not adduced evidence upon which I am asked to rely to reduce the valuations, whilst the opinion of Mr Simmonds, an expert valuer called by the Chief Executive, is such that in his opinion no allowance can appropriately be made. Accordingly I am not in a position to make a further allowance as, on the evidence, none is warranted.
Mrs Zatta emphasised the broken nature of the land contained in Appeals AV99-68 and AV99-69. The broken nature of the country both makes it difficult to farm the land, there being a lot of to and fro travelling by machinery. In addition, Mrs Zatta raised a concern that cane growing in the steeper country would not have the same exposure to sunlight as would occur on flatter land with the consequential effect that the sugar content of the cane expressed as a CCS is reduced. She said that this problem is exacerbated by there being many overcast days in the area of the subject lands. In her opinion, property AV99-69 is the worst affected and compared with AV99-66 and AV99-68, Mr Simmonds' valuation is consistent with that view. Mr Simmonds said, however, that AV99-67 is inferior to AV99-69 because of distance to Ingham and poorer soil quality on the former property. When I record that Mrs Zatta did not disagree with the description of these two properties contained in Mr Simmonds' valuation, nor with his comparison with the sale properties included in his valuation, I conclude that the value relationships between the four properties the subject of these appeals as contained in Mr Simmonds' valuation are probably appropriate.
Mrs Zatta tendered a schedule showing productivity of farms in the district of Garrawalt in which the subject properties are included. In these schedules the lands the subject of these appeals are aggregated together as a farm. Whilst schedules for the periods 1993 to 2000 inclusive were tendered, I can for the purpose of these appeals which have a relevant date of 1 October 1997, have regard only to the schedules for the period 1993 to 1997 inclusive:-
| Rank Order | CCS | Cane Tonnes per ha | Sugar | |
| 1993 | 17 | 12.11 | 90.3 | 10.93 |
| 1994 | 26 | 13.10 | 82.3 | 10.77 |
| 1995 | 29 | 11.95 | 92.6 | 11.06 |
| 1996 | 26 | 12.28 | 92.4 | 11.35 |
| 1997 | 28 | 12.82 | 86.5 | 11.08 |
There was no evidence from either side as to the annual influences that may have caused variations from one year to the other with respect to the period covered in the above schedule. On one view the 1993 year is a high year, whilst later years are at about the same level, having regard to the rank order of the aggregated subject properties. Mr Simmonds said that his understanding of the table was that the subject farms consistently produce CCS at about half a point below the average, though he acknowledged that there were some fluctuations.
I do not have evidence which I can apply following a consideration of the above production figures to conclude that the value placed on the subject lands by the Chief Executive is wrong. There is no evidence, for example, that says that the rank order of properties impacts on land value in a particular manner, nor evidence which shows such a proposition to be correct.
Mrs Zatta tendered a newspaper article headed "Rural Bulletin" with a handwritten date "Feb 2001" recorded at the head of the article. The subject matter of the article was concerned with both the value of cattle lands and cane lands as seen by a representative of a private firm of valuers. Part of the article records a view that values of cane lands had fallen 25% from the peak values of 1998-99.
The matters under appeal arise out of annual valuations carried out by the Chief Executive. It is required that values be struck as at a particular date - in these cases 1 October 1997 - and that in subsequent valuations evidence from the marketplace be relied upon to strike values as at those dates. It is not appropriate for the Chief Executive nor for the Court to take into account evidence of market movements after the relevant date for valuation. In any event, the appearance in a newspaper article of an opinion attributed to a valuer is not of itself of such weight that, even if it were otherwise relevant, could be relied upon by a Court in deciding an appeal under the Valuation of Land Act. Notwithstanding this, the article provided by Mrs Zatta does tend to confirm Mr Simmonds' view that at 1 October 1997 the market for cane farms was buoyant.
In his written valuation reports in each of these appeals Mr Simmonds included the details of seven sales transactions involving the sale of cane farms. He analysed those sales to remove all improvements, including any standing crop, to arrive at an unimproved figure revealed by the marketplace with respect to those particular properties. His process then involved a comparison between those sales and the lands the subject of these appeals. Mrs Zatta did not know the sale properties in detail but thought that they may be at a higher value than the subject properties, given that the sale properties were closer to Ingham and, in her view, would have enjoyed longer periods of sunshine with a consequent benefit in CCS.
I have perused the sales evidence having regard to Mrs Zatta's comments, and I note that except with respect to Sales 3, 4 and 5 in Mr Simmonds' schedule of sales each of the sale properties reveals a value higher than that applied to any of the subject lands. Sales 3, 4 and 5 reveal lower values, however, on my appreciation of the evidence such lower values are justified by the lower soil quality evident on those sale properties, compared with the soil quality on the subject properties. I have considered the sales evidence overall and find no evidence to displace the validity of reliance being placed upon the sales, nor do I find the comparisons between those sales and the subject lands to be defective in any way with one possible reservation. That reservation is concerned with the question of whether Mr Simmonds has made sufficient allowance for the distance between the lands in Appeals AV99-66, AV99-67 and AV99-69 and the Ingham Central Business District. I have already mentioned the manner in which I have dealt with that question and that am left in a position of not having sufficient evidence upon which I could rely to make an adjustment to the valuations under appeal.
In the circumstances I find the following quotation from Qualischefski v. The Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167 at 172 most appropriate:
"However upon appeal a statutory onus of proof is cast upon the appellant and he has to accept, within the confines of the grounds set out in his Notice of Appeal to the Land Court, the burden of proving the Valuer-General incorrect. Neither this Court nor the Land Court in the subject jurisdiction may assume the role of an investigating tribunal requiring the Valuer-General to substantiate his case. This is in contradistinction to jurisdiction conferred under the Land Act."
It is clear to me that Mr and Mrs Zatta have invested a large amount of their lives and their energy in developing and farming the properties the subject of these appeals. At the time of the hearing of these appeals in February 2001 the appellants were concerned about the impact of the 1997 valuations on the level of local authority rates payable in subsequent years. I acknowledge those concerns as being both real and worrying, however, the task of this Court is confined to a consideration of the evidence which points to the value of these lands as at 1 October 1997 and not thereafter. Valuations at dates after 1997 may reveal the downward trend in values which Mrs Zatta feels have taken place. Those are matters, however, properly to be taken into account in valuations carried out at later relevant dates.
The appeals are dismissed and the valuations of the Chief Executive are affirmed.
RP SCOTT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0