Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 155

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 155 PARTIES: Peter J Crombie and Oenone J Crombie (appellants) v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent) FILE NO: AV2006/0173 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation DELIVERED ON: 31 July 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Winton MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of “Pialaway” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($690,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Aramac Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties – direct comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases – Valuation of Land Act 1944 APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellants Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent [1] This is an appeal by landowners in the Shire of Aramac against the unimproved value applied to their 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). -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Background [2] Mr and Mrs Crombie are the owners of a grazing property known as “Pialaway”, containing an area of 8,336 ha, situated about 116 km north-west of Longreach and about 57 km east of Winton. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $690,000, or $82.77/ha, to that property. The owners appealed against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $335,000. [3] The appeal was lodged on their behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide ranging but of a general nature, essentially contending that the unimproved value is 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. [4] This appeal was one of a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determinations of selected cases in the Shires of Aramac and Longreach.1 The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and to the sales relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard. [5] “Pialaway” is worked in conjunction with the adjoining property, “Drumlion”, which is also owned by Mr and Mrs Crombie. However, “Pialaway” is situatedin Aramac Shire, while “Drumlion” is in Longreach Shire. Under s. 35 of the Act, the Department is required to make separate valuations of such properties, which otherwise would be included in one valuation. The evidence for the appellants [6] Evidence for the appellants was given by Mr PJ Crombie, who explained that the appellants were concerned at the relativity of the valuation of their property with that applied to a nearby property, known as “Glenullin”, to which the Department had applied an unimproved value of $80.70/ha. [7] The basis of their concern stemmed from the fact that following appeals against the 2001 valuations, “Pialaway” had been determined by the Land Court at $20/ha,2 1 Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0009, Pratt v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0063 and Sedgwick v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0066. 2 Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0100, p. 53-54. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 while “Glenullin” would have been determined at $21.90/ha. However, the Court had made an allowance for prickly acacia infestation of 2.5%, so that the resulting valuation of “Glenullin” was $21.40/ha.3 Both properties are open downs country, but Mr Crombie stressed that on “Pialaway” there are significant areas of ashy loose soil on the western part and sandstone ridges through the middle of the property, with scattered whitewood and vinetree on the ridge tops. Those areas are lightly grassed, principally with Flinders grass in the ashy areas. Mr Crombie described “Pialaway” as not well grassed with Mitchell grass, “a light carrying block”. He accepted the Department’s traditional carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha. [8] On the other hand, although an open downs property, “Glenullin” was described as “moderately shaded” and despite large open areas, as having “scattered shade”. The Department’s traditional carrying capacity of “Glenullin”, as contained in the Court decision, is 1 sheep to 1.6 ha. [9] On that basis, Mr Crombie maintained that “Pialaway” should have a lower valuation than “Glenullin”, even with its allowance of 2.5% for prickly acacia infestation. The Department had applied an unimproved value of $82.77 to “Pialaway”, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, while it had applied an unimproved value of $80.70/ha to “Glenullin”, with a traditional carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6ha. In Mr Crombie’s opinion, that relativity is incorrect and the valuation of “Pialaway” should be determined at $73.55/ha. The evidence for the Department [10] Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr PD Schefe, who assessed “Pialaway” by reference to the Department’s historical record, with the assistance of the WARLUS land system mapping, regional eco-system mapping and satellite imagery. He observed that the Department’s record described the property as comprising: “8,336 ha of gently undulating brown soil downs, large areas ashy, lightly shaded with whitewood and some vinetree. Coolibah is situated along the channels.” Its carrying capacity had been assessed at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, or 4,631 sheep. [11] In defending his applied value of $82.77/ha, Mr Schefe referred to the selected case “Ban Ban”, in the Longreach Shire with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha, in respect of which the Court had determined the unimproved value at $89/ha. He also referred to the selected case “Glenample”, in the Aramac Shire, with a carrying 3 [2004] QLC 0100 at 58-60. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha, in respect of which the Court had determined the unimproved value at $112/ha. However, although both those properties have large proportions of downs country, he observed that the downs country on “Pialaway” is inferior. [12] Mr Schefe disagreed with Mr Crombie’s assessment of the relative merits of “Pialaway” and “Glenullin”. He accepted that the Department’s valuer who carried out the 2001 valuation of “Glenullin” had assessed its carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.6 ha. That had been reflected in the decision of the Land Court in determining the unimproved value of that property. However, according to Mr Schefe, the Department’s historical carrying capacity of “Glenullin” had previously been 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, the same as for “Pialaway”. He went on to explain that the Department’s records show that following the objections to the 2001 valuations, the Chief Executive’s delegate had disagreed with the valuer and recommended that the carrying capacity of “Glenullin” should be 1 sheep to 1.7ha. Mr Schefe had adopted that carrying capacity. In his opinion, the unimproved value of “Glenullin” should be slightly higher per ha than that of “Pialaway”. [13] However, Mr Schefe made no allowance in the valuation for the prickly acacia infestation. Although the Department’s records indicate that there were 2,000 ha of scattered prickly acacia, with 200 ha of thick infestation, Mr Schefe was of the opinion that an allowance did not seem warranted. The issues [14] The principal issue in this case is the relativity of the valuation of “Pialaway” with the valuation of “Glenullin”. Mr Crombie contends that “Glenullin”, with a carrying capacity of what he thought to be 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, comprising what he regards as somewhat superior country, should be valued higher than “Pialaway”. With a valuation of $80.72/ha and a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.6 ha, “Glenullin” would have a sheep area value of $129, whereas “Pialaway”, at $82.77/ha and a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, would have a sheep area value of $150. That would clearly be incorrect. [15] However, Mr Schefe adopted a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha for “Glenullin”, in accordance with the alterations of the Department’s historical record. With that carrying capacity, the sheep area value for “Glenullin” is $137.22. That is significantly short of the sheep area value of $150 applied to “Pialaway”. Mr Schefe explained away part of that on the basis that “Glenullin” has inferior access. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 [16] Be that as it may, there has been a departure from the Department’s traditional carrying capacity for “Glenullin”. According to Mr Schefe, it was 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, the same as the carrying capacity of “Pialaway”. However, for whatever reason, the valuer responsible for the 2001 valuations altered the traditional carrying capacity to 1 sheep to 1.6 ha. The Chief Executive’s delegate disagreed, resulting in a compromise carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha. That being the most recent note on the file, Mr Schefe adopted that carrying capacity. [17] In my view, this is another instance where carrying capacity and sheep area values cannot be relied on for comparison purposes. As in the “Bonnie Downs” selected case, I prefer to make comparisons on a per ha basis.4 Before doing so however, I will consider whether Mr Schefe’s level of value is soundly based. Mr Schefe’s Basis [18] Mr Schefe relies on the selected cases “Ban Ban” and “Glenample”. However, “Glenample” is a substantially superior property, situated on a bitumen road not far from Aramac, with a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.5 ha and an applied value of $112/ha. [19] “Ban Ban”, on the other hand, although comprising mostly open downs country and with a comparable carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha, is situated over 200 km distant from “Pialaway”. That makes direct comparison difficult. However, it has an applied value of $89/ha. With a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.7 ha, the sheep area value of “Ban Ban” is $151. That compares favourably with the sheep area value applied to “Pialaway”. [20] Although not relied upon by either Mr Crombie or Mr Schefe, I am conscious of the sale of “Dahlia”, which was so vital to the determination of the valuation of the selected case, “Bonnie Downs”, in Winton Shire. “Dahlia” is also open downs country, to which the Department had applied $112.55/ha. However, as explained in the “Bonnie Downs” case, comparison on a sheep area basis was unreliable because of what had seemed to be the arbitrary alteration of carrying capacities of some of the properties in that area. A comparison was therefore made on the basis of value per ha, country for country. [21] “Dahlia” is situated four properties to the north of “Pialaway”, but only one property removed from “Glenullin”. However, “Dahlia” is in Winton Shire, where the 4 Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 properties were valued by another departmental valuer. As explained in the “Bonnie Downs” decision, there were differences between the values applied to properties in the Winton Shire and the values applied to similar properties in the Aramac Shire. In that case, I expressed my concern about those differences and need not repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that any comparison between “Pialaway” and “Dahlia” would clearly show that the valuation applied to “Pialaway” is not excessive. [22] Returning then to the relativity comparison between “Pialaway” and “Glenullin”, it seems to me that on the evidence, there is good reason for the valuation of “Glenullin” to be slightly lower than the valuation of “Pialaway”. First, if Mr Schefe is correct, “Glenullin” is further from Longreach and Winton and has inferior access. Second, although Mr Schefe said that he did not consciously make an allowance for the prickly acacia infestation, in my view, based on the evidence which I have heard in other cases, there would be good reason why a property with 2,000 ha of scattered prickly acacia should have a somewhat lower value per ha than a similar property without such infestation. [23] For those reasons, I am not convinced that the valuation of “Pialaway” should be altered. Therefore, I propose to dismiss the appeal. Order The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of “Pialaway” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($690,000). JJ TRICKETT PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT -- 6 of 6 --