Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 117

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 117 PARTIES: Terrence N Elliott and Heather M Elliott (appellants) v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent) FILE NOS: AV2006/0301 and RV2006/0302 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: Appeals against revenue valuations DELIVERED ON: 14 May 2008 DELIVERED AT: Barcaldine HEARD AT: Barcaldine MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: 1. In appeal AV2006/0301, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000). 2. In appeal RV2006/0302, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property near Barcaldine – comparisons with determinations of valuations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classifications of country – carrying capacity – sheep area values – Valuation of Land Act 1944 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellants Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent [1] These are appeals by landowners in the Shire of Barcaldine against the unimproved values applied to their land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) for rating and rental purposes under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act). Background [2] Mr and Mrs Elliott are the owners of a grazing property known as “Norbert Park” containing an area of 6,020.1037 ha, situated about 22 km north-west of Barcaldine. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $910,000, or $151/ha, to that property for rating purposes. “Norbert Park” is held under grazing homestead perpetual lease tenure and the provisions of the Act require that the Department make a separate valuation of leasehold land for rental purposes. Accordingly, the Department issued a valuation for rental purposes for the same amount of $910,000. [3] The owners appealed those valuations, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $560,000 in each case. [4] The appeals were lodged on their behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide-ranging but general in 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. [5] These appeals were among a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determination of selected cases in the Shires of Aramac and Barcaldine. The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and to the sale relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 The evidence [6] Mr TN Elliott, one of the owners, gave evidence on behalf of the appellants, while registered valuer, Mr PJ Haydon, gave evidence on behalf of the Department. Both of them described “Norbert Park” as very open Mitchell grass downs country, although Mr Haydon had classified an area of 950 ha as channels. It appears that those area were measured from satellite imagery. According to Mr Elliott, there are no creeks or channels on “Norbert Park”. The lighter areas shown on the satellite imagery would appear to be the beginnings of water courses, possibly claypan areas. [7] There was some dispute about carrying capacity. Mr Haydon initially assessed the carrying capacity at 1 sheep to 1.45 ha, or 4,152 sheep. However, following the determination of the selected cases, he reviewed the valuations to $849,000, or $141/ha. He adopted a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.35 ha, or 4,459 sheep. [8] While Mr Elliott that in a good season the property could run up to 5,000 sheep, he thought that the long term average carrying capacity would be somewhat less than 4,500 sheep. Mr Elliott explained that the country had not recovered its heavy Mitchell grass since the drought and was carrying a large proportion of Flinders grass. However, with good seasons he expected the Mitchell grass to recover. [9] In defending his revised valuation of $141/ha, Mr Haydon relied on a comparison with the valuation of selected case “Tara”, which has an area of 7,509 ha and a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.3 ha, which the Court determined at $140/ha. “Tara” is virtually all good Mitchell grass downs country. [10] Mr Haydon also compared “Norbert Park” with the sale property “Ashgrove”, with an area of 5,515 ha, which was considered by the Court to have a carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.4 ha and an unimproved value of $133/ha. “Ashgrove” has approximately 70% of downs country and 30% of mixed gidyea scrub scattered throughout the property. Approximately 750 ha of the downs country is infested with prickly acacia. [11] Mr Haydon considered “Norbert Park” to be more closely aligned to “Tara” than to “Ashgrove”, although it is very open country and does not have the same quality of Mitchell grass. However, it has the advantage of being situated close to Barcaldine. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 Conclusion [12] Mr Haydon originally valued “Norbert Park” at $151/ha but since the determination of the selected cases, has revised his valuation to $141/ha, only slightly higher than the Court determination of the valuation of “Tara” at $140/ha. Both are open downs properties, with “Tara” having the better carrying capacity, but “Norbert Park” having the advantage of situation and access. [13] The perimeters for the determination of the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” are between the determination of “Tara” at $140/ha, being generally superior country and the valuation of the sale of “Ashgrove” at $133/ha, which has a large proportion of lighter carrying gidyea scrub and an infestation of prickly acacia. [14] During this sittings, the valuation of a larger downs property, known as “Big Tara”, being the balance of the “Tara” aggregation, was determined by consent at $147/ha. The valuation of the nearby downs property, “Avro”, was determined at $136/ha. “Avro” is also very open downs country, but not as heavy carrying as “Tara”. [15] After considering the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Haydon’s proposed valuation of $141/ha for “Norbert Park” is too close to the valuation of the better quality country “Tara” at $140/ha. “Norbert Park” is very open country and used by the owners to run wethers, as it is considered too open for breeding. [16] Notwithstanding its advantage of situation and access, I am of the view that “Norbert Park” should be valued at a rate per ha less than “Tara”. A closer relationship would be the valuation of “Avro” determined at $136/ha. However, I have been persuaded that “Norbert Park” has a slight edge on “Avro”. I propose to determine the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” at $138/ha. For the 6,020 ha property, that amounts to a rounded valuation of $830,000. Orders 1. In appeal AV2006/0301, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000). 2. In appeal RV2006/0302, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Norbert Park” for rental -- 4 of 5 -- 5 purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000). JJ TRICKETT PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT -- 5 of 5 --