Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 40

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 40 PARTIES: David A Elliott (appellant) v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent) FILE NO: AV2006/0183 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation. DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Winton MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Belmont" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-three Thousand Dollars ($1,923,000). CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property in Winton Shire - classification of country – direct comparison with analyses of improved sales – relativity with valuations in adjoining Aramac Shire – relativity with values applied to sales - Valuation of Land Act 1944. APPEARANCES: Mr P Crombie for the appellant. Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law for the respondent. -- 1 of 5 -- 2 [1] This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Winton against the unimproved value applied to his land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act). Background [2] Mr David A Elliot (the appellant) is the owner of a grazing property known as "Belmont", containing an area of 18,318 ha. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $2,100,000, or $114.64/ha, to that land under the provisions of the Act. Mr Elliot appealed to the Land Court against that valuation. [3] The notice of appeal was lodged by his agent, Mr Alister Boyd. The grounds of appeal are quite general in nature, but contend that the valuation is excessive because of failures by the Department take into account or make proper allowance for various factors, and to apply the correct principles of valuation. The owner's estimate of unimproved value is stated to be $810,000. [4] The parties agreed that this case and the case of "Bonnie Downs" be heard together, but on the application of Mr Isdale, the two matters were dealt with separately. However, the parties also agreed that any relevant evidence in either of these cases be evidence in the other. Because there are so many appeals against the Department's valuations in the central west, they also agreed that any relevant evidence in other cases heard at Blackall and Longreach in the previous and subsequent sittings, should be treated as evidence in these two cases. [5] Evidence on behalf of the appellant in this case, was given by Mr RD Fawckner, the owner of "Bonnie Downs", registered valuer, Mr CV Dyer, and the appellant's agent Mr AFM Boyd. They also gave evidence in the "Bonnie Downs" appeal.1 The limitations and scope of their evidence were discussed in that case. As in the "Bonnie Downs" case, the appellant's main concern is the unimproved value applied to "Belmont", compared with the lower unimproved values applied to similar or better properties to the south and south-east in Aramac Shire. The Subject Land [6] According to Mr D A Routh, the registered valuer who gave evidence on behalf of the Department, "Belmont" is located north-east of Winton on the Corfield Creek Road, with access by 27 km of the bitumen sealed Winton to Hughenden Road and 41 km of formed earth road. In wet weather the roads are impassable for two weeks at a time or longer. 1 Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [7] The usual rural services, power, telephone, and twice weekly mail services are available to "Belmont". It is used for wool-growing and cattle-grazing. [8] Mr Routh describes "Belmont" as comprising three GHPLs, with a total area of 18,318 ha, of predominantly open undulating Mitchell grass downs, with areas tending loose, with odd weak pebbly rises, very scattered shade including whitewood, vinetree and mimosa, with limited creeks timbered with coolibah and open flooded flats with claypan influence. The Department's carrying capacity of "Belmont" is 1 sheep to 1.8 ha. [9] Mr Fawckner who knows the property well, described "Belmont" as follows: "'Belmont'… is situated one property removed to the west of 'Bonnie Downs'. It is on a different watershed. Whereas 'Bonnie Downs' water runs east into the Landsborough/Thomson/Barcoo system, 'Belmont's' water runs west into the Jessamine/Diamintina System. 'Belmont' … is extremely open, sparsely grassed and ashy rather than loose. This ashy country grows little perennial grass, some annual grasses such as Flinders (which has a very limited life), some herbages and inedible weeds. Hence, through the winter months, when rainfall is not usually expected, this country becomes devoid of vegetation for long periods and, as a result, must be stocked accordingly. This ashy country has an impervious layer of siltstone under the surface of shallow black soil. In dry times it cracks badly and loses its moisture rapidly. However, during the wet season, the water cannot penetrate the siltstone and the black soil above becomes a quagmire. Mitchell grass roots cannot penetrate the siltstone, hence the lack of Mitchell grass found on ashy country. Even after a run of good seasons, ashy country can still be determined by the lack of perennial grasses."2 [10] Mr Fawckner was of the opinion that "Belmont" is inferior country to "Bonnie Downs", being ashy in large parts and with a lower carrying capacity, which he assessed at 1 sheep to 2 ha, compared with his assessment of "Bonnie Downs" at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha. [11] Mr Dyer agreed with that assessment. He stated that "Belmont" has larger areas of mostly ashy downs, compared to "Bonnie Downs". He also thought its carrying capacity should be 1 sheep to 2 ha, compared with "Bonnie Downs" at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha. [12] Mr Fawckner's evidence was supplemented by a DVD recording which has been discussed in the "Bonnie Downs" case. In addition, the DVD records "Belmont" showing the lack of shade, lack of mimosa and cracking ashy soils. There was a general consensus of opinion that "Belmont" is somewhat inferior to "Bonnie Downs" and should have a lower unimproved value. [13] In the "Bonnie Downs" decision, I discussed in some detail the evidence and the submissions on behalf of the appellant. Very similar evidence applies in this case. The appellant's submissions are almost identical. 2 Exhibit 3, p. 4. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 [14] Mr Routh relied upon the same four sales in support of his valuation of "Belmont" at $2,100,000, or $114.64/ha. I will not repeat the details of those sales. The comparisons are very similar. [15] Similarly, the appellant's contentions and submissions in the "Bonnie Downs" case have equal application to "Belmont". It is sufficient to say that I cannot accept the appellant's submissions that the four sales relied on by the Department are all high sales and the only reliable sale is that of "Rangelands", which Mr Routh regards as a low sale because of a severe infestation of prickly acacia. [16] As I pointed out in the "Bonnie Downs" case3, I find it difficult to accept that as at 1 October 2005, the downs country in Winton Shire was selling for the same price as downs country at Aramac. However, the four sales relied upon by the Department sold at roughly the same price per ha as a better quality property, "Brendallan", immediately adjacent to the town of Aramac, and other downs properties, "Ascot Downs" and "Illabunda". [17] In his oral evidence, Mr Routh said that no matter where they are situated in Winton Shire, all downs blocks sold for around $85/acre ($210/ha) in 2005. He also gave evidence that later sales were for even higher prices. He could offer no explanation as to why the sales at Winton were so high, except to suggest it was because more purchasers had ready access to two or three million dollars. [18] In the circumstances, I must accept the weight of evidence that the four sales relied on by Mr Routh were at market value at the relevant date. The most relevant sale [19] "Dahlia" is the key sale. It adjoins both "Bonnie Downs" and "Belmont", sold in August 2005, close to the date of valuation and is generally similar country. In the "Bonnie Downs" case, Mr Fawckner contended that the purchaser was desperate for grass and paid more than market value because he was over-anxious. However, on the weight of the evidence, I could not find that "Dahlia" was out of line with the other sales in the area. [20] Mr Routh valued "Dahlia" at $112.55/ha and "Belmont" slightly higher at $114.64/ha. In the "Bonnie Downs" case I found on the evidence that "Bonnie Downs" was inferior to "Dahlia". I determined the unimproved value of "Bonnie Downs" at $110/ha. [21] There is general agreement that "Bonnie Downs" is superior to "Belmont", because of the extent of ashy country on the latter. That must be reflected in their respective unimproved values. In the circumstances, I intend to apply $105/ha to "Belmont". 3 [2008] QLC 0036 at [76]. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 [22] As pointed out in the "Bonnie Downs" decision, the determination of these two appeals does not restore the correct relativity of the unimproved values of properties in Winton Shire with those in Aramac Shire. As I explained in that case,4 although the evidence clearly shows the lack of relativity between the valuations in those two Shires, I have no power to correct that relativity in these two cases. Order: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Belmont" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-three Thousand Dollars ($1,923,000). JJ TRICKETT PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT 4 [2008] QLC 0036 at [94] to [99]. -- 5 of 5 --