Arthur & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 124

LAND COURT BRISBANE 14 NOVEMBER 2001 Re: AV99-1306, AV99-1346 and AV99-1438 Appeals against Unimproved Valuations - Valuation of Land Act 1944 Local Government: Paroo Shire Marcus E and Barbara J Arthur (AV99-1306) Robert C and Margaret T Little (AV99-1346) Eric L, Carol R and Cameron H Godfrey (AV99-1438) v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Hearing at Cunnamulla) D E C I S I O N S Background: These appeals are against the chief executive's unimproved valuations, as at 1 October 1998 of three properties in Paroo Shire. The properties lie within a "Sub Market Area" (SMA) identified by the chief executive's valuers, for valuation purposes, as the Warrego Flood Plain SMA. The original valuations issued in this SMA represented a 40% factorised increase over the previously existing valuations as at 1 January 1996. Subsequent to the objection procedures and review of the original sales analyses, the level of value was reduced to reflect a 30% increase (ie a reduction of 7.5%). A large group of owners remained dissatisfied with those reduced valuations and filed appeals in the Land Court. Four representative appeals were heard and decided, the Court finding that a further reduction of 5% in the general level of applied values within that SMA was warranted. Accordingly, the chief executive reduced all valuations within the SMA by the further 5%. A relatively small number of the original group remained dissatisfied. The valuations of their properties had been reduced by the 5% pursuant to s.68 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act). These particular appeals were heard together at the request of the parties as the appellants' submissions are near identical. [2001] QLC 124 -- 1 of 17 -- 2 Appearances Mr ME Arthur appeared and gave evidence as a joint appellant in the first appeal which relates to the property known as "Yankalilla". He then acted as agent for the second appellants being the owners of the property "Waverley". Mr EL Godfrey appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants in the third appeal which relates to the property "Barrygowan". Mr K Fisher, barrister with Crown Law, appeared on behalf of the chief executive. Mr MTJ McManus, senior valuer employed by the chief executive, was responsible for the valuations appealed against and gave evidence in support of those valuations. The Issues It is the contention of the appellants in each matter that the locality in which their properties are situated suffers a natural disability in that the cost of providing adequate stock water is significantly more expensive than on other properties within the SMA including each of the sale properties. The flow capacities of the artesian bores which have been drilled on the subject properties are generally low but, in the absence of high flow bores, each existing bore is said to be essential for the efficient management of those properties. On a pro-rata basis, the surface areas watered by these bores is significantly less than the areas watered by high flow bores, with otherwise comparable original construction costs, on other properties. The appellants' case is that the additional cost involved in adequately watering properties with inferior artesian water flows is not reflected in the valuations of the affected properties. That results, in their opinion, in incorrect relativity of valuations, with properties relying on a greater number of bores with low flows, being over valued in comparison with those properties where high-flow bores water far greater surface areas. Through Mr Arthur, the evidence of the appellants is that the varying availability of artesian water is a natural feature of the underlying strata and the resultant aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin, the geographical distribution of which can now be identified by hydrological evidence. It is the appellants' contention that consideration of such evidence proved by the performance of individual bores, is an essential ingredient in the unimproved valuation process, just as is consideration of all other natural features. Reductions in the originally issued valuations are seen to be a direct result of departmental review of bore valuation methodology in the sales analyses. It is argued -- 2 of 17 -- 3 by the appellants that the "blanket" factorised reductions have skewed relativity of valuations unfairly against those properties which carry the additional expense necessitated by the greater number of bores but with less than average benefit. Through Mr McManus, it is the chief executive's basic response to the complaints of the appellants that it is near impossible to identify the nature or extent of the aquifers underlying an individual property when bores drilled to a similar depth within relatively close proximity produce significantly different water volumes. "Yankalilla" was seen as a good example of that factual situation. Mr McManus is comfortable with the relativity which has historically evolved between the valuations of individual properties within the fairly extensive SMA. He is of the opinion that as the factorised adjustments are market based and relate to the analyses of the sale properties with varying features which affect market value, the resultant relativity remains fair and reasonable. The Individual Appeals (1) AV99-1306 - ME and GJ Arthur - "Yankalilla" Property Description: Lot 1 on Plan NO11 being GHFL 15/1502 Lot 1 on Plan NB26 being GHFL 15/1476 Lot 2 on Plan NB26 being GHFL 15/1526 Lot 5 on Plan NB32 being GHFL 15/1414 Parishes of Widgeegoara and Bundaleer, Counties of Nebine and Noorama. Area: 37,156.616 ha Situation and Access: Approximately 115 km south-east of Cunnamulla via the bitumen sealed Mitchell Highway for 35 km, then Noorama Road, bitumen sealed for 67 km then formed earth and gravel for 13 km. Services: Rural power, telephone, twice weekly mail service. Use: The property is used for sheep breeding and woolgrowing with limited cattle breeding. Nature of Land: 8,670 ha (23%) of open to broken plain, partly timbered with coolibah, gidyea and leopardwood, 13,724 ha (37%) of grey/brown soils with coolibah, gidyea, brigalow, lignum and dogwood with areas of claypan, 4,870 ha (13%) of red soil -- 3 of 17 -- 4 gidyea, brigalow, sandalwood with claypans, 9,892 ha (27%) of cypress pine and sandhills. Carrying Capacity: Department of Primary Industries' Assessment: 1 DSE to 3.17 ha (11,721 sheep). Valuation Appealed Against: $332,000 reduced pursuant to s.68 of the Act from $350,000. Owners' Estimate of Value: In the Notice of Appeal - $240,000. Owners' Evidence: A written submission was tendered (as Exhibit 2) and Mr Arthur gave oral evidence generally in support of that submission. Mr Arthur had carried out a mathematical calculation to show the pro-rata surface areas watered by the artesian bores on selected sale properties - ie area of sale property ÷ number of bores. On the sale properties selected (including "Plain View" which was not used as a basic sale in the representative cases) he found that the average pro-rata area per bore was 7,172 ha (ranging from 4,595 ha to 10,373 ha). The seven bores on "Yankalilla" watered only 5,308 ha pro rata per bore. Furthermore a large section in the north of "Yankalilla" was watered by bore drains from properties to the north, otherwise another bore would have been required in that section. On Mr Arthur's analysis, the bores on the sale properties watered 35.1% more area per bore than did the existing bores on "Yankalilla". Because the original blanket 7.5% reduction in the valuations within this SMA, following objections, was accepted as the result of increased bore values in the sales analyses, Mr Arthur calculated that the standard 7.5% reduction should have been increased by 2.63% (35.1% of 7.5%) in the "Yankalilla" valuation. On the original valuation of $380,000 that increase represented $9,964 more than the rounded $30,000 reduction which had been applied. Mr Arthur calculated that the $30,000 reduction represented $4,286/bore, while properties to the north, "Widgeegoara" (one bore watering 21,450 ha), "Avondale" (one bore watering 16,545 ha) and "Camden" (two bores watering 32,510 ha) had received, on the factorised methodology, reductions equivalent to $18,500/bore, $15,000/bore and $16,750/bore, respectively. For that reason he contended that in addition to the $9,964 calculated above, a further reduction of 10% -- 4 of 17 -- 5 of the valuation now appealed against should be made in an endeavour to correct what he saw as the resultant incorrect relativity in the "Yankalilla" valuation. Mr and Mrs Arthur had unsuccessfully challenged in this Court (Appeal AV96-456) the valuation by the chief executive in the amount of $270,000 as at 1 January 1996. The principal issue then had also been the relatively expensive cost of providing adequate stock water. During that earlier hearing, considerable detail was provided by Mr Arthur as to the history and physical condition of the seven bores. The Court saw it as reasonable to accept at that time " there are locations on the southern section of 'Yankalilla' where, despite the construction technique, drilling will provide relatively poor results. Similarly other bore sites both on the southern section and elsewhere have proved relatively successful. It is probable that had the better producing bores been sunk first, the phenomenon would never have been known". In this matter, Mr Arthur did not see the different bore flows in the southern section as a phenomenon. He explained - "What we're saying is that basically while the bores do differ in flow from approximately somewhere under 23,000 gallons to up to about 70,000 or 80,000 gallons but outside that area the bores are half a million gallons a day. Now as I say it seems to me in talking with the hydrologist and looking at this map and looking at the surface map with the exception of one bore to the west, not on us, that they pretty well correlate to the 'hydrologist's map' but the flows in the 'hydrologist's map' where he is saying they are less are definitely less". Mr Arthur had tendered the "hydrologist's map" as part of his written submissions together with a map showing the location of bores with various flow rates. The "hydrologist's map" obtained from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, indicates broad-based water level contours, showing the height above sea level to which artesian water may be expected to rise once the basin has been penetrated. The higher the level to which the water will rise when related to ground level is said to be an indication of the pressure and consequent volume of water which may be expected at a general location. The tendered map indicates geographic contours where water levels are indicated to rise in height above sea level northerly and easterly/north-easterly from the general locality of "Yankalilla". The water level contours in the "Yankalilla" locality indicate bands of surface area running generally east-west, which could be (on my interpretation of the map) as wide as, say, 30 km where the artesian water is predicted to rise to between 160 m and 170 m (AHD) above sea level. It was Mr Arthur's evidence that ground level at "Yankalilla" at the airstrip is 158 m. At Cunnamulla, for example, the contours indicate a water level -- 5 of 17 -- 6 rising to between 200 m and 210 m. It was Mr Arthur's evidence that the ground surface level at Cunnamulla is 182 m. Mr Arthur had not compared the indicated water levels on the "hydrologist's map" with the location of the sale properties. Nevertheless, he was firmly of the opinion that the map provided conclusive evidence of a natural occurrence which could be related to geographic location. He said that the hydrologist who had provided him with the contour map had mentioned that the "Hooray sandstone" underlying the "Yankalilla" locality could be a cause of the relatively poor artesian supplies. Evidence for the Chief Executive Mr McManus had given evidence in the representative cases and had been involved in the review of sales analyses relevant to this SMA. There had been no dispute in the representative cases that the sales analyses presented to the Court differed from earlier analyses or that the initial reduction in valuations following objections, had resulted from significantly higher values being ascribed to the artesian bores. Those higher values were adopted for reasons associated with government funding which had become available, through the Great Artesian Basin Rehabilitation Project. In this matter there was no dispute as to the classification of the "Yankalilla" land and its carrying capacity as adopted by Mr McManus. His valuation of $332,000 or $8.94 per ha had been based on a direct comparison with the six sales and their analyses as determined by this Court in the representative cases. Those sales were of the properties "Claverton", "Northam"/"Airlie", "Robina Downs", "Weona", "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" and "Willacora". Written comparisons between the sale properties and "Yankalilla" were provided. With regard to the appellants' argument regarding a geographical disability relative to the artesian water supply, it was Mr McManus' personal opinion that "the actual aquifer layers may vary" within relatively close proximity. He gave the example that on "Yankalilla", one bore had been drilled 250 m deeper than another 3.3 km distant but had a lesser flow than the shallower bore. He offered the opinion that the evidence suggested to him an inability to accurately locate from the ground surface, the actual aquifer levels that may produce the most productive water. He was unable to offer an opinion as to whether the existence of seven bores on "Yankalilla" demonstrated a geographic disability relative to artesian water. However, his valuation basis had been obtained from the sales evidence, which included the sales of -- 6 of 17 -- 7 "Robina Downs" and "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford", which properties were in the same immediate locality as "Yankalilla", and, as it happened, within the same general water level contour as depicted on the hydrology map relied upon by Mr Arthur. Mr McManus had given consideration to the relativity of valuations of other properties in the locality of "Yankalilla" and was confident that not only had long- established relativities been maintained but that those relativities were realistic. (2) AV99-1346 - RC and MT Little - "Waverley" Property Description: Lot 4 on Plan NB36 being GHPL 15/1680, Parish of Kumbogan, County of Nebine. Area: 14,150.239 ha Situation and Access: "Waverley" is situated immediately to the south of "Yankalilla" about 120 km south, south-west of Cunnamulla. It is accessed via about 35 km on the bitumen sealed Mitchell Highway, then about 67 km of bitumen on the Noorama Road then about 18 km of formed earth and part gravel road. Services: Rural power, telephone, and a twice weekly mail service are available. Nature of Land: There was no dispute as to the nature of the land being: 8,480 ha (60%) open and broken brown soil, coolibah, white wood and gidyea country, 3,240 ha (23%) red soil gidyea, sandalwood, 2,430 ha (17%) sandhills, cypress pine and hopbush. Use: The property is used for sheep breeding and woolgrowing. Carrying Capacity: Again there was no dispute that the carrying capacity of the property (as accorded with departmental records) was 1 DSE to 2.6 ha (5,442 sheep). Valuation Appealed Against: $159,000 having been reduced pursuant to s.68 of the Act from $167,500. Appellants' Estimate: In the Notice of Appeal - $128,000. -- 7 of 17 -- 8 Appellants' Evidence: Mr Arthur tendered a written statement on behalf of Mr and Mrs Little and gave some oral evidence in support of that statement. The contents of the submission were similar to those tendered by Mr Arthur in the "Yankalilla" matter. The exceptions were that "Waverley" has five bores all described as essential to the efficient management of the property. All are bores with flows of less than 5,000 gallons per day and all were drilled to around the same depth. The relevant bore summaries were tendered. Flows have continued to diminish over the years, according to Mr Arthur. The average pro-rata area watered by each bore is 2,830 ha. The sale properties as referred to in the "Yankalilla" submission average 7,172 ha on a pro-rata basis per bore, in this case 153.4% more than "Waverley". Using the same mathematical methodology as with the "Yankalilla" submission, it was calculated that, as a direct result of the greater expenditure on water infrastructure than the average on the sale properties, the initial reduction following objection to the original valuation of $180,000 should have been $21,150 in addition to the $12,500 reduction which had been applied by the chief executive. Although the examples of the reductions calculated on a per bore basis in the valuations of the properties "Widgeegoara", "Avondale" and "Camden" were again quoted, it was suggested that, in comparison with the reduction per bore (quoted as $2,680) for "Waverley", following objection, an unidentified "place next door" was said to have received $23,000 per bore. Again it was suggested that on relativity grounds a further 10% reduction equivalent to $15,900 should be applied to reduce the offered valuation by a total $37,050. In his oral evidence Mr Arthur left no doubt that, in his opinion, the water disability problem on "Waverley" was more serious than on "Yankalilla". He questioned how often the artesian basin underlying "Waverley" would need to be perforated before the disability would be accepted as proved. Mr Arthur suggested that the existing relativity of valuations between "Waverley" and "Yankalilla" was reasonable if based on country classification alone but he was unable to accept that the obvious water disability, as he saw it, had been recognised in the valuation appealed against. Again reliance was placed on the hydrology map and the reference by the hydrologist to the existence of the underlying "Hooray sandstone" as a probable cause of the poor drilling results. -- 8 of 17 -- 9 Mr Arthur requested that, other than for the factual differences, his evidence in the "Yankalilla" appeal be adopted as evidence in this matter as well. Evidence for the Chief Executive: Mr McManus tendered a written report and gave oral evidence in support of a valuation of $158,000 or $11.17/ha, relying on all sales referred to in the "Yankalilla" appeal. There was no evidence from him as to the slight discrepancy between his valuation and the valuation of $159,000, pursuant to s.68 of the Act. Mr McManus was fully aware of the number and location of bores on "Waverley", having inspected that property first in 1994 in connection with a sale at about that time. He had reinspected it prior to the hearing. He had regarded one of the bores as a "problem" bore on the advice of a previous owner, but had not specifically researched the actual flow rates of the other bores and could offer no opinion as to the probability that "Waverley" suffered a specific water disability. In terms of the performance or potential added value of any specific bore it was his opinion that on analysis each would have "to be looked at on its individual merits". Based on his oral evidence in the "Yankalilla" matter, it may be accepted that Mr McManus does not subscribe to the theory that any particular property has a proved water supply disability on the evidence only that some bores have produced poor or declining results while other bores in relatively close proximity may be regarded as good producing bores. In this matter, he made specific oral reference to the sale properties "Robina Downs" and "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford", both of which adjoin parts of "Waverley". The sale of "Robina Downs" showed an unimproved value on the analysis adopted by the Court in the representative matters of $11.21/ha. However, as one of the representative appeals, a valuation of $9.28 had been determined by the Court. In Mr McManus' comparison, the country on "Robina Downs" was considered inferior to "Waverley" but otherwise the properties had similar location, access and rainfall, were of similar size and neither had permanent natural water. "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" was substantially larger in area but Mr McManus suggested in his written comparison that the access to and country on the sale property were slightly superior to "Waverley" but "overall on a rate/ha the sale is considered similar to the subject". Again Mr McManus observed that both "Robina Downs" and "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" fell within the same water contour lines as indicated on Mr Arthur's hydrology map. -- 9 of 17 -- 10 (3) AV99-1438 - EL, CR and CH Godfrey (as new owners) - "Barrygowan" Property Description: Lot 1 on Plan NB31 being GHFL 15/1675, Parish of Kumbogan, County of Nebine. Area: 15,758.864 ha Situation and Access: "Barrygowan" adjoins "Waverley" to the south being about 130 km south-east of Cunnamulla, via 35 km of the bitumen sealed Mitchell Highway, 67 km of bitumen seal on the Noorama Road then 28 km of formed earth and parts gravel road. Services: Rural power, telephone, and a twice-weekly mail service are available. Nature of Land: The description of land (as supplied by Mr McManus) is as follows: "5,844 ha (37%) comprises brown to grey, open and broken coolibah, channels, flats, gidyea clumps and wilga, 7,487 ha (48%) comprises red soil gidyea, pockets of dense gidyea and brigalow, sandalwood and 2,428 ha (15%) comprises sandy cypress pine etc sandhills." Use: At the relevant date of valuation, the use was described as grazing - sheep and some cows and calves. Carrying Capacity: According to Mr McManus the historical records of the Department indicated a carrying capacity equivalent to one sheep to 2.2 ha (7,163 sheep) Valuation Appealed Against: $126,000 having been reduced pursuant to s.68 of the Act from $133,000. Appellants' Estimate of Value: In the Notice of Appeal the former owner, Mr CJ Cuffe, had estimated a valuation of $102,000. Appellants' Evidence: Mr EL Godfrey gave oral evidence and tendered a written submission similar in format and generally similar in content to those submitted by Mr Arthur in relation to the appeals against the valuations of "Yankalilla" and "Waverley". -- 10 of 17 -- 11 The differences were that "Barrygowan" had three artesian bores, each watering on a pro-rata area basis 5,253.3 ha. This was compared with the 7,172 ha average for the bores on the various sale properties. For similar reasons, as discussed in the other two appeals, it was contended that, when the original blanket reduction of 7.5% was made it should have been instead 8.3%, resulting in an additional reduction of $3,724. As with the other appeals, it was contended that in addition to that calculation there should be a further 10% reduction in the valuation now appealed against. Mr Godfrey admitted that he found himself in a difficult position in exercising the right pursuant to s.46(2) of the Act, "to carry on in the new owners' name, the appeal". The property had been purchased by the new owners in May, 2001 and in Mr Godfrey's opinion, the sale price, on a proper analysis, would show a much lower unimproved value than was being argued as at 1 October 1998. He was clearly concerned with the prospect that evidence in this appeal might in some way prejudice litigation of any dissatisfaction with the next valuation at some future relevant date. Mr Godfrey criticised some of the comments contained in Mr McManus' "Inspection and Interview/Report". The interview had been conducted by Mr McManus with his wife Mrs Carole Godfrey and, on reading Mr McManus' report, she had informed Mr Godfrey that some of the comments, particularly with regard to the physical condition of at least one of the bores, as attributed to her, had been either misquoted or taken in the wrong context. It was clear that Mr Godfrey envisaged that there might be some future dispute with the chief executive's valuers as to the added value of the "Barrygowan" bores. In his opinion, the bores were essential to the efficient management of the property and all were in physically good condition, although requiring some relatively inexpensive repairs and maintenance. Mr Godfrey was not prepared to provide an opinion as to the correctness of the historical estimate of carrying capacity of the property as contained in Mr McManus' report, until he became fully familiar with the potentialities of the land which he said could be affected by various matters including permitted vegetation management. However, he had formed the opinion that the valuation of "Barrygowan" was too high not only because of the water disability, but in comparison with the valuation which had been applied by the chief executive to a property known as "Thurulgoona". -- 11 of 17 -- 12 Evidence for the Chief Executive Mr McManus had not analysed the recent sale of "Barrygowan". His inspection and interview with Mrs Godfrey had been in connection with the appeal and Mr Godfrey had not been available at the time of his inspection. Mr McManus was aware of the number of bores on "Barrygowan" but had given no consideration to their condition or added value. His valuation had been based on direct comparison with the overall sales evidence. He agreed that water availability was one of a number of attributes of any property which affected market value, and which had been considered in the comparison process of "Barrygowan" with the sales evidence. He was comfortable with the relativity of the valuation of "Barrygowan" with the valuations of other properties in the locality including that of "Thurulgoona" to which valuation he had given specific consideration ("Thurulgoona" being another appeal property). Through Mr McManus were tendered the handwritten notes of the interview conducted with Mrs Godfrey. Mr McManus accepted that a typographical mistake had been made in the transfer of one part of those notes into the formal valuation report. Not that it is considered to have any bearing on the matter now before the Court, Mr McManus believed that the interview had been fairly recorded. Overview of Evidence It is a fact that widely varying supplies of artesian water are produced from bores tapping the aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin. Those supplies initially varied from low flow, in Mr Arthur's terminology below about 20,000 gallons per day, through the full range up to in excess of 300,000 gallons per day. As the number of bores increased over the years flows have diminished, affecting in particular the low- flow bores. Where bores have stopped flowing or diminished significantly in flow, pump assistance has often been installed. The hydrology map showing contour lines of levels to which artesian water is expected to rise is seen by Mr Arthur as proof that the generally poor flows produced from many bores on "Yankalilla", "Waverley" and "Barrygowan" is not a result of poor selection of bore sites, or bad fortune, but the result of a natural disability probably caused by the nature of the underlying geological strata. Mapping produced by Mr Arthur indicates that there are some excellent bores located in an arc from north-west through to the north-east of "Yankalilla" and that could be interpreted as conforming with the contours on the hydrology map. However the mapping also shows bores to the west of the appeal properties and within apparently similar water -- 12 of 17 -- 13 level contours on the hydrology map where water flows vary significantly and to in excess of 300,000 gallons per day. Then as is the evidence of Mr McManus, there are bores with reasonably good flows located within close proximity of other bores where the flows are very low. This seems to support his opinion that it would be very difficult to identify from ground surface the nature and quality of underlying aquifers. In the absence of expert hydrological evidence and bearing in mind the large scale of the hydrology map produced and relied upon by Mr Arthur, I am unable to accept that there is any "new" evidence before the Court which assists the appellants' case. However, as would be expected, there is market evidence which shows a clear unimproved value distinction between sale properties with relatively cheap water as compared to those with relatively expensive water. The market evidence also indicates, again as would be expected, that there are several factors other than water facilities which have significant effect on value, both improved and unimproved. The evidence given in the representative cases allows the following analyses relative to added value of water facilities and unimproved values either determined or applied on each basic sale property. Sale Property Area No. of Bores Total Value Water Facilities (per ha) Analysed UIV Determined/ Applied UIV "Claverton" 20,077 ha 1 $44,375 ($2.20/ha) $15.02 $15.45 "Northam"/ "Airlie" 18,375 ha 3 $135,972 ($7.40/ha) $7.29 $7.18 "Robina Downs" 13,785 ha 3 $172,337 ($12.50/ha) $11.21 $9.28 "Weona" 6,756 ha 1 $42,733 ($6.32/ha) $5.56 $5.50 "Huntley"/ "Glen Oxford" 30,030 ha 4 $288,276 ($9.60/ha) $11.14 $10.16 "Willacora" 17,497 ha 2 $198,816 ($11.36/ha) $12.24 $10.92 It can be seen that "Claverton" with cheap water and superior in all other respects to the appeal properties sold at a price which reflected an unimproved value slightly less than that determined. The properties with the next cheapest water facilities ie "Weona" and "Northam"/"Airlie" showed analysed unimproved values -- 13 of 17 -- 14 which barely supported the determined or now applied unimproved values. "Robina Downs" with the most expensive water showed an analysed unimproved value strongly supporting the determined unimproved value while the same could be said of the next most expensively water sale properties "Willacora" and "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford". "Robina Downs" and "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" either adjoin or are in the immediate locality of each of the appeal properties and lie within the same water level contours on the hydrology map and have bores with significantly variable flows. The market evidence of unimproved value is therefore seen to support in a general sense, the factorised adjustments made by the chief executive throughout the overall SMA. Conversely there is no market evidence which would indicate the level of value sought to be applied by the appellants, through their mathematical analyses of the adjustments which have been made. With regard to the appellants' contention that the chief executive should consider the specific added value of artesian bores on all properties to be valued, rather than adopt a blanket factorised approach, it seems to me that the marketplace distinguishes, albeit in a broad sense, the factors which affect unimproved value and market evidence has been adopted in the valuation of these properties. Furthermore, s.3 of the Act relevantly provides: " 3.(1) For the purposes of this Act - 'unimproved value' of land means - (b) in relation to improved land - the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist." (emphasis added). As was, coincidentally, the situation in Mr and Mrs Arthur’s appeal against the 1 January 1996 valuation, the sale (in this case a resale) of the property "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford", adjoining "Yankalilla" to the south-west, provides the best evidence for the valuation of "Yankalilla" as at this relevant date. The sale property is described by Mr McManus as having similar situation, access, country, rainfall and size. On the analysis adopted by the Court in the representative hearing, the sale of "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" showed an unimproved value of $11.14/ha and subsequent -- 14 of 17 -- 15 to the further 5% reduction applied by the chief executive, the valuation is now $10.16/ha. There was no evidence to indicate that the sale of "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" should not be regarded as basic evidence of value and, once all relevant factors influencing value are considered, the sale supports the overall application of value within the relevant SMA and in particular the subject property "Yankalilla". I am not persuaded that the appellants have carried the burden of proving that the valuation appealed against is wrong. (2) "Waverley" In the representative appeals, the sale of "Robina Downs" had not been regarded by the Court as one which, by itself, offered a sound evidentiary basis for reasons associated with probable over-capitalisation and a generally held view that the purchasers were somewhat inexperienced graziers. Nevertheless, the sale offered support to the overall evidence and in the subject matter, not only adjoins "Waverley" but lies within the same water level contours as shown on Mr Arthur's hydrology map. Mr McManus's description of "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford", in comparison with "Waverley", suggested similarity in terms of situation, natural water and rainfall but slightly superior access and country, but then the sale property was of significantly larger area. His overall comparison on a rate/ha basis was that "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" was similar to "Waverley". It seems to me that the sale of "Willacora" is a relevant consideration in this particular appeal. The analysis of the sale as adopted by the Court was $12.24/ha, while the determination of unimproved value was $10.92/ha for the reasons given in the representative appeals decision. Mr McManus described the slightly larger "Willacora" in comparison with the subject "Waverley", as having superior location and access, overall similar country, similar natural water and experiencing similar average annual rainfall. As a direct comparison he stated, "Overall on a rate/ha the sale is considered slightly superior to the subject." It may be that when Mr McManus made comments regarding the comparability of these sale properties with "Waverley", on the basis of overall rate/ha, he had confused the analysed rate per ha as deduced from the sales, with the lower applied values. Nevertheless, the foundation of valuation is the ability to make comparisons of like with like. It would be hoped that written comparisons between properties is not intended to represent merely a motherhood statement complying with a set of figures, but instead a professional opinion as to the result of a specific -- 15 of 17 -- 16 consideration. Mr McManus is an experienced valuer and I accept that his stated opinion as to the comparison of the several properties was made for the purpose of assisting the Court. It is therefore necessary to conclude that the overall value/ha of "Waverley" should be as he said at an overall rate similar to "Huntley"/"Glen Oxford" ($10.16/ha) and less than "Willacora" ($10.92/ha). I will accordingly determine the unimproved value of "Waverley" in the rounded amount of $145,000 ($10.24/ha). (3) The difficult position in which Mr Godfrey found himself with regard to this appeal, is fully understood. However, the chances of the new owners proving that at the relevant date the valuation was wrong, rested essentially with the success or otherwise of Mr Arthur's submissions and analyses associated with hydrological matters. Those submissions failed. Mr Godfrey has strong opinions as to the evidence of unimproved value which will be revealed by a proper analysis of the recent purchase of "Barrygowan" and that sale price may well be relevant to some future valuation but, as Mr Godfrey fairly admitted, not to the valuation as at 1 October 1998. Mr Godfrey recognised what he regarded as an anomaly between similar valuations being applied to both "Barrygowan" and the property "Thurulgoona". However his evidence indicated a reluctance to provide an opinion even as to the classification of land and productive capacity of "Barrygowan" until he became better acquainted with the property and its development potentialities. It is difficult under those circumstances to be making comparisons with other properties. In any event, while relativity between valuations is important, the first task of the appellants was to show that the valuation of "Barrygowan" was wrong. I do not accept that the burden of proof has been carried. Orders (1) Appeal AV99-1306 - ME and BJ Arthur - "Yankalilla" The appeal is dismissed and the chief executive's unimproved valuation as at 1 October 1998 affirmed. (2) Appeal AV99-1346 - RC and MT Little - "Waverley" The appeal is allowed. The unimproved valuation made by the chief executive is set aside and the unimproved value determined in the amount of One Hundred and Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($145,000) as at 1 October 1998. -- 16 of 17 -- 17 (3) Appeal AV99-1438 - EL, CR and CH Godfrey - "Barrygowan" The appeal is dismissed and the chief executive's unimproved valuation as at 1 October 1998 affirmed. RE WENCK MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 17 of 17 --