Baines v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Baines v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Baines v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 44

1 The description of the land are taken from the respective reports of Mr Doyle in each appeal being exhibits 7, 8 and 9 in the appeals. LAND COURT TOOWOOMBA 30 May 2001 Re: Appeals against valuations Valuation of Land Act 1944 Property ID Nos: 3417415, 1051095, 1051115 Local Government: Cambooya Neil J Baines (AV00-415) v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines Charmayne M & Neil J Baines (AV00-416) v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines Robert J & Myrtle S Baines (AV00-417) v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines D E C I S I O N These appeals were heard together. The case for the appellants in each appeal was presented by Mr R.J. Baines, one of the appellants in appeal AV00-417. The appellants are all members of the same extended family. The appellants in AV00-417 are parents of the appellant in AV00-415 who is a co-appellant in AV00-416 with his wife. The Subject Lots The subject lots are all located in the eastern part of the Cambooya Shire, being south-east of Toowoomba and east of East Greenmount. Their locations are approximately 15-26 kilometres from Toowoomba as the crow flies. AV00-415 The subject lots in this appeal are contiguous and, together, comprise 258.3928 hectares. The property comprises grazing country with 228.3928 hectares of stony hills and ridges timbered with iron bark and box. There is 30 hectares of mixed scrub/forest grazing county in the north-eastern portion. The land is very steeply sloping along Heifer Creek with cliffs and gorges1 [2001] QLC 44 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 2 The relative position of the land in each appeal can be ascertained by relating the shaded portions on the Blinmap in each report of Mr Doyle to one another. AV00-416 The lots in this appeal were numerous and comprised 1,872 hectares. The land involves a number of contiguous lots north-west of the subject lots in AV00-415 and two further lots (separated from the others) located south-west of those in AV00-4152. The property in this appeal comprises grazing country with the majority being forest country comprising 1,422 hectares of range forest country with another 220 hectares of better forest grazing. The land comprises steep and stony ridges and gullies. The land falls from the hills in the west down to the north and south towards Ma Ma and Heifer Creeks. The range country comprises steep stony hills and ridges timbered with mountain coolibah, ironbark and gum. Located in the north-eastern corner is 230 hectares of scrub grazing country. The southern portion of the property comprises steep ridges with some better grazing along the creek. AV00-417 This appeal concerned three contiguous lots which form a roughly square area of 196.46 hectares. The lots are contiguous with those in AV00-415 and lie between the two areas to the north and south being the land in AV00-416. The property comprises mostly grazing country constituted by 150 hectares of forest grazing country being moderately to steeply sloping stony in nature, timbered with ironbark and box, with 30 hectares of scrub country. Along Heifer Creek, there is 16 hectares of creek flats suitable for cultivation. The Valuations Each property was valued as farming country pursuant to Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (“the Act”). The land in AV00-415 was valued at $45,500 at an average value per hectare of $176. The land in AV00-416 was valued at $270,000 at an average hectare value of $144. The land in AV00-417 was valued at $46,000 at an average value per hectare of $234. The respondent relied on the evidence of Mr Doyle, a valuer who gave evidence for the respondent, and whose reports are, respectively, Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. Mr Doyle originally made the valuations on which the Chief Executive relied for the -- 2 of 4 -- 3 valuation which are the subject of the respective appeals. His evidence in Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 is consistent with the values under appeal. In each appeal, the date of the valuation determined by the Chief Executive pursuant to s.20 of the Act is 1 October 1999. The Appellants’ evidence Mr Robert Baines gave evidence. His oral evidence confirmed the contents of Exhibit 10, a written statement and the content of each of the grounds of appeal, the substantive content of which are set out in the appeal notice in AV00-417. Essentially, the thrust of the appellants’ case in each appeal was that Mr Doyle had failed to take into account particular attributes of the property in each case and had, therefore, misapplied the comparable sales on which he relied. Principal aspects of the matters not taken into account were said to be peculiar difficulties with noxious weeds, especially lantana, and with tick control faced by properties east of the escarpment of the Great Divide compared to properties to the west. The appellants also relied on alleged errors in calculating the value of improvements in at least one of the comparable sales on the part of Mr Doyle. Also, part of the appellants’ evidence and argument was a reliance on sales not taken into account by Mr Doyle. I found these sales of little assistance, however, as they were acknowledged to have occurred either well after the date of valuation or some considerable years earlier. Mr Doyle’s Evidence Mr Doyle is an experienced valuer with experience relevant both in time and place to the issues in the appeal. Mr Doyle acknowledged that his comparable sales were not on all fours with the subject properties. Sale 1 concerned an area of 189.3 hectares and an analysed unimproved value per hectare of $454 giving a value of $85,961. Sale 2 comprised an area of 185.6 hectares and an unimproved value per hectare (analysed) of $254 giving a value of $47,189. The difficulty of applying these sales to the very much larger (1,872 hectares) area in AV00-416 was acknowledged. Mr Doyle also acknowledged differences in the tick regime west of the escarpment. I also suspect (and Mr Doyle almost acknowledged as much) that his figures for applied value (of sales 1 and 2) and the value per hectare arrived at for each of the -- 3 of 4 -- 4 subject properties was result-oriented and somewhat arbitrary in order to reflect the 15% increase in unimproved valuations which was the general approach in Cambooya Shire for the valuation of 1 October 1999. I am satisfied, however, that Mr Doyle had taken into account all of the individual characteristics of the three properties including the way land in that area is affected by lantana and ticks. His answers, in response to able cross-examination by Mr Baines, were convincing in this respect. I am satisfied that, despite the result-oriented approach, Mr Doyle’s analysis was detailed and careful. If there were anomalous increases in value that required the subject properties to be treated differently to other properties in Cambooya or neighbouring shires in the 1999 valuation, Mr Doyle’s approach would have picked them up. This was reflected by a degree of conservatism in the applied values of Sales 1 and 2 (91% and 96% respectively). He ignored at least one sale he considered to be higher than the true market in the area. His conclusions were reinforced by more recent data in Gatton shire which also, subsequently, experienced a 15% increase for similar sorts of grazing properties. Mr Doyle’s reports (and supporting notes) made the details of his methodology available for analysis and detailed criticism by the appellant. That no errors were shown to arise by the cross-examination which did take place gives me comfort in accepting and relying upon Mr Doyle’s evidence. Conclusions I have come to the view that I should accept, in each appeal, the evidence of Mr Doyle for the reasons I have stated. In AV00-415, I dismiss the appeal and concur with the valuation struck by the respondent in the sum of $45,500. In AV00-416, I dismiss the appeal and concur with the valuation struck by the respondent in the sum of $270,000. In AV00-417, I dismiss the appeal and concur in the valuation struck by the respondent in the sum of $46,000. SJ KEIM MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 4 of 4 --