Burke v Minister for Lands [1994] QLC 26
LAND COURT
BRISBANE
9TH JUNE 1994
Re: Determination of Unimproved Value
for purposes of conversion of tenure
Special Lease No. 16/34043, Dalby District
Lessee: Michael Burke
(Hearing at Dalby)
D E C I S I O N
On 9th October, 1990, the Minister for Lands received an application from the
lessee for the conversion of tenure of Special Lease No. 16/34043 under Section 207
of the Land Act 1962, and this date becomes the relevant date as at which the
unimproved value is required to be determined. The Minister determined the
unimproved value at $15,000 and under the provisions of Section 207, Mr Burke
requested that the matter be referred to the Land Court for hearing and determination.
Special Lease No. 16/34043, Dalby District, is in respect of the land described
as Lot 34 on Plan LY916, Parish of Earle, containing an area of 28.531 hectares. It is
situated approximately 2.4 kilometres south-east of the town of Brigalow and
approximately 23 kilometres south-east of Chinchilla. Access is by means of 1
kilometre of the bitumen sealed Warrego Highway and approximately 1.4 kilometres of
formed gravel road. The property originally comprised mixed brigalow, belah, and
wilga scrub with some melonholes, merging to poplar box and myall forest. The
whole area has been developed. It is watered by a dam of approximately 1,400 cubic
metres and is used for the grazing of dairy cattle.
The applicant, Mr Michael Burke, appeared and gave evidence. He is of the
opinion that the unimproved value for conversion purposes should be $7,000 or
approximately $100 per acre because of the clay content and melonholes. He said
that this special lease is part of a 930 acre dairying enterprise and that it is his
intention to continue to use it for dairying purposes. He recently received a rate notice
[1994] QLC 26
-- 1 of 4 --
2
showing that 556 acres of his land, which includes the subject land, is valued at
$58,000 or $104 per acre. This is his basis for saying it should be valued at $100 per
acre.
Mr Burke considers that the land should be regarded as rural and that it is
incorrect for the Crown to regard it as rural residential. It is incorporated into a dairy
farming enterprise and has been used as rural land only, and will continue to be so.
He thinks that the Crown valuation of approximately $214 per acre would be
appropriate for high quality pastoral land. However, because of the inferior quality of
the soil and clay on the subject land, it is unsuitable for cultivation. In addition, it has
large melonholes and is subject to regrowth which makes control difficult.
Mr Burke went on to say that he had improved the land with fencing to the
value of about $1,500 and, because of regrowth, has cleared the land twice at a cost
of approximately $4,200. In addition, he had built a dam costing approximately
$1,500, bringing the total cost of improvements to $7,200. He contends that the
money he has spent on improvements should be taken into account when determining
its unimproved value for conversion purposes. He said that he does not want to be
paying again for what he has already done.
In addition, he said, the proposed Kogan Creek Coal Mine has plans to use the
road adjoining the subject land as a haul-out road. He feels this will devalue any land
adjoining it.
Unfortunately, Mr Burke was unable to provide any evidence of sales of any
comparable land.
Evidence for the Crown was given by Mr S L Hoadley, registered valuer
employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Hoadley tendered a report and valuation
which stated that he considered the highest and best use of the subject land to be as
a rural residential site. He went on to state that he had no directly comparable sales
evidence on which to base the valuation.
However, regard was had to the sales of rural residential sites approximately 40
hectares in area, in the Daandine-Kumbarilla area. These sales show analysed
-- 2 of 4 --
3
unimproved values of between $15,900 and $22,500 for sites fronting the Moonie
Highway and between $19,700 and $23,500 for sites situated off the highway. These
sites in the main comprise sandy, poor to inferior forest country, while the subject land
has mixed forest and scrub country of much superior quality.
Mr Hoadley also had regard to three sales on the outskirts of Chinchilla, which
showed him a range of values for rural residential sites in that area. The most
comparable of these is an area of 43.74 hectares situated on Charleys Creek,
approximately 12 kilometres north-east of Chinchilla on a formed gravel road. This
property sold in August 1990 for $36,000 and Mr Hoadley analysed the sale to show
an unimproved value of $29,400. The other two sales are just over 2 hectares in area
and are situated closer to Chinchilla. These properties sold in april 1990 and October
1990 for $21,000 and $23,000 respectively.
Having regard to the gravel road frontage, the situation of the subject land and
its quality of country, Mr Hoadley arrived at an unimproved value of $15,000.
In response to Mr Burke's arguments, Mr Hoadley said that he was required to
value the land as if it was on the open market, as if it was unimproved, on the basis of
its highest and best use, regardless of its present use and the intentions of the lessee.
He was convinced that its highest and best use is as a rural homesite and as such it
would, if unimproved, sell for $15,000.
In response to Mr Burke's argument in relation to his rating valuation, Mr
Hoadley explained that he had valued the subject land together with Lot 147 on Plan
LY954 and Portion 21V and 148, Parish of Earle, a total area of 222.4 hectares, at
$260 per hectare as at 31st March, 1992, for the purposes of the Valuation of Land
Act 1944. As this land was used for the purposes of farming, it was required to be
valued for farming purposes and any potential for any higher use to be excluded under
the provisions of Section 11(9) of that Act. However, under Section 207 of the Land
Act he was not so constrained. He was required to value the land at its highest and
best use which he considered to be as a rural residential site.
I have carefully considered the evidence in this matter and have come to the
-- 3 of 4 --
4
conclusion that the unimproved value of $15,000 adopted by Mr Hoadley is fair and
reasonable.
Accordingly, the unimproved value for the purposes of conversion of tenure of
Special Lease No. 16/34043, Dalby District, is determined at $15,000.
J J TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
-- 4 of 4 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QLC/1994/026