Bell & Anor v Director-General, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 115

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Shire of Boonah (AV93-31) John Frederick Bell & Alison Clare Bell V. Director-Genera l, De partment of Lands (Hearing at Ipswich) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 17th September 1993. Mr and Mrs Bell are the owners of land described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 40334 and Lot 2 on Registered Plan 59624, Parish of Coochin, County of Ward, containing an area of 42. 76 hectares. In accordance with the provisions of section 168 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Valuer-General assessed the unimproved value of the subject land as at 31st March, 1992 at $44,000. Mr and Mrs Bell objected to this valuation and by letter dated 25th January, 1993 they were advised that their objection had been disallowed and the valuation remained unaltered at $44,000. Mr and Mrs Bell then lodged an appeal to the Land Court against the Valuer- General's decision on their objection, advising that their estimate of the unimproved value is $40,500. Their grounds of appeal are threefold: (1) relativity with the valuations of neighbouring properties; (2) the sale of a nearby lucerne farm; and, (3) increasing salinity of part of the subject land. [1993] QLC 115 -- 1 of 7 -- 2 Between the issue of the Acting Valuer-General's decision on objection and the hearing of this matter, the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 substituted the office of chief executive of the department for the statutory office of Valuer- General. Section 11 (4) of the Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988 and Schedule 1 to that Act, provides that the chief executive in this case is the Director-General, Department of Lands. For present purposes, therefore, it is appropriate that the Director-General be the respondent in these proceedings in place of the former Valuer-General. The subject land is situated in Behrendorff Road, approximately 9 kilometres south of the town of Boonah. Behrendorff Road has a bitumen sealed carriageway and provides good access to the land. Electricity and telephone services are available. The land is zoned "Rural B" under the Boonah Shire town planning scheme and is used for breeding and fattening beef cattle. Mr J F Bell gave evidence in relation to the appellants' grounds of appeal. He said that the valuation of the subject land was out of relativity with the valuations of three of his neighbours. These were the properties owned by A R Stumer, valuation No. 2751, the property owned by R & J Darvall, valuation No. 2752, and the valuation of the property owned by R Stumer, valuation No. 2726. In relation to his comparison to valuation 2751, A R Stumer, Mr Bell said this property adjoins the subject land to the east and comprises an area of 80.4 hectares. He said that has an area of about 20 hectares of poor quality standing forest scrub and steep country, while the balance is good country. On the whole he considers it is superior to the subject land and is valued at $944 per hectare. This he considers is out of relationship to the subject land which is valued at $1,028 per hectare. -- 2 of 7 -- 3 In relation to valuation 2752, R & J Darvall, which adjoins the subject land to the west, Mr Bell said that this property of 80.464 hectares was a former dairy farm and parts of it had been under cultivation. Mr Bell said that approximately half of its area was the same stony type of country as much of the subject land, while the other half was superior country. This land was valued at $888 per hectare and Mr Bell considers that it is superior to the subject land. If Darvall's property is valued correctly, he said, the subject land should be valued at substantially less. In relation to his third comparison, valuation 2726, R Stumer, Mr Bell said that this property of 80.94 hectares adjoined the subject land to the north and had areas of cultivation. Mr Bell estimates that this land comprises about 15 hectares of poor forest country and the balance is, in his words, pretty good scrub country with cultivation. It is valued at $988 per hectare and Mr Bell considers that the subject valuation is out of line with this valuation. In relation to his second ground of appeal, Mr Bell gave evidence of the sale of a property by D J Schubel (Valuation 2827), of what he describes as a top quality lucerne farm. Mr Bell did not give any evidence about the details of the sale, but said that the land was valued at $2,351 per hectare for good quality creek flats with irrigation. The inference was that the subject land valued at $1,028 per hectare was out of line with this valuation. Mr Bell also mentioned the recent sale of a property from Wells to Richardson which he describes as "top country, a good paddock", which sold for $1,200 per acre. Mr Bell was not able to give any further details about this property. He did say, however, that he thought if anything the market had gone back since March 1992. -- 3 of 7 -- 4 In relation to their third ground of appeal, Mr Bell described the salinity problem as occurring because they had neighbours who irrigate. The salinity problem arises because the water table is very close to the surface and in a normal year approximately half the southern portion of the subject land, comprising an area of about 7.5 hectares, becomes a mud flat and virtually useless. It is also prone to flooding. Ironically, in a dry year like the present, the water table falls and the land becomes well grassed. However, Mr Bell said that when normal seasons return this land will revert to its mud flat status. Mr Bell describes the subject land as a handy paddock but very stony and limited to grazing only, wh ich has approximately 20 hectares of inferior country, which included the saltpan area and poor forest spotted gum ridge. The balance of the country is moderate brigalow softwood scrub, stony in places. It is watered by two dams which are both unreliable and a bore with brackish water, suitable only for cattle. Mr E G Ridley, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Director-General. Mr Ridley describes the subject land as comprising 28 hectares of easy to moderate brigalow softwood scrub with some exposed stone in places and 14 .76 hectares of easy to moderately sloping spotted gum forest. Mr Ridley said that in the period since the last valuation, sales in Boonah and adjoining shires had indicated that there was a significant movement in the market value for grazing lands. In Boonah Shire, 16 sales of grazing land were investigated and analysed. These sales showed unimproved values with increases ranging from 51 per cent to 274 per cent. However, an increase in value of 25 per -- 4 of 7 -- 5 cent for grazing lands had been applied in the Boonah Shire. Mr Ridley explained that many of the sales had potential for other than primary production purposes and these were excluded from consideration in valuing the subject land and other primary producing lands. Mr Ridley relied principally on two sales. The first of these sales is situated on the lpswich/Boonah Road, approximately 2 kilometres from Peak Crossing. It comprises an area of 83.88 hectares, zoned "Rural" and sold in April 1990 for $350,000. This sale showed an unimproved value of $128,192 and a valuation of $122,500, or $1,460 per hectare, was applied in the 1992 valuation. Mr Ridley describes the land as comprising Purga Creek flats to very slightly sloping forest, originally timbered with blue gum and silverleaf ironbark. It is watered by natural supplies in Purga Creek and from bores. He considers the property to be superior to the subject land in all respects. The second sale is situated in the same vicinity as the first sale and comprises an area of 72.57 hectares, zoned "Rural" and sold in August 1991 for $201,500. This sale was analysed to show an unimproved value of $106,990 and a valuation of $99,000, or $1,364 per hectare, was applied in the 1992 valuation. Mr Ridley describes this country as comprising Purga Creek flats, originally timbered with blue gum and silverleaf ironbark. It is watered by natural supplies in Purga Creek and a bore. He said that this property is also superior to the subject land in all respects. Mr Bell knew both sale properties and said that the first sale was better grazing country than the subject land and had more potential for future subdivision. Mr Ridley admitted that there might be some slight subdivisional potential in this -- 5 of 7 -- 6 property. Mr Bell regarded it as significantly superior with its open flats, frontage to Purga Creek and more reliable water with natural supplies in Purga Creek. He thought that a per hectare valuation of$1,028 on the subject land compared with $1,460 on this land, does not adequately reflect the difference in value. In relation to the second sale, Mr Bell said that it was also superior to the subject land as it had a lot of swamp flats and was good country. He regarded it as significantly more valuable per hectare. Mr Ridley said that he was well aware of the salinity problems on the subject property, but that it was presently very well grassed except for a few bare patches and that the cattle seemed to prefer that area. However, he admitted it could become worse in wetter seasons. In such seasons, however, the slopes of the property would be well grassed and when they dried off, the saline area of the subject land would again be well grassed. Mr Ridley seemed to indicate that this was a great advantage to the subject land. In relation to the comparisons made by Mr Bell, Mr Ridley said that valuation 2751, Stumer, valued at $944 per hectare, 55 hectares comprised better quality scrub while 24.46 hectares was moderate to steep country that had not been brought into production because of its nature, rockiness and steepness and its poor quality. He had applied $1,250 per hectare to the 55 hectares and only $285 per hectare to the balance 25.46 hectares, giving a total valuation of $76,000 or $944 per hectare. In relation to Darvall's country, valuation 2752, Mr Ridley said that he had inspected that property and had applied a valuation of $54,000 after classification of the land. However, he gave no further details. -- 6 of 7 -- 7 In relation to Stumer's valuation, 2726, Mr Ridley said that he valued the 62 hectares of better quality country at $1, 175 per hectare and the 18.94 hectares of poorer forest country at $380 per hectare. By comparison, he had valued the 28 hectares of the subject land at $1,308 per hectare and the 14.76 hectares at $500 per hectare. The reason for the $500 on this latter country was that it included some fairly good gum-top box, as well as areas of salt-affected country. He also made allowance for the smaller size of the subject land compared with the sales. In relation to the sale mentioned by Mr Bell, Schubel to Stegman, Mr Ridley said that this sale took place in September 1992 and was not considered in the 1992 valuation. The applied value of $2,340 per hectare reflected the value of agricultural country that had been badly affected by flooding. In all the circumstances, the valuation applied by Mr Ridley appears to be well supported by the two sales which he used for comparison purposes. However, in relation to the $500 per hectare applied to the 14. 76 hectares of inferior land, I feel that by comparison to the figures applied to the inferior lands on the comparison properties, a figure of $400 per hectare would be more appropriate and achieve better relativity with the neighbouring lands. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Director-General is set aside and the unimproved value is determined at $42,500. J J TRICKETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 7 of 7 --