Davey & Anor v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 298

... Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Calliope Shire Council. (AV91-1111). Donald W. Davey and Audrey V. Davey V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Gladstone) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 3rd July, 1992 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of a parcel of land held under a Stock Grazing Permit issued under the Forestry Act 1959. For the purposes of the valuation of the area as at 31st March, 1990, this area has been valued at $2,600. The relevant permit covers an area of 105 hectares of State Forest No 137. It is accepted that under the permit, eight head of cattle may be grazed on the land. The appellants contend that the permit has no value as the use of the area is limited to grazing and that they are responsible for fencing, water and other improvements (80% of fencing improvements). Mr B.T. Coe, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, said that the value was derived by a consideration of sales. The sale used for direct comparison purposes comprises an area of 603 .6 ha of land situated about 24 kilometres south-west of Mt Larcom by formed gravel road. The subject land is situated about 9.5 kilometres north of Yarwun by bitumen road. In the opinion of Mr Coe, both parcels comprise relief country. The sale land possesses about 7% of soft wood scrub, 8% narrowleaf and broadleaf ironbark flats and easy slopes and the balance steep narrowleaf ironbark ahd spotted gum and zamia country. The subject area does not possess any scrub country but is superior to the 85% of steep country on the sale land. Mr Coe estimated the carrying capacity of the subject land at about 1 beast to 12 ha and the sale land at about 1 beast to 11 ha with the steep country carrying about 1 beast to 15 ha. The sale land like [1992] QLC 298 -- 1 of 2 -- • 2 the subject land has no natural water. The analysis of the sale reflected an unimproved value of $17,000 or about $309 per beast. The value applied to the subject land reflects a value per beast of about $325. The sale land is freehold land. The subject land is not. However, under s.11 (1) (v) of the Valuation of Land Act, the unimproved value must be ascertained on the assumption that the land is freehold but "the unimproved value .of that land shall be determined having regard to, and making proper allowance for, any restriction or limitation to which that permit ....... is subject. " Under the licence, the licensees shall not ring bark or cut down any trees without the permission of the Conservator of Forests nor effect any improvements without permission. There is also a limitation on the number of stock which may be grazed thereon. When all this is considered the potential in the land is limited to the number of stock allowed by the permit and provided that in assessing value no greater potential is allowed (assuming there is one) then fairness and relativity in value will follow. The basic sale has no natural water and possesses predominantly steep country which Mr Coe describes as relief country. He sees the subject area as providing that sort of opportunity to an adjoining grazier such as the appellants. When all matters of comparison are considered, it appears to me that the valuation has been made in accordance with the principles required by the Act and should not be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer- General is affirmed. , D. M. White . Member of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --