Bredillet v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 346

, r t. r:=· f,:7~.!·~;:)~ ·--··· -· - -·~ L_.~~•-..,...w;.._...,......_,....,..,.,._..,_.._ c.u " -- ...,_•.,. ••~- Re: Appeals against determinations of the Valuer-General, Shire of Cook. (V90-714 & 715) Michel Bredillet v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Cairns) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 19th June, 1992. Mr Bredillet has appealed against decisions of the Valuer-General in disallowing objections to valuations of properties known as Brannighan Holding and Pryde Holding, located between 40 and 50 kilometres respectively north-westerly of Cooktown. Appeal V90-714 refers to land described as Lot 9 on Plan BS26:PLS/217 and Lot 4839/PH1044 Brannighan Holding and Lot 250 on Lot BK1573 and Lot 2 on Plan BK157118 Parish of Hann and Lot 2 on Plan BS96:SL29255 Parish of Pickersgill, County of Banks, containing an area of 6192 hectares. The Valuer- General's unimproved valuation at 31st March, 1989, is $62,000. Mr Bredillet's estimate of value is $31,000. Appeal V90-715 refers to land described as Lot 3 on Plan BS245:Pryde Holding:PH14/4840 parish· of Pryde, County of Banks, containing an area of 6294 hectares. The Valuer-Gener91's unimproved valuation at 31st March, 1989, is ' $28,000. Mr Bredillet's estimate of value is $14,000. [1992] QLC 346 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 The Valuer-General's valuations were carried out by Mr P.J. Haydon, registered valuer employed with the Department of Lands. Prior to the hearing he provided Mr Bredillet with copies of his reports. Access from Cooktown to Brannighan is described by Mr Haydon as being by way of 12 kilometres of bitumen sealed road then about 28 kilometres of formed earth and gravel, subject to a number of creek and river crossings with access being cut in the wet season. Pryde Holding is accessed by a further 10 kilometres of formed earth and gravel road. Mr Hayden describes Brannighan Holding as comprising about 500 hectares of easy to moderate sandy red soil forest interspersed with rocky outcrops and poor gravelly ridges. The balance area of about 5692 hectares is very rough steep and inaccessible forest hills and mountains with zamia infestation. Pryde Holding comprises about 3794 hectares of poor grazing country being mixtures of bloodwood, wattle, turkey bush, bottle brush, bracken fern, yellow stringy bark, ti-tree, quinine and grass tree with zamia throughout. There are patches of heavy bastard scrub in the centre of the holding with boggy swamps on the headwaters of Isabella Creek. The balance 2500 hectares comprises inaccessible gorges on the eastern side of the holding. Permanent natural water is available to both holdings which are used for the grazing of cattle. Mr Bredillet agrees that Mr Haydon's description of the country comprised in the holdings ip accurate. His.,.. primary concern is what he sees as an unrealistic rating burden carried by Cape York grazing properties. It is his opinion that these properties are severely disadvantaged in terms of the Shire of Cook rating structure ,. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 with differential rating which he sees as subsidising amenities provided to Cooktown residents. He says most of the grazing localities do not identify with Cooktown but trade in Mareeba. Mr Bredillet related the history of the properties which he sees as having had no demand and of no grazing value in their natural state. He says he was granted the leases in 1952 in return for his war service. He has encountered many problems through the most difficult country; the remote location with poor access and lack of amenities; excessive costs of operation, maintenance and transport; distance from meatworks; poor cattle prices; management difficulty generally; adjacency to Hopevale Mission; activities of neighbours and tourists. The prevalence of zamia and consequent poisoning of cattle has been a constant disability. He says that he is required to pay the same rates for his holdings as do owners of stations ten times the size and production capacity yet ~e receives no Council services. Mr Bredillet gave examples of several properties where he understands the unimproved valuation equates between $25 and $30 per beast of carrying capacity, whereas his valuation is in e?<cess of $300 per beast. He tendered a sale brochure relevant to a property known as "Kings Plains Station" 55 kilometres south-west of Cooktown, of 687.8 square kilometres with a stated existing carrying capacity of 5,000 breeders and potential to increase to 10,000 breeders with further fencing improvements: The Valuer-General's valuation of "Kings Plains" was he thought $126,000 althqugh it was established during the hearing to be $136,000. As the grounds of Mr Bredillet's appeals are restricted to those contained in his Notice of Appeal, i.e. that of relativity, Mr Haydon had provided the examples of "' -- 3 of 6 -- 4 four valuations of properties in the general locality which he saw as being more identifiable with the Cooktown locality than the larger station properties referred to by Mr Bredillet. He believed that the valuation of $136,000 which had been applied to "Kings Plains" required investigation because there was a perception that the applied value was too low and out of reasonable relativity. If that was found to be the case the position would be corrected in a subsequent valuation. Mr Haydon said that the 1989 valuation had been a general valuation of the Shire of Cook and the larger Pastoral Holdings had been found on the evidence to have increased in value proportionately higher (400% above the previous valuation) than had the grazing land in the subject locality (100% to 150%). His first relativity example was a property of 7770 hectares known as Flaggy Holding which had an estimated carrying capacity of 1 beast to 35 hectares and had been valued at $7.50 per hectare in comparison with Brannighan at $10 per hectare (with an estimated carrying capacity of 1 beast to about 30 hectares) and Pryde at $4.50 per hectare (with an estimated carrying capacity of 1 beast to about 80 hectares). Other examples quoted by Mr Haydon included Pickersgill Holding with the much larger area of 32,380 hectares valued at $2 per hectare (estimated carrying capacity of 1 beast to 85 hectares) and a property of 18,900 hectares valued at $2.50 per hectare (1 beast to 80 hectares). Mr Haydon had not inspected the latter two properties, but felt, based on the Departmental records, that reasonable relativity had been maintained . . He also took particular comfort in the valuation of $160 per hectare (totai~ing $60,000) applied to a property of 373.9 hectares adjoining Brannighan. While much smaller in area this property contained sections of red soil which he saw as providing some comparison (although superior) to the 500 ="; hectares on Brannighan which also contained red soil area capable of pasture improvement. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 Mr Bredillet sees the red soil areas on Brannighan as much inferior, being what he described as of "burnt-out sandstone" origin in comparison with volcanic type soils on the comparison property. He sees the actual use of the smaller property more as a part-time operation where the owners have the financial capacity for development not necessarily related to its productive capacity. In contrast, his attempts at pasture improvement have been seriously affected by infestation of sickle-pod which he is unable to control. Other properties in the locality had successfully established pasture before sickle-pod had been introduced into the area. These appeals are based on relativity of values. Mr Bredillet chooses to use examples which are of much larger station properties and in most cases, in geographically different areas. He sees the subject land as being in the same grazing category although of much inferior productive capacity. From a strictly economic point of view, there is merit in his _argument. However, while Mr Bredillet chooses not to identify with Cooktown as a centre or to make use of its amenities, it is geographic location which is one influence on the market value of land and it is the evidence of Mr Haydon that the proximity to Cooktown is one factor which influences the value of the subject land. It is recognised by Mr Haydon that the subject lands do have many of the problems as stated by Mr Bredillet although he says many of them are also common to the locality, to v9rying degrees. He has specifically inspected the subject land ~nd taken into consideration the question of relativity of values based on use for primary production. Mr Bredillet during the course of the hearing accepted that the "ratio" between the two valuations under review was reasonable - ~ it was the quantum of valuation which was not, in his opinion. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 There seems little doubt that the grazing operation of Mr Bredillet is one which affords little profitability and which has caused over the years many hardships. He . finds the added rating burden as untenable but that, or the system of rating employed, is not the matter before the Court. The question here is limited to the valuations and then further limited to the question of relativity of those valuations with others. I am satisfied on the evidence of Mr Haydon that relativity in the immediate locality of the subject properties has been given specific expert consideration. The onus is on the appellant in matters such as this to prove the grounds of appeal. The relativity has not been proved to be wrong. In the circumstances the appeals are dismissed and the determinations of the Valuer-General affirmed. (signed) R. E. Wenck. Member of the Land Court. -- 6 of 6 --