Caithness v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 246

,. , Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Inglewood. AV90-462. Lynne w. Caithness V. The Value r-General DECISION (Hearing at Inglewood) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 3rd December, 1990 In the annual revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Inglewood as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General has valued lots 5 and 6 on RP 50638, parish of Gunyan, containing 100.3 hectares at $15,000 ($150 per hectare). The above landholder has exercised the right of appeal to the Land Court against this valuation and contends in the notice of appeal to a value of $11,000. The grounds of appeal are: II The Valuer-General's valuation of this land is much higher than for similar land in the area. The Valuer-General's valuation does not reflect the use of the land which is used for grazing only. No grain is produced and there is no irrigation. Adjoining lands with only slightly higher valuations have access to the river for stock water and irrigation and have irrigation licences. The nearest point of this land to river water is approximately 400 yards across a portion of New South Wales. There is no permanent natural water for stock. This land has a larger percentage of ridge land than adjoining blocks, a large clay pan and a swamp along a deep lagoon across the land. 11 Valuer, Mr D.A. Routh, who has undertaken the valuation on behalf of the Valuer-General says in his written valuation that the land is situated fronting the [1990] QLC 246 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Texas River Road and is just off the end of the bitumen sealed section of that road. It is used for cattle breeding and fattening with associated fodder cropping as part of a larger family aggregation. Evidence for the appellant was given by her husband, Mr Ronald T. Caithness, who says that, in arriving at his valuation of $11,000, he "worked it out myself and decided that the proper valuations are left when one considers all the other blocks around and I believe that a person should apply for the correct valuation and that is it". He has had regard to the valuations which have been placed by the Valuer-General on other parcels of land along the Dumaresq River in close proximity to the subject land. He commences with a parcel of 161 hectares owned by B. Finlay which under Valuation Roll No 1185, the Valuer-General has valued at $180 per hectare. This is described as Lots 7, 8 and 9 on RP 50638 and adjoins the subject land. In a written comparison schedule he says that one-third of the subject land is ridge. It has a clay pan from the ridge to a swamp, a deep lagoon, no irrigation license or permanent water. It is located below the weir and the boundary is some 365 metres from the river. Mr Caithness says that the ridge country has less value than the other types of country. The Finlay land only has one-sixth of its area as ridge, there is some clay pan, less area of lagoon, an irrigation license irrigating about 50 percent of the total area and has permanent natural water. He refers also to a property of J.K. Christiansen which under Valuation Roll No 1180 has been valued at $173 per hectare. This is described as Lot 18 on RP 50638 and Lot 38 on CVE 221. It is situated on the river with four properties (so far as separate valuations are concerned) removed from the subject land. He says that Christiansen has one- sixth of the area as ridge, some clay pan but no lagoon or swamp. There is the -- 2 of 6 -- 3 benefit of an irrigation license and irrigation is carried out. It has access to the river. The third property is owned by D. Sharpe, valued under Valuation Roll No 1179 at $174 per hectare. It adjoins the Christiansen property and is separated by five properties from the subject. It has an area of 88 hectares, one-sixth is ridge, it has no clay pan, less lagoon, an irrigation license and irrigated farming is carried out. It has access to permanent natural water in the river. Mr Caithness says he has taken these three as an example as he knows them and he has endeavoured to show that those lands are much more valuable than the subject land. He is in general agreement with Mr Routh who assesses 34 percent of the subject land as trap rock slopes and this is the area he refers to as ridge. He also agrees there is about 31 percent of clay pan but disagrees that the balance of 35 percent is river flats. He believes that half of this area is swamp land. He says that on the subject land there are two deep lagoons, one of which is too deep for cultivation or for centre pivot irrigation. Finlay has less lagoon, there is no lagoon or swamp in Christiansen's land and there is less lagoon in Sharpe's land which make those parcels more valuable. All of them have irrigation licenses but there is none attaching to the subject land and this makes them more valuable also. The comparison blocks have frontage to the weir while the subject is below the weir and is removed from the river itself. There are electric light poles through the subject land. Even if it was possible to level the ground and obtain irrigation water, it could not be operated from a separate centre pivot because of the existence of the electric light poles. Mr Caithness also makes reference to an off-river parcel of land with Alpine Creek giving a permanent water supply. This has been valued at $119 per hectare for 163 hectares. He believes that this is a comparable parcel to the subject land but that the subject should be valued at less than the valuation applied -- 3 of 6 -- 4 to the comparison block. In dealing with the question of the advantage of permanent natural water available to all of his comparison parcels, he says that to install a well and equip it would cost at least $8,000 which is the equivalent of $80 per hectare but he is not asking that his valuation be reduced by $80 per hectare on this basis. In cross-examination it was put to Mr Caithness that Finlay's property which adjoins has been valued at 20 percent higher per hectare than the subject land and the other parcels along the river have all been valued at a higher rate per hectare than the subject land. Mr Caithness says that he has averaged the comparison blocks in arriving at his calculation and the subject land was valued at only 14 percent less than these parcels. He says that there is no bore on the subject land. There is a bore on the adjoining Lot 4 which was purchased with the subject land and other lands from Mr Bruce Coventry. This was sunk as an irrigation bore but it has never been tested. It has simply been cased and capped and Mr Caithness has no idea how much water is available from this source. He has not used the bore. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr Routh who has relied on sales which have been used for all of these valuations and are not in issue here. The only point at issue is the question of relativity with other parcels of land. Mr Routh tenders a schedule classifying the subject and five contiguous parcels along the river, in_cluding those referred to by Mr Caithness. He also includes the property of Coultas which is off-river. The schedule shows that along the river valuations are $150 per hectare for the subject land and the other parcels at $180, $207, two parcels at $200 and one at $175. As to the adjoining parcel of Finlays which has been valued at $180 per hectare, he says that this has been valued as a -- 4 of 6 -- 5 parcel without the benefit of an irrigation license. The property adjoining that parcel of Lots 1O and 11 does have a license for 448 megalitres. He says that had the adjoining Finlay property had the benefit of an irrigation license it would have been valued at a higher rate per hectare but it has been valued as a parcel without that benefit. He says that in comparison to the Finlay Land, if the subject land had the same benefit as Finlay with river frontage, he would have valued the subject at $180 per hectare. He was cross-examined at length on the question of an irrigation license for the Finlay land and whether he had observed evidence of irrigation such as hydrants and pipes. He says that he has not inspected that land for a couple of years but if he is wrong on this point, the valuation of the Finlay land would require adjustment closer to the $207 per hectare which is applied to the property which adjoins. As to the area which Mr Caithness classifies as swamp, he agrees that there is a water course that runs through. He says on the adjoining property of Finlays, the swamp land has been developed to the extent that it is under cultivation compared to the subject land which is still in its semi-natural state with the water courses. He says it is not a factor in considering an unimproved value to consider what each owner has elected to do with a particular parcel of land. It is regrettable that there is some confusion in this matter as to whether there is a water license attaching to the adjoining parcel of land but it has been valued by Mr Routh as a parcel without such a license and that is how I must consider it. If there is an error in his assumption, it is a matter of adjusting that valuation and not to reduce other valuations to place them in relativity with a valuation which is incorrect. I have considered the evidence in this matter and particularly to the -- 5 of 6 -- 6 hectare. On the whole of the evidence I find that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus within the grounds of appeal to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the valuation and the appeal fails. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 6 of 6 --