Caithness v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 129

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Inglewood. AV90-573. Ronald T. Ca ithness V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Inglewood) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 3rd December, 1990 The Valuer-General has undertaken an annual valuation of the lands in the Shire of Inglewood as at 31st March, 1989, to come into effect on 30th June, 1990. Under Valuation Roll No 1154/ 10000, a number of parcels of land owned by Mr Caithness and located in the parish of Gunyan, having a total area of 1512 hectares has been valued at $120,000 ($79.36 per hectare). Mr Caithness has exercised his right of appeal_ to the Land Court against this determination and contends to a value of $100,000. The subject lands are in three separate parcels severed from each other by other primary production lands. Two have frontage to the Dumaresq River which river is the boundary between the States of Queensland and New South Wales. The subject aggregation is located about 20 kilometres south-east of Texas. The two river parcels are severed by the Texas River Road which is bitumen sealed and the northern section is also severed by the Silverspur Raleigh Road. The parcel without river frontage is severed by the Little Plain Creek Road. It is used for cattle breeding and fattening with associated cropping. Evidence was given by Mr Caithness in support of his grounds of appeal. The main thrust of his argument is that it is out of relativity with valuations [1990] QLC 129 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 of two other parcels of land which adjoin. The first of these parcels is one of 1588 hectares which under Valuation Roll No 1159/30000, the Valuer-General has valued at $76,000 ($45 per hectare). He says it has a similar mixture of country to the subject land. It has frontage to the Dumaresq River with access to the river along the whole of this frontage which is denied to the subject land. His other comparison is of a parcel of 3935 hectares valued under Valuation Roll No 1171 at $113,000 ($28 per hectare). This also has the advantage of being able to water along the whole of its frontage to the river. He says that these two parcels have been rented for four years and quotes the number of stock that has been carried to calculate that the combined valuation shows a rate per beast of $170 while on the subject land, based on his carrying capacity, the valuation reflects a rate of $250 per head. He says that the subject land is well improved while the improvements on the adjoining lands have not been maintained or extended and that if the subject land was heavily timbered as in the lanes and two small areas in the vicinity with fences falling down and wells fallen in, his valuation would be less than the figure he contends for of $100,000. Dealing with river access, Mr Caithness says that he has only three river watering points in the whole of his country because the remainder of the river is blocked off by a tick barrier fence, past which his stock are not allowed to go. The tick barrier fence is controlled and patrolled. The comparison blocks have the advantage of access to the river along the whole of the river boundaries. Mr Caithness says that on the subject land a new road has been built which follows a more easterly track than the old road. The old road is still a stock route and must remain a stock route because there is a reserve on Portion av. There is no other way to get to that reserve from the new road so the old stock route is left. The new -- 2 of 4 -- 3 road is a disadvantage to the subject land. In cross-examination he concedes that the subject lands have a greater length of frontage to the river but his access to the river is restricted by the tick barrier fence. He says that he is one of the few people who has this tick barrier fence and it is a problem. Having regard to the various points raised, Mr Caithness believes that his valuation is too high when compared with these two other properties. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer, Mr D.A. Routh, who has relied on sales to support the valuation contended for. These have not been challenged. They are also the sales used for arriving at the value of the adjoining properties referred to by Mr Caithness and it is simply a matter of relativity with those parcels in issue in this case . Mr Routh is of opinion that the subject lands are superior to both of the adjoining parcels. The subject has some 5 percent of river flats and 26 percent grazing flats while he classifies the land in Valuation Roll No 1159 /3 as 16.4 percent of level to easy sloping country and the balance moderate to steep, parts rough. On Valuation Roll No 1171, he has classified about 18 .2% of easier country with the balance medium steep hills with parts rough. He believes that the river flats and the grazing flats are advantages over the comparison parcels. In dealing with the question of the tick barrier fence, Mr Routh says that he has not regarded this fen~e as a detriment in any way at all. He says that on the day before the hearing of this appeal, he contacted a Mr Neville Bryant, Inspector in Charge in Tenterfield of the New South Wales Agriculture and Fish Border Crossings and that he was informed that the tick fence had outlived its usefulness because of the river. He said "no tick fence - river only". He considers that the fence referred to by Mr Caithness is no more than a normal boundary -- 3 of 4 -- 4 fence and he can see no reason why further watering points along the river could not be made if the owner so wished. The matter of the fence became a matter for heated cross- examination, particularly on the issue of whether inspections were still carried out at the border crossings for tick control. Mr Routh was unable to express an opinion on this point and he had not made specific enquiries as to inspections. Mr Routh acknowledges that the property is severed into three separate parcels and that from a management point of view, this poses difficulties. This has been taken into account, although not quantified in the evidence before me. On the whole of the evidence I find that the subject land overall is superior to the two comparison parcels and indeed this is conceded by Mr Caithness. I am concerned on the question of the fence which Mr Caithness says restricts his access to the river to only three points. He says that this barrier fence is "controlled and patrolled". While Mr Routh has made some enquiries in the matter, the reply which he received does not clarify the position as I see it. The land has been valued as not having this detriment upon it and until the contrary is established I feel that allowance should be made for the fence and I propose to make such allowance. On the evidence the subject lands are more severely affected by roads and stock routes than the comparison parcels. They are also three separate parcels and as such, management problems occur and they would be less attractive in the market place. Having doubts in the matter, I propose to give the benefit of such doubts to the landholder and make an allowance of $20,000, reducing the valuation to $100,000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --