Bartley v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 263

Re: Appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General. Glengallan Shire. A V90460. D.R. Bartl ey v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Warwick) D E CISI O N IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 18th October, 1990. The Valuer-General has determined the unimproved value of land described as Lot 3 on RP 15544 and Lots 3 and 4 on RP 15546, Parish of Cunningham, County of Merivale, containing 95.39 hectares, as $74,000 at 31st March, 1989. The property is situated about 11 km easterly of Warwick with access by the bitumen Hermitage - Emuvale Road. It is zoned Rural 'A' and used for agricultural purposes. Mr D.R. Bartley contends for a valuation of $45,540 and attended the hearing to give evidence in support of his appeal. He has farmed the property for some 38 years and refers to it as comprising two separate adjoining blocks - the home block of 141 acres (approx 57 hectares) and another of 95 acres (approx 38 hectares). The house block he describes as having heavy black clay cracking soils. Soil samples had been taken from the eastern section ("the 80 acre paddock") and a chemical analysis arranged in 1984, through Consolidated Fertilisers Limited. A copy of that analysis report w·as tendered to confirm one of the problems referred to by Mr Bartley - the high sodium levels causing soil structure problems which need to be improved by the application of gypsum. A copy of correspondence from the Department of Primary Industries in which reference was made to soil texture and consistency and the use of gypsum was also [1990] QLC 263 -- 1 of 5 -- 2 tendered. The cost of application of gypsum at the recommended level of 3.75 to 5 tonnes /hectare every 5 to 8 years, and the effect on returns were discussed by Mr Bartley. He was of the opinion that this property and a property next door to the east (Mrs Murphy's) were fairly similar in respect to soil type, but could not agree that other properties in this locality and particularly the sale properties used by the Valuer- General were comparable in soil structure or suffered similar salinity problems. The second block he says has about 16 acres of lucerne country, a large area of about 68 areas -of cultivation suited only to grain cropping, suffering from flood water ponding, affected by watercourse channels and original lagoons and melon-holey country part of which has been filled. The balance area along the creek suffered from a loss of top- soil from flooding and had reverted to grassland. Mr Bartley submitted photographs showing flooding on various sections of the total property. He also describes how the house was originally sited to front a constructed road along the northern boundary, but when a bridge creek crossing on this road was washed out many years ago, it was not replaced and the only access was then gained via the southern boundary road. Mr Bartley says that the Council refused to supply the internal service road access and he was forced to construct this gravelled access, from the south boundary to the house, himself. This road in itself being raised above the cultivation impedes the free flow of water from the east and causes some ponding during flooding. He says that even if it was necessary to consider the land as vacant, and with the only formed Council access along the southern boundary, he would prefer to still build on the existing homesite in the north-east because that site is relatively well drained as opposed to the poorly drained southern road frontage. In addition he says it would be expensive to connect electricity to a site on the southern road frontage. Mr D.P. Coe, AAIV, Registered Valuer and the District Valuer in the Southern -- 2 of 5 -- 3 Downs District Office, Warwick, gave evidence for the Valuer-General. He advised that the 1989 valuation of Glengallan Shire was the first annual revaluation of the Shire and that all primary production classified land had been increased by 20% over and above the 1988 general valuation. The increase was based on sales evidence generally throughout the Shire. Due to the time constraints imposed by annual valuations, properties were not inspected individually but existing relativity was maintained. In the subject case two sales were used as a basis to support the level of value applied. The first was a sale from Cleary to Massey of a 184.2 hectare property in two separate parcels separated by Yangan Road a relatively short distance to the north of the subject, on 1st July, 1988, for $275,000 analysed to show an unimproved value of $122,500 and to which $110,500 or $600 per hectare overall was applied. Now this was one of Mr Bartley's arguments, that in comparison, a valuation of $775 per hectare on the subject was excessive, particularly as the sale property had only a small area of the heavy cracking clay soils which dominated the subject. He also claimed that insufficient allowance had been made for the improvements on the sale property. Mr Coe answered the criticism by explaining that the sale property while having a desirable mix of country did have a relatively large area of forest grazing ridge which lowered the overall value. Also some of the cultivated land was forest country with timber treatment costs which deflated the unimproved value in comparison with the treeless plain country. His classifications and applied values on the sale property were as follows: 20 hectares agricultural plain, flat alluvial @ $1,100 per hectare 83 hectares sloping plain @ $825 per hectare 19 hectares grazing plain @ $580 per hectare 14 hectares fodder/ agricultural forest @ $430 per hectare 48.2 hectares grazing ridge @ $100 per hectare -- 3 of 5 -- 4 With regard to the improvements, he was of the opinion that the sale property made up of two original holdings was over-capitalised and an added value approach to the improvements had been adopted. Further, one of the two dwellings was subject to a life tenancy encumbrance. The second sale from McBain to Coleman, of a property of 87.36 hectares some distance to the north off the Freestone Road, on 7th November, 1988, for $210,000, was analysed to show an unimproved value of $84,300 with an application of $78,500 or $900 per hectare overall. This property adjoined a large feedlot and the applied value reflected an allowance for this disability. Mr Coe's valuation overall reflected the following classification and applied values: 74 hectares agricultural plain @ $1,100 per hectare 13.36 hectares gully and waterway plain grazing @ $360 per hectare less feedlot allowance 10% Mr Bartley offered the opinion that this sale property was recognised as one of the best in its locality and did not suffer from the same disability of soil type as the subject. He also believed that the feedlot would not be permanent but while it existed, provided a facility for the sale of grain from the sale property. Mr Coe generally-agreed-that the subject propert'f had-disabilities with-regard-to flooding and salinity, but was of the opinion that the question of relativity had been well settled over the years and resulted in part from previous Land Court decisions both on the subject and part of the aggregation referred to as the Massey sale. The Land Court decisions referred to in this matter go back to the 31st December, 1970 relevant date valuations, heard in 1974. Mr Coe is of the opinion that with external access as it stands and with the need to consider this valuation of the property in its unimproved state, the practical site for buildings would now be close to the southern boundary even -- 4 of 5 -- I I 5 if some siteworks such as provision of a building platform were necessary. I have read the decisions of the learned Member, Mr S. Dodds, which were referred to by both parties. Mr Bartley has been consistent over a long period of time as to the disabilities of the heavy cracking clay soils. I accept in this matter, that the soil analysis report refers to the "80 acre paddock" east of the private road and that that soil type extends westerly of the private road. By reference to the contours on mapping provided by the Valuer-General, I am not convinced that if unimproved no suitable building site is available or could not be provided near the bitumen road along the southern boundary. Mr Coe has indicated an overall classification and application of values as follows: 8 hectares agricultural plain flat @ $1,080 per hectare 82 hectares agricultural plain - salt and wet @ $780 per hectare 4.39 hectares grazing plain @ $480 per hectare On the evidence, and in particular the comparison with the second classification of the Massey sale, I am not convinced that the existing relativity provides sufficient recognition of the overall disabilities of the second classification of the subject property. There is no evidence to in any way support the level of value sought by the appellant, however, and I have decided to adopt an overall valuation of $725 per hectare. The appeal is therefore allowed, the determination of the Valuer-General set aside, and the unimproved value determined as $725 per hectare with a rounded total of $69,000. ;a. ,- F. ; _. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court -- 5 of 5 --