Barrett v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 180

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer- General, Shire of Bowen. V90-328. Ian John Barrett v. The Valuer-General lAND COURT, BRISBANE. 10th August 1990. This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of an aggregation of land held by the appellant containing 15,766 hectares in the parishes of Abbott Woonton Vale and Molongle. For the purposes of the general valuation of the area as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General has valued the area at $400,000. This valuation was based on sales, and details of 3 sales were put in evidence by Mr M.T. Linnan, Registered Valuer, who wrote the valuation on behalf of the Valuer-General. The subject property is situated on the Bruce Highway at Gumlu about 50km north of Bowen. It is agreed that the highest and best use of the property is for the breeding, growing and fattening of beef cattle. It is further agreed that for the purposes of this valuation a reasonable carrying capacity to apply to the block is at the rate of 1 beast to 8 hectares. The valuation appealed against reflects a value of $25.40 per hectare. On the agreed carrying capacity the value is equivalent to a value of $203.00 per beast. The appellant Mr I.J. Barrett is contending to a value of $346,852 which is a result of an application of a value per hectare of $22.00. The appeal is based on grounds of relativity. Across the Elliot River east of the subject property, which is known as "Woonton Vale", is a block of 22,683 hectares, which is known as "Salisbury". On the southern boundary of "Woonton Vale" there are [1990] QLC 180 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 two properties, "Glenrock" on the west which has an area of 11,200 hectares and "Nevada" on the east which has an area of 14,090 hectares. The evidence of Mr Barrett is that all properties have a common highest best use, that they turn off bullocks of comparable weight, that the country is comparable, and that they should have the same value, namely $22.00 per hectare. He is supported in this opinion by Mr R. Barrett the owner of "Salisbury". The type of country which can be found on all four blocks consists generally of level coastal forest timbered with bloodwood, narrow leaf ironbark, moreton bay ash and ti-tree, which is regarded as the better grazing land, and boree wattle bulloak and sandalwood scrubs, which is regarded as inferior country of no grazing value in the opinion of the owners who gave evidence but of some grazing value, particularly in dry seasons, in the opinion of Mr Linnan. "Nevada" and "Salisbury" have some country worse again, but in differing percentages. This will be seen shortly. "Salisbury" like "Woonton Vale" is on the bitumen highway. "Nevada" and "Glenrock" are not. The breakup of the blocks as calculated by Mr Linnan and the carrying capacities applied to the respective areas for the purpose of this valuation are as follows: Woonton Vale ha cc 10281 - 1-6 5484 - 1-20 15766 - 1-8 $25.40 Salisbury ha cc 10362 - 1-6 11592 - 1-15 729 - 1-100 22683 - 1-9 $22.00 Nevada ha cc 11680 - 1-8 2410 - 1-40 14090 - 1-9 $22.00 Glenrock ha cc 4200 - 1-6 2250 - 1-8 4670 - 1-15 11200 - 1-9 $22.76 In these comparisons there exist, in the workings of Mr Linnan, allowances in value for that "Nevada" and "Glenrock" do not have bitumen access, for the differing percentages of better to inferior country and for the overall size of the blocks. It is -- 2 of 3 -- 3 agreed that the carrymg capacity applied by Mr Linnan to the subject land is reasonable. It is also agreed that the carrying capacities applied to the comparison blocks are reasonable. That being the case, there is every reason, apart from others, to say that "Woonton Vale" could not have the same value. But there is more to it than that. Size is of significance in the market place. At $22.00 per hectare "Salisbury" has an unimproved value of $500,000. If "Woonton Vale" is valued at $22.00 per hectare it has an unimproved value of $350,000. The difference is enough to limit potential buyers for the first property and to increase potential buyers for the second. The properties may turn off cattle of comparable quality but the number turned off relative to the total herd is of significance. These few points in addition to the matter of access where I am of · the opinion that a reasonable purchaser would not overlook the advantages that bitumen access provides to his family, if for no other reason leads me to conclude that the relativity applied by Mr Linnan should not be disturbed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (Signed) D.M. White Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --