Bancroft & Ors v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 163

Re: Determination of unimproved value - Shire of Eidsvold AV90-23, 24, 25; 26, and 27 . Thomas J. Hancmft and Ors v. The Valuer-General DECISION IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. ¥th March, ·1990. Five appeals have been lodged by Thomas J. Bancroft and members of the Bancroft family against the determination by the Valuer-General of unimproved values in the above Shire as at a relevant date of 31st March, 1989. Details of the Valuer- General's valuations and the values for which the appellants contend are:- AppealAV90-23-Lot~ 35/RW193; PLS/1032andL30/RW193; GF/2042 and P47; PLS/965 and Lot 7 /RW268 and Lot 36/RW193; PLS/1027 and P37, parish of Culcraigie and Lot 46/YL257 and Lot 91/YL521; PLS/1022 parish of Hollywell - 2695 hectares - Valuer-General's valuation $124,000 ($46 per hectare). Appellant's unimproved value $75,000 ($28 per hectare). Appeal AV90-24 - Lot 12/WK87 (6539/239) parish of Cloncose - 517.6 hectares - Valuer-General's unimproved value $24,500 ($47 per hectare). Appellant's unimproved value $15,500 ($30 per hectare). Appeal AV90-25 - Lot 3/WD213; GHFL 4506 and P9-11; SL 43032; PT Reserve/42, parish of Cheltenham - 2427 hectares - Valuer-General's unimproved value $47,000 ($19.50 per hectare). Appellant's unimproved value $35,000 ($14.50 per hectare). Appeal AV90-26 - SL47576 - Reserve 15 - L87 on RW188 parish of Culcraigie - 93.08 hectares - Valuer-General's unimproved value $5,300 ($57 per hectare). Appellant's unimproved value $730 ($7.80 per hectare). Appeal AV90-27 - Lot 13-14/WK87 parish of Cloncose - 1035 hectares - Valuer-General's unimproved value $79,000 ($76 per hectare). Appellant's unimproved value $25,000 ($24 per hectare). [1990] QLC 163 -- 1 of 5 -- - Page 2 - A V90-23 and A V90-26 parcels comprise a grazing property known as "Tolo" which is situated about 7 kilometres west of Eidsvold. The remaining parcels are situated about 40 to 45 kilometres west of Eidsvold. All parcels are utilized for cattle grazing. Thomas James Bancroft had the conduct of all appeals. The appeals were not heard together but I find it convenient to produce a joint decision. I shall, however, deal briefly with each parcel. Re: AV90-23 this is the property "Tolo" which was purchased by the Appellant from K.L. Haupt on 16th May, 1988 for $433,600. "Tolo" also incorporates the A V90-26 Special Lease. Mr Bancroft says that the country on AV90-23 is covered by three main groups. There is blue gum, apple, ironbark and bloodwood country running west to the watershed of Smalls Creek where sandy granite takes over producing a lower class of grazing land timbered with moreton bay ash, bloodwood, ironbark, spotted gum and quinine on a loose sandy soil. Further west the granite is badly decomposed supporting a forest of mountain bloodwood, needlewood, wattle undergrowth and grasstree, all indicative of poor land. Smalls Creek is not permanent. On the eastern side of the Burnett River the country rises abruptly from a narrow frontage, and is dominated by continuous outcrops timbered with ironbark, bloodwood and moreton bay ash, merging in the northeast comer to mountain bloodwood, spotted gum, mountain ironbark, gumtop box, lancewood and wattle. Mr Bancroft says this area does not lend itself to useful timber treatment because it is extremely rugged. A section known as Spring Gully in this eastern area is sandy granite country carrying a heavy stand of ironbark, bloodwood, moreton bay ash, running back to spotted gum, lancewood and wattle on the eastern boundary. Mr Bancroft prepared for the Court an apportionment, or analysis if you like, of the sale price of "Tolo". He values the house on the property at $50,000, -- 2 of 5 -- - Page 3 - stockyard, dip and shed at $20,000, and internal roads and clearing at $2,700. The fencing he values at $27,490. He places a value of $109,490 on the timber treatment. Water improvements are valued by Mr Bancroft at $153,500. Evidence for the Valuer-General was furnished by Anthony John Bailey, a Registered Valuer in its employ. Before dealing with Mr Bailey's approach to each valuation I should here indicate that he has analysed the sale of "Tolo" and produced for the Court a copy of it. Mr Bailey's valuation of the improvements on "Tolo" are:- Structural improvements - including interest Fencing- including interest Water - including interest Timber treatment - including interest $ 53,500 $ 37,000 $ 17,200 $159,000 Mr Bailey analyses the sale to show an unimproved value of $53 per hectare. Now it is obvious that Mr Bailey's analysis is seriously at odds with Mr Bancroft's apportionment of the sale. Mr Bancroft places more value on the house ($50,000) than does Mr Bailey ($25,500). There is not much difference however in the valuations of the yards and other structures. Mr Bancroft's valuation of the fencing is less than is Mr Bailey's. The same applies to timber treatment. The main difference in the valuation of improvements is obviously that applied to water improvements. Now I cannot in any sense agree with Mr Bancroft that it is proper to ascribe a value of $15,000 for each of five frontage values for water in the Burnett River. Mr Bancroft claims that the water is there as a result of the construction by the Water Resources Commission of the Waruma Dam upstream from "Tolo" on the Nogo River. He claims to have been attracted to the property because of the existence of this natural water and says he would not have paid as much as he did for "Tolo" had it not been for the plentiful supply of water. This is understandable but in no sense is the natural water in the river an improvement. It is a natural phenomenon of obviously great worth to the property but it is not correct in principle to ascribe a value to it in the analysis of the sale. The water in the river is not an improvement on or appurtenant to the land. Further I cannot adopt Mr Bancroft's valuation of the artificial -- 3 of 5 -- - Page 4 - watering improvements. They are made at the same round figure of $20,000 without regard to the differing types of equipment. I clearly prefer the sale analysis provided by Mr Bailey which has been made in accordance with correct principles. It follows, that since the "Tolo" sale is really the only basis for Mr Brancroft's value estimates, then that basis is very tenuous. Mr Bailey informed the Court that the valuations of the rural lands within the Shire of Eidsvold were increased by a factor of 15% as for the Shire valuation with the relevant date 31st March, 1989. This has been done on the basis of the analyses of four sales which are incorporated within Mr Bailey's valuation report. One of these sales is that of "Tolo". In valuing this and the other parcels under appeal Mr Bailey has preserved the same relativity as existed for the last revaluation of the lands within the Shire of Eidsvold and on the evidence before me I can see no basis for disrupting that relativity. Mr Bancroft is of the belief that the Valuer-General has erred in valuing Special Lease 47576 at the rate of $57 per hectare. Mr Bailey explained that it is valued as fee simple as is required under the Valuation of Land Act but he believes that the valuation does take into affect the restrictions placed upon the land under the conditions of the lease. Had there not been any such conditions he would have valued it at around $100 per hectare taking into account its size in particular. Mr Bancroft says that when "Tolo", of which, as mentioned earlier, the Special Lease forms part, was purchased it was agreed between the parties that a value of $730 be paid for the Special Lease and it is on this basis that Mr Bancroft suggests the value under appeal is too high. I cannot accept Mr Bancroft's submission. Really the value of $730 for the Special lease is nothing more that an apportionment of the total sale price for "Tolo" as between the freehold and the Special Lease. It is clear that if the Special Lease is worth only $730 then the freehold would be worth relatively more than the unimproved value derived from the analysis of the sale by Mr Bailey. In any event the only -- 4 of 5 -- - Page 5 - valuation evidence I have is that provided by the Valuer-General and I simply cannot cast that aside in favour of Mr Bancroft's estimates. The same remarks can be made about all this group of appeals. Really there is no serious dispute between the parties in the description of the types of country on all the appeal parcels, and I am not influenced by the attempt by Mr Bancroft to discredit Mr Bailey in respect of his description of the country on the parcels wherein he sought answers about the types of fencing on many of the parcels in an attempt to give the impression of a less than complete inspection. It is clear that the onus resting upon the appellant's under the provisions of Section 16 (J) of the Valuation of Land Act as not being discharged. All appeals are dismissed and the determinations made by The Valuer-General in each case are affirmed. (Signed) C.H. Carter. Member of th e Tau rl Court. -- 5 of 5 --