Ferrier & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 305

• !r"::" ~-.;.:, -,.,,~.,-- -~·:·· ~!· • ':. r, \· r ', ;s t. 1 l- ;';;,. \ --~:, (: ·• . ,--,:.,-,,. Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Shire of Inglewood. AV89-207 M.D. and H.J. Ferrier V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Toowoomba) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 23rd March, 1990 M.D. and H.J. Ferrier have appealed against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of the land contained in Valuation Roll No 1010. Details are as follows:- Appeal AV89-207 - AF 2804 - Lot 2 on ENT 965 (Original Portion 2), Parish of Macintyre, County of Bentinck - area 1932 hectares - unimproved value $53,000 ($27.43 per hectare) - appellants' estimate $44,500 ($23.03 per hectare). The relevant date of valuation is 31st March, 1988. The property, the subject of the appeal and known as "Spring Creek" is located 55 kilometres westerly of Stanthorpe on Spring Creek Road and used for wool growmg. Mr M.D. Ferrier, one of the appellants, provided evidence in support of the appeal. It is the contention of Mr Ferrier that when considering land in the north- eastern part of Inglewood Shire in the Parishes of Macintyre, Moynalty and Bodumba, the whole of this area was of traprock formation and with few exceptions would have been similar in its unimproved state, becoming steeper with deteriorating soil types [1990] QLC 305 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 towards the heads of water courses. He refers to a map prepared by the Department of Primary Industries as a supplement to the Inglewood Shire Land Management Manual to support this general description. Mr Ferrier then goes on to say that because most of the area referred to was originally heavily timbered a great deal of timber treatment has been carried out. He is of the opinion that land which has been carefully managed with regard to timber treatment and its maintenance can give the impression of being superior quality to what he says was originally similar land where timber treatment has either not been attempted or, if it has, not successfully followed through. He is of the further opinion that those landholders who have improved and maintained their properties at considerable expense are being penalised by the lack of relativity between valuations of lands with similar potential but where similar standards of timber treatment have not been met. Mr Ferrier has compiled a schedule relating to various properties and containing details of unimproved capital values for freeholding purposes in the 1964- 1966 period, then the Valuer-General's unimproved values effective prior to 30th June, 1989, and thirdly those proposed to become effective from that date, then percentage increases which would result over the 1964-1966 freeholding figures. He believes the percentage figures reveal an alarming bias in unimproved valuation increases in favour of some areas and particularly those properties where no effort has been made to improve them. Reference is then made to three (3) particular properties being "Ashgrove'\ "Brooklyn" and "Cooinoo" where the proposed valuations by the Valuer- General were $26.75, $23.78 and $14 per hectare respectively. Mr Ferrier possesses an intimate knowledge of the local area and is of the opinion that of the examples given, "Spring Creek" on a hectare-for-hectare basis should be no higher than "Brooklyn". He was of the opinion that "Ashgrove" was better country with better access and any road -- 2 of 6 -- 3 severance was of minor importance. He had not given consideration to an area of Special Lease in "Cooinoo" and while it was a big rough block it had the potential with improvement to be as good as "Spring Creek". When asked to compare properties "Wyngarra" and "Glencoe", he responded that "Wyngarra" was considered one of the best in the district while "Glencoe", although overall fairly similar, was in his opinion superior to "Spring Creek". David Anthony Routh, a Registered Valuer employed by the Department of the Valuer-General, carried out the assessment appealed against and provided a valuation report including a schedule of two sales. His valuation of $53,000 (rounded from $27.50 per hectare) was made having regard to all sales in the Shire but particularly those listed in the schedule. His evidence was that Sale 1 -Cameron to Ferrier - was his primary basis. Mr Routh had not carried out the original analysis of this sale but had inspected the property known as "Inverary" and was in agreement with the analysis carried out by another and as set out in the schedule. The schedule indicates that from an analysis of $34.50 per hectare an assessment of $31.50 was applied. Mr Routh advised that the property lies within both Stanthorpe and Inglewood Shires. Computerized documentation was presented which shows that as at the relevant date, 31st March, 1988, $40,500 was applied to the area of 1,165 hectares within Stanthorpe, equating $34.76 per hectare and $22,200 to 838.4 hectares within Inglewood, equating $26.48 per hectare. Mr Routh's description of the nature of "Spring Creek" and the sale property "Inverary" was not challenged and there was "agreement between Mr Routh and Mr Ferrier as to the superiority of that section of the sale property within Stanthorpe Shire over the Inglewood Shire parcel (known as "Fox Gully"). Mr Ferrier questioned -- 3 of 6 -- 4 the assessment of $85,000 as the value of the structural improvements in the sale but had offered no cogent evidence to challenge that assessment. Earlier Mr Ferrier had explained that he as an adjoining landholder had an interest in the purchase of "Inverary" by members of his family. While he suggested that the price paid was too dear, there was no real challenge to the use of this sale as providing evidence of market value. Again there was agreement between the parties that the "Fox Gully" parcel of "Inverary" containing the smaller area of 838.4 hectares valued at around $26.50 per hectare by the Valuer-General using the basis of the "Inverary" sale, was land of similar quality to the larger "Spring Creek". Mr Routh was asked to make comparisons between "Spring Creek" and the properties "Ashgrove" and "Brooklyn". His response was that "Ashgrove" was slightly larger, had some better country although the western part was stonier and that the property was affected by the highway and a railway. He could not, however, choose between·"Brooklyn" and "Spring Creek" and after inspecting "Brooklyn" now forms the opinion that the value applied to "Brooklyn'' is too low. When asked to compare "Glencoe", Mr Routh gave the opinion that it was similar to "Spring Creek" but felt the access to "Spring Creek" was better. There was no agreement between the parties on this latter point, Mr Ferrier suggesting that as "Glencoe" was 11 kilometres from the Cunningham Highway and "Spring Creek" 28 kilometres, access to "Glencoe" was better. Mr Routh explained that sales of traprock country had been investigated in both Stanthorpe and Inglewood Shires for the common date of valuation. As a result, an increase of 50 percent (50%) had been applied to the traprock country in Inglewood Shire, using the previous valuation as a base. Some rounding off had created minor alterations to previous relativity and some determinations subsequent to objections may -- 4 of 6 -- " 5 have also altered previous relativities. The reasons for reference to the properties "Wyngarra" and "Glencoe" became clear when I was referred to the decision by the learned Member of this Court, Mr C.H. Carter, in re: Appeal AV89-205 and Appeal A V89-206, handed down on 4th October, 1989. These appeals were filed against the determination of the Valuer- General of the unimproved values of "Wyngarra" and "Glencoe", both in Inglewood Shire, and at the same relevant date as the subject, 31st March, 1988. The thrust of those appeals was that the valuations were anomalous since they were disproportionate to the unimproved values placed by the Department of Lands for freehold conversion purposes in 1965-1966. Mr Carter in his decision to dismiss the appeals made the observation - "It is not the 1965-1966 valuations which are before the Court for determination. It is the relevant date valuations with which we are concerned. These valuations must stand or fall on sales evidence at or about that date." He went on further to say - "The only evidence I have is the Valuer-General's sales analysis and, prima facie, it supports the unimproved values under appeal". Now while the thrust of the subject appeal is in some circumstances similar to that of the appeals referred to, it does go somewhat further and becomes more specific. I have the benefit also of a direct comparison with the Valuer-General's opinion of part of the same sale property and agreement between the parties, the appellant having intimate knowledge of the sale property, as to that comparison. I am of the opinion that when making comparisons between properties the information provided by the 1965 period freeholding assessments is one factor which might offer assistance but it is not conclusive and certainly any reference to percentage increases, unless related to a known "like with like" situation is of no assistance. I do not find it abnormal that with the passage of time difference in values between various -- 5 of 6 -- 6 properties of different quality will become disproportionate over a 25 year period, if that is what the market dictates. The contention that properties similar in all respects, if that could be shown conclusively, should maintain a consistent level of value, is also reasonable. On the evidence before me and particularly as the same sales evidence has been used by the Valuer-General in each case and comparisons with reasonable agreement in some but not all cases of the specific properties referred to were possible, I am of the opinion that the appellant has carried the burden of proof sufficiently to warrant reduction of the Valuer-General's valuation to provide a more equitable application of the adopted sales evidence, even though argument may still persist in terms of overall relativity. An assessment of $25 per hectare on the appeal block, "Spring Creek" is adopted accordingly. In summary, the appeal is allowed, the Valuer-General's assessment is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at Forty-eight thousand, three hundred dollars ($48,300) ($25 per hectare). (Signed) R.E. Wenck. ·--Member of the Land Court -- 6 of 6 --