David I and Brett W Hutchison v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1997] QLC 12

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

14 FEBRUARY 1997

Re:	AV96-209
An appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Jondaryan Shire

David I and Brett W Hutchison
v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearing at Dalby)

D E C I S I O N

Mr Farrington agreed that the subject property was on the fringe, but within the
agricultural plains with highest and best use as an agricultural farm. Properties to the east he
saw better described as mixed Uplands farms, with arable forest components and forest ridges.
One difficulty with making direct comparisons on an unimproved basis in Mr Farrington’s
opinion was the cost of timber treatment required to bring the forest lands to a treeless or lightly
timbered plain equivalent. He had long valuation experience in the area and this indicated to
him that disabilities such as salt intrusion had affected agricultural values in the Uplands farms.
From the valuation viewpoint there had been no sales evidence to support any alteration of
value of those Uplands farms, which attracted a different market to the agricultural plain lands
where there “had been almost a glut of sales” to support the increases which had been applied
to those lands. Consideration had been given in the overall valuation task in the locality to 25
sales scattered throughout the alluvial black soil plains of the Condamine Basin. Although
none of the sale properties were directly comparable with the classification mix of the subject,
three sales had been selected as supporting the level of value applied to the various
classifications. The details of the sales analyses were contained in Mr Farrington’s report, a
copy of which was provided to Mr Hutchison.
Mr Hutchison directed some criticism at the sales selected by Mr Farrington, but Mr
Farrington impressed as having well researched the evidence. His case had also been well
prepared to answer as best he could, the anticipated relativity thrust of the appeal. It may well
be that some of the classifications historically adopted by the Department for some of the
properties used by Mr Hutchison as relativity examples, are arguable.
Correct relativity between valuations used for revenue gathering purposes is an issue
often raised in this Court and the Land Appeal Court. It was an issue considered by the Land
Appeal Court in Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 327, where legal principles
were summarised. Suffice to say that it is well held that maintenance of correct relativity is
seen to be of considerable importance and uniformity between different blocks in the same land
category or type should be obtained, but “by correcting inaccuracies rather than by making an
inaccurate assessment in order to secure uniform error”, Grahn supra at p.329. And at p.328
“the principle of relativity should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant (even if not ideal)
sales evidence”.
Although there was also some criticism of the classification approach to the valuation as
reported, Mr Farrington demonstrated a professional approach in establishing, from sales
evidence, supportable levels of value for the various categories of land, then had given
consideration to the overall result. He was comfortable with that result as representing fair
unimproved value for the overall property. He had been able to explain why overall valuations
of other lands as referred to by Mr Hutchison have shown no, or varying, increase from
previous valuations.
It would be seen as unrealistic to expect that relativity between different categories of
land, with differing market demand, would remain constant from one valuation period to
another. Indeed, regular valuations would be expected to detect changing market trends rather
than to slavishly follow any previously established relativity. The owners’ estimate of unimproved value was $384,000. proving the grounds of appeal. As the appellants claim, different levels of overall value have been applied to other properties and previously existing relativities have altered. However the appellants have not proved, or for that matter created any doubt after consideration of the evidence, that the overall valuation of the subject property is wrong. Mr Hutchison had investigated the valuations applied to several properties to the east of the subject land. A property virtually adjoining to the east and of about 369 ha had been valued at $643/ha, representing an increase of 21.7% over the previous valuation. Three properties further to the east had been valued at $263/ha, $523/ha and $797/ha respectively which valuations were unaltered from those which previously existed. The valuation of the subject property equated $1,087/ha, an increase of 40% over the previous valuation. Mr Hutchison had a reasonable, if not intimate, knowledge of the properties involved in the relativity examples. He held the opinion that in comparison a valuation of $930 being his estimate of the value of the subject property was more realistic. He saw it as more reasonable to make comparisons with properties to the east, because he saw the subject land and those properties as being on the fringe of the agricultural plains.

This appeal was heard immediately following AV96-208. David Hutchison, who advised the Court during his evidence in this matter that he was a registered valuer, conducted the appellants’ cases and Mr M.C. Farrington was the registered valuer employed by the Department who had carried out both valuations appealed against.

In this matter the land is described as Lot 2 on Registered Plan 149250 and Lots 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 72762, Parish of East Prairie, containing 414.1 ha. The property is situated about 9 km north-west of the township of Mt Tyson and about 45 km west of Toowoomba.
Mr Hutchison accepted that Mr Farrington’s description of the nature of the land and that his classification of the soil types were reasonable. Approximately 355 ha of the property is cultivated, the balance area comprising a stony ridge and grassed waterways. Mr Farrington’s classification for valuation purposes was as follows:

87 ha	level agricultural plain	@ $1,570/ha	$136,590
90 ha	heavy clay agricultural plain	@ $965/ha	$86,850
177.1 ha	easy sloping agricultural plain	@ $1,150/h	$203,665
60 ha	grazing ridge and waterway	@ $365/ha	$21,900
$449,005

Adopt Total	$450,000
The grounds of appeal were as follows:

“Relativity of subject valuation to adjoining properties valuations to the east,

and also the relativity of coinciding valuation increases.”

It follows that the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.

RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT