Carrick v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 284

·---- LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 7th September, 1990. Re: Appeal against determination of the Valuer- General, Herberton Shire Council.(AV90-234) Thomas Carrick v. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Ravenshoe) Mr Carrick has appealed the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of his block of 157.65 hectares in the sum of $65,000 for the purpose of the annual valuation of the area as at 31st March, 1989. He puts a value on the land of $12,500. The land comprises three separate parcels in the Parish of Ravenshoe and is used for grazing about 60 head of cattle as part of a herd of about 80 head with other land. Mr Carrick is a pensioner and obtains a rate concession. His evidence is to the effect that the land has lost its fertility, has become overgrown with blady grass, wild tobacco, turpentine and lantana and that it would be uneconomic to attempt to restore it. The valuation was written on behalf of the Valuer-General by Mr R.G. Moroney, Registered Valuer. He has valued the land on the basis that it is exclusively used for purposes of the business of primary production. He concedes that the land has lost its fertility and that it needs restoration. Redevelopment in his opinion could be in the order of $500/600 per hectare. He classes the area as having an acidic soil in common with a number of other blocks in the immediate vicinity of the subject blocks. In order to demonstrate the [1990] QLC 284 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 difference in value between this type of country and better country he detailed valuations of 8 properties. Generally speaking the blocks comparable with the subject land are valued at about $415 per hectare, whilst the better blocks are valued upwards of $675 per hectare with one exception. Mr Carrick is of the opinion that an expenditure of $500/600 per hectare to restore the land and sow improve pastures when the market for such land improved is about $1000 per acre ($2400 per hectare) is not viable. However, I am unable on the evidence to find that this is the case. The problem is one which has been identified by Mr Moroney. He does not dispute the need for restoration and he is fully aware of the likely cost of restoration. He has accounted for this factor in making the valuation. I am unable to say on the evidence that he is wrong. Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (Signed) D.M. White Acting President of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --