Rea v Valuer-General

[2011] QLC 71

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rea v Valuer-General  [2011] QLC 71

PARTIES:

Keith Joseph Rea
(appellant)

v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

VLA319-10

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT:

Rockhampton

PRESIDENT:

CAC MacDonald

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is dismissed.

2.     The unimproved value of the aggregation known as "Woodstock" comprising Lot 821 on SP 185341, Lots 1 and 2 on SP 232628 and Lot 1668 on SP 185342, in the Parish of Marlborough is affirmed at Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($640,000), as at 1 October 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal against annual valuation - impact of Vegetation Management Act 1992 - allowances - onus of proof.

APPEARANCES:

Mr KJ Rea in person
Ms L Hawkings-Guy, Principal Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Environment & Resource Management, for the respondent

1. The appellant, Keith Joseph Rea, has appealed, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act), against the determination by the respondent Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Mr Rea's property "Woodstock" as at 1 October 2009.  The respondent determined the value of the property as at that date as $640,000.  The appellant estimated the unimproved value of the land to be $576,000. 

2. The property is situated on Marlborough-Sarina Road about 11 kms south-west of Marlborough and is severed into two parts by that road.  It has an area of 6,937.6765 ha and is used by the appellant for grazing - breeding and fattening beef cattle.  The property consists of several parcels of land which were amalgamated for the purposes of the valuation and one valuation issued. 

3. Mr Rea conducted the appeal and gave evidence in support of his grounds of appeal.  Valuation evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr DW Drew, who is a registered valuer employed by the Department of Environment and Resource Management.

Valuation evidence

1. Mr Drew's valuation was carried out by comparison with sales.  He valued the property at $92.42/ha or $640,000 (rounded) unimproved.  That valuation reflects a value of $1,100 per beast area unimproved. 

2. Mr Drew's evidence was that since the previous valuation at 1 October 2006, there had been strong demand and increased prices for properties in the area of the subject in 2007/2008.  However, from late 2008 through 2009 the gains that had been made were all but lost due to the global financial crisis (GFC) and the continuing drought.  The volume of sales of rural properties decreased greatly in 2009.  Mr Drew concluded from an analysis of sales in the area of the Rockhampton Regional Council that rural market values in that locality had shown no increase in value since the previous valuation on 1 October 2006.  Therefore values were rewritten on 1 October 2009 from the valuation made as at 1 October 2006.  Accordingly, the valuation of $640,000 under appeal in this matter is the same as the issued valuation for the subject land as at 1 October 2006.

3. Mr Drew relied on two sales to…