Goody v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

[1997] QLC 157

[1997] QLC 157

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

10 October 1997

Re:                 Appeal against Categorisation -
Local Government Act 1993 -
  Shire of Laidley.
  (VC95-663).

John L and Fay M Goody
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
  (formerly Department of Lands)

(Hearing at Gatton)

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal by landowners in the Shire of Laidley against the categorisation of their land for differential rating purposes.
           Mr and Mrs Goody are the owners of land described as Lot 3 on RP 186721, Parish of Mort, containing an area of 16.37 hectares.  The property is situated at Berlin Road, Mt Berryman, in the Shire of Laidley.  It is zoned "Rural A" under the Shire of Laidley Town Planning Scheme.
           At its Budget meeting held on 23 August 1995, the Laidley Shire Council resolved to make and levy differential general rates on the rateable value of rateable land within the Shire of Laidley for the financial year ending 30 June 1996.
           The Council resolved to adopt seven categories for the rateable land in its Local Government Area and determined seven sets of criteria for the categorisation of that land.  The relevant categories in this case are Category 3 and Category 5.  The criteria adopted by the Council for these two categories are as follows:

"Category 3.  All rateable lands (except those in Category 7) in the Area of the Shire of Laidley which are vacant and vacant englobo rural residential land or used for dwellings or outbuildings on rural residential land and coded with primary land use codes 04 to 06 and 72.  "

"Category 5.  All rateable lands (except those in Category 7) in the Area of the Shire of Laidley which are used for the business of farming and are coded with primary land use codes 60 to 71 and 73 to 89.   "

Mr and Mrs Goody have appealed against the decision of the Council to include their land in Category 3, contending that it should have been included in Category 5.  The grounds of appeal were as follows:

"Used for grazing since inception of property and purchase and property.  The amount of time, effort and money spent over 12 years to accomplish the improvements of today.  Running a registered stud herd of Santa Gertrudis cattle.  Eradication of lantana to further carrying capacity.  Topography.  "

The relevant Legislation
           The relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 are contained in Chapter 10 - Rates and Charges. Part 2 of Chapter 10 deals with the making and levying of rates and charges. Section 562 allow a council to rate differentially. Sub-section 2 provides:

"A differential general rate made and levied on rateable land in a category may be the same as or different to the differential general rate made and levied on land in another category.  "

However, to rate differentially, the rateable land in the Local Government Area must be categorised into two or more categories.  Part 3 of Chapter 10 is headed "Categorisation of Land for Differential Rating".  Section 572 provides that "A local government may make and levy a differential general rate for a financial year only if all rateable land in its area has been categorised..."  Before making and levying a differential general rate, the local government must decide by resolution upon the categories into which rateable land in its area is to be categorised and the criteria by which the land is to be categorised.
           After having decided the categories and criteria, the local government has the option of either

•itself identifying the category in which each parcel of rateable land is to be included; or,

• requesting the valuation authority to identify the category in which each parcel should be included.

Provision is made for objection and appeal.  An owner of rateable land which has been categorised, may object to the categorisation of the land on the sole ground that, having regard to the criteria decided by the Local Government by which rateable land is categorised, the land should have been included in another rating category. (s.580)
           In this case, the Laidley Shire Council had requested the valuation authority (the then Department of Lands) to categorise the land within its Local Government Area.  Therefore after receiving the rate notice and the advice about the categorisation of their land, Mr and Mrs Goody lodged their objection with the Department.  After considering their objection, the Department advised them that their objection had been disallowed.  They then appealed to the Land Court against that decision.
           With the agreement of the parties, this case was heard with the appeal by Mr and Mrs Goody against their Annual Valuation (AV95-653).  A decision in that matter was delivered today.
In support of their contention that the land should have been included in Category 5, Mr Goody gave extensive evidence on the use of the land since it was purchased by the appellants. This evidence is summarised in the decision in respect of Appeal AV95-653. Evidence for the respondent was given by Mr Ridley, a Registered Valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources, as to why the land had not been valued as land used for purposes of "farming" as defined by Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act. That evidence is also summarised in the decision on Appeal AV95-653.
           In this appeal against categorisation, it is necessary for the appellants to show that their land satisfied the requirements of the criteria adopted by the Council in respect of Category 5.  There are two requirements: first, the land must be used for the business of "farming", and second, it must be coded with Primary Land Use Codes 60 to 71 and 73 to 89.
I was informed by Mr Ridley that the respondent interpreted the phrase "business of farming" to mean land which was valued as used for purposes of "farming" under the provisions of Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The Land Use Codes 60 to 71 and 73 to 89 are, according to Mr Ridley, the Land Use Codes adopted by the respondent in respect of lands which are used for various types of "farming" activities. However, no evidence was presented as to which codes related to which particular activities. Neither was I informed whether a piece of land could have a Primary Land Use Code between the numbers 60 and 71 and also a Primary Land Use Code between the numbers 73 to 89. I gained the impression from Mr Ridley that the respondent interprets that particular criterion as meaning coded with Primary Land Use Codes between Codes 60 to 71 inclusive or between Codes 73 to 89 inclusive.
However, be this as it may, for reasons which are set out in the decision in respect of Appeal AV95-653, I have come to the conclusion that the subject land does not qualify for a concessional valuation under the provisions of section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act as land used for purposes of "farming". I am less certain whether the land is coded with Primary Land Use Codes between 60 and 71 or between 73 and 89. Mr Ridley said that it is, but he did not nominate which particular code.
           However, it is not necessary to resolve the coding issue, as I am satisfied that the subject land has failed to meet the first criterion, as it is expressed in the Council's resolution, as land "used for the business of "farming".  Therefore, the appellants have not satisfied me that their land has been wrongly categorised and the appeal must fail.
           Accordingly, the appeal against categorisation is dismissed and the decision of the respondent to include the land in Category 3 is affirmed.

(JJ Trickett)       
  President of the Land Court