O'Neill v Ipswich City Council

[1997] QLC 129

[1997] QLC 129

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

3 September 1997

Re: Appeal against a Categorisation -
Local Government Act 1993 -
  Ref. VC96-315.

TK and JJ O'Neill
  v.
  Ipswich City Council

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against a decision by the respondent Ipswich City Council under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 to include the appellants' land with category "C" for differential rating purposes. The appellants' land is described as Lot 24 on CH 3150 and Lot 118 on CH 312530, Parish of Ferguson, and contains an area of 65.51 hectares. The appellants seek to have their land included within category "B" for differential rating purposes. Their grounds of appeal read:

"This property has been used for dairy and mixed farming from about 1936 to 1950 approximately.  From 1950 to the present time this land has been used for cattle breeding and fattening except for a couple of years when only horses were on property.  There has been cattle bred and fattened continually for the past 15 or 16 years on this property.  "

Pursuant to Section 572 of the Local Government Act 1993, the respondent Ipswich City Council has determined to make and levy differential general rates on rateable land for the 1995/96 financial year. Further, pursuant to Section 573 of the same Act, Council resolved that their shall be four (4) rating categories of land being categories "A", "B", "C" and "D", and the adopted criteria for each rating category is set out in the tables opposite each category. Category "B" criteria is listed as involving the use of the land for primary industry activities, and in relation to which the Department of Lands (now the Department of Natural Resources) has determined that the property should be subject to a Primary Industry concessional valuation by indicating such with a secondary Land Use Code of 98.

Category "C" criteria reads:

"Any land;

(a)where the Council Primary Land Use Code is NOT specified in category "A" or "B"; and

(b)which is not subject to a water charge; and

(c)       which is not underground land; and

(d)which is not subject to an amalgamated valuation by the Department of Lands where a water charge is issued to any separate parcel incorporated in the amalgamated valuation."

Mr John James O'Neill furnished evidence in support of the appeal.  Mr O'Neill, through a tendered statement, outlined the long history of ownership and use of the land, mainly for cattle grazing.  Prima facie, I am satisfied on this evidence that the use of the land at the relevant time qualifies it to be included within category "B" since it meets the use requirement of the primary Council Land Use Code 65 (farming/grazing) - cattle breeding - fattening.  But on the evidence, the appellants cannot satisfy the second requirement for the lands' inclusion within Category "B" which I restate as being

"and in relation to which the Department of Lands has determined that the property should be subject to a primary industry concessional valuation by indicating such with a secondary Land Use Code of 98.  "

Placed in evidence by the respondent is an I.V.A.S. Report from the Department of Natural Resources which indicates that the subject land is land use coded by the Department as 04 - vacant - large housesite, and this document indicates that there is no secondary land use code.  On this basis, then, the appellants cannot satisfy the Court that they can meet the second Land Use Code Test, and the appeal must fail.
           But, as discussed during the hearing of the matter, the appellants should be mindful that, if they wish to pursue their claim for rating relief, it is open for them to make an approach to the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources to seek an alteration to the basis of the valuation of their land (from as being a vacant - large housesite to Land Use Code 98) to land being used for the purposes of "farming".  Now this suggestion is not to be taken as an indication from the Court that, on the evidence in this case, it would find that the land should be so valued, since such a resolution here would not, in view of earlier comments, result in the appeal being upheld.
For the aforementioned reasons, and in accordance with the terminology used in Section 586(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1993, the appeal is disallowed.

(CH Carter)          
  Member of the Land Court