Re Garside
[1994] QLC 49
•25 August 1994
|
BRISBANE
25TH AUGUST 1994
Re: Determination of Rent - GHPL 12/2224B -
Clermont District
Lessees: R.H., G.J. & G.R. Garside
(Hearing at Clermont)
D E C I S I O N
The Department of Lands has assessed the annual rent of this lease, over land described as Lots 2 and 10 on Plan CNS 407/390, Parish of Cotherstone, in the amount of $915 for the period commencing 1st January, 1990 to 30th June, 1993. The lease contains an area of 3,210.55 hectares. It is located on the Clermont-Dysart Road about 71 km from Clermont. Together with the adjoining freehold Portion 1 the property is known as "Calderwood".
The lessees purchased "Calderwood" in early 1992. They do not accept the Department's assessment of rent and contend that the previously existing rent of $652 per annum should continue.
Mr R.H. Garside attended the Land Court hearing. He tendered a written statement together with various photographs illustrating matters to which reference was made. Mr Garside advised that the area was drought declared in April 1992 and that declaration remained as at the date of the hearing. Significant expenditure on stock feed had been necessary. Apart from the effect of drought on natural pasture, the property has become heavily infested with parthenium which is seen to be out of control.
In Mr Garside's opinion, over an average 10-year period, and with consideration to the quality of land which included areas of harder ridges, the carrying capacity of the lease would not have been expected to exceed one beast to 10 hectares. However, with the advent of parthenium infestation, Mr Garside estimated that the carrying capacity under average conditions would now have reduced to a beast to 12 hectares. He drew attention to an article in the "Queensland Country Life" dated 14th April, 1994, in which an extension agronomist with the Department of Primary Industries was reported as saying that "the most recent parthenium infestation, sparked by the first decent rain in years ....... has already halved stocking rates in the Clermont district".
Other matters referred to by Mr Garside were the problems associated with adjacency to a National Park in the south-west corner (lack of shared maintenance to fences and the grid on the roadway, straying cattle, stock losses due to dingoes); the shape of the leasehold parcel relative to water points; and the declining importance of Clermont as a business centre due to the rural recession and the increasing need to travel to the more distant Emerald (110 km).
As a side issue, Mr Garside had experienced some frustration with the location of the property now falling within the Mackay regional district of the Department of Lands, rather than the more convenient Emerald district.
Evidence in support of the Department's rent assessment was given by Mr O. Eisenmenger, registered valuer. He had inspected the property in April, 1992, shortly after the present lessees had taken possession. At that time, he had noticed parthenium infestation, particularly in the eastern section of the lease, but had no reason to doubt Mr Garside's evidence that the degree of infestation had worsened during the relevant rental period and even more so to the date of the hearing. At the commencement of the rental period he said that the property had been included within the Emerald Land Commissioner's district. The cattle rental standard for the Emerald district, subsequent to the Carter Inquiry, (then the Land Court and Land Appeal Court hearings which followed), had been set at $2.40 per beast (for the hypothetical best quality, handily situated, old developed Crown land in the district). The safe carrying capacity of the subject lease had been assessed by the Department over a long period, as being one beast to 7.5 hectares and to his knowledge that level had not previously been disputed. In Mr Eisenmenger's opinion, based on his own experience in making comparisons within the district over a fairly lengthy period, that estimate of carrying capacity was not considered to be unreasonable, at least depending on the effect of the parthenium infestation. In comparison with the hypothetical best quality standard of $2.40 per beast, a rental per beast of $2.10 for the relative quality of the subject property had been adopted. Again, on relativity factors adopted by the Department, that amount had been further reduced by 20% - for situation 3% (based on Clermont); access 3% (mainly gravel); water 7% (artificial supplies only); pests 1% (dingoes); quality/best use 1% (breeding and fattening as compared to no allowance for fattening country); disabilities 5% (parthenium). The 20% total allowances reduced the standard to $1.68 per beast or 22.4 cents per hectare (on a carrying capacity of 1 beast to 7.5 hectares).
Within the lease was an area estimated as being 60 hectares of arable land. While of insufficient size for commercial grain cropping, that land provided a valuable fodder cropping component. Based on the analyses of two sales of predominantly arable land in the Parish of Fairbairn, which he saw to be of significantly superior quality and potential, showing unimproved values of $233 and $268 per hectare respectively, Mr Eisenmenger valued the arable component of the subject lease at $175 per hectare unimproved. Again, based on the Land Appeal Court judgment (Determination of Rents - P.H. Stawellton and grazing selections - delivered 20th March, 1992) the rent for the arable component was assessed at 2% of that unimproved value.
The total annual rent was assessed as follows:
Arable - 60 ha @ 2% of $175 per ha $210.00
Grazing - 3,150.55 ha @ 22.4 cents per ha $705.00
Total $915.00
Mr Eisenmenger impressed as a professional witness not so inflexible as to ignore the relative effect of the problems raised by Mr Garside. His assessment had given consideration to those matters affecting value and while he stood firm on the question of carrying capacity in average seasons, Mr Eisenmenger recognised, in his verbal evidence, the potential for parthenium to affect the grazing productivity of the lease area. He also agreed that various aspects relating to the National Park adjacency, including maintenance of fencing and increased dingo prevalence, were matters deserving consideration.
While it was touched on briefly, it seems to me that as the leasehold land is to be considered as an entity separate from the freehold, its shape is also a matter affecting value. It comprises two distinct sections (Lots 2 and 10) for practical purposes severed by Portion 1 (the freehold land).
Although the future potential of the leasehold land, as to effective carrying capacity may well be reduced, for the rental period in question I have decided to adopt Mr Eisenmenger's estimate. However, it seems to me that by doing this, in the relevant period and apart from the drought conditions, the previous ability of the country to fatten may well have been affected by the increasing parthenium infestation. I will therefore increase the "quality/best use" allowance from 1% to 3% and the parthenium allowance from 5% to 7.5%. I will make a further allowance of 3% for disabilities to include the shape of the lease and its partial adjacency to the National Park.
These adjustments will increase the "total factor set-off" to 27.5% and reduce the "prime nett rate" of 210 cents per beast to 152 cents per beast which becomes 20.3 cents per hectare.
The annual rent will then become:
Arable land - as assessed $210.00
Grazing - 3150.55 ha @ 20.3 cents per ha $640.00
Total $850.00
Accordingly the rent assessment of the Department of Lands is set aside and the rent for the relevant period is determined in the amount of $850 per annum.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0