Robertson v Sarina Shire Council (No. 2)

[2006] QLC 80

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Robertson (No. 2) v Sarina Shire Council [2006] QLC 0080
PARTIES:	Thomas N Robertson and Pamela Robertson (appellants)
v.
Sarina Shire Council (respondent)
FILE NO.:	VC2005/1916
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	In the matter of an appeal against the categorisation of land under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Mackay
MEMBER	Mr RS Jones
ORDER:	The appeal is disallowed.
CATCHWORDS:	Local Government Act 1993 – Categorisation of land.
APPEARANCES:	Mr T N Robertson on behalf of the appellants Mr M Williams, Solicitor, for the respondent

1. Mr T Robertson and Mrs P Robertson, the appellants, have appealed against a decision by the Sarina Shire Council, the respondent, disallowing their objection against the categorisation of their land under the Local Government Act 1993. 

2. When this matter first came before me I was concerned with whether or not the notice of appeal filed on behalf of the appellants enlivened the jurisdiction of this Court.  On 26 April 2006 I handed down my reasons for determining that, as pleaded, the notice of appeal filed by the appellants did not enliven the jurisdiction of the Land Court. [1]  Following that decision the appellants sought leave to amend their notice of appeal and, by consent it was amended to seek relief in the following terms:

   "That the Court set aside the decision by the respondent to dismiss our application to change the existing rating Category 8 and order that the land should be included in rating Category 5."

   [1]            Robertson v Sarina Shire Council (2006) QLC 0020.

3. On 12 December 2006, the appeal came back before me in Mackay to be determined on its merits. 

Background

1. The appellants are the owners of land described as Lot 8 on Registered Plan 837374, Parish of Sarina located at Freshwater Point within the respondent's local government area.  Freshwater Point lies approximately ten kilometres east of the town of Sarina.  The subject land comprises an area of just over two hectares and is zoned "Rural Residential". 

2. At the relevant time the subject land was classified Category 8 for the purposes of the respondent's differential rating system.  Category 8 is defined in the Revenue Statement of the respondent for the year 2005/2006 under the heading "Category & Criteria" in the following way:

   "(8) Other Rural/Rural Residential
   All other rateable properties within the rural areas of the shire not included in Categories 6 or 7 including those used for or designated for use for rural residential purposes."

   Categories 6 and 7 refer to "Cane Land" and "Other Primary Industry" uses respectively. 

3. As already referred to, the appellants in their amended notice of appeal asserted that the land ought to have been placed in Category 5 under the respondent's differential rating system.  In the respondent's Revenue Statement 2005/2006 Category 5 is defined as follows:

   "(5) Other Towns/Villages

   All rateable properties in the designated towns or villages of the shire other than the towns of…