Ciepierski v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1999] QLC 33

LAND COURT BRISBANE 30 APRIL 1999 Re: AV98-276 – An Appeal against a determination of Unimproved Value – Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Local Authority: Inglewood Stefan Ciepierski v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (Hearing at Inglewood) D E C I S I O N This is an appeal against the chief executive's determination of unimproved value in the amount of $38,000, as at 1 October 1997, of land described as Lot 1 RL 7774: RL 25/7774 and Lot 40 CVE 670 and Lot 17 CVE 168 and Lot 41 CVE 670: SL 25/51413 (Pt SF/81), Parish of Braker, County of Clive, containing an area of 822.9 ha. The land is situated about 10 km south of Inglewood on the bitumen Texas Road. Electricity and telephone services are available. Mr Ciepierski as the owner of the land appeared at the hearing and gave evidence in support of his contention that the unimproved value should have been determined in the amount of $23,000. The basis of his opinion was that any increase in excess of 10% above the previously existing valuation was unreasonable and unnatural. In the Notice of Appeal it was indicated that the income from the property was limited to $1,000 per annum being a fixed amount received for agistment of livestock. Mr Ciepierski estimated that the Shire rates would increase to $1,040 per annum based on the new valuation. At the hearing he tendered a short statement to the effect that he was working on a project to establish 1,500 olive trees "which will develop the bush, and create a good future for Australia". His evidence was that he had purchased (at a cost of $4.50 per tree plus transport) 550 olive trees and planted them in December 1997 and January 1998. The trees were not irrigated. By the date of the hearing he had suffered losses of about 10% of the number planted. With irrigation the trees would come into production in about four years but up to ten years without [1999] QLC 33 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 irrigation. Mr Ciepierski had prepared sufficient ground for the next 500-tree stage of the project. He believed he was entitled to receive some recognition for his efforts to develop unproductive land. This could be achieved through the valuation for rating purposes being pegged for four years until some return was anticipated from the olive project. Mr Ciepierski had bought the property in 1983 for $60,000 when it was virtually unimproved except for a very old house and some fencing. As he had no plans to sell the property he had not given any consideration to the market value of the property as at the date of valuation in this matter. The valuation appealed against had been conducted by Mr M.W. Malone, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources. Mr Malone had not personally inspected the property on the ground but had seen the nature of the country from two of its boundaries and had viewed relevant aerial photography. He described the land as comprising poor quality, generally flat to easy sloping sandy forest. In his opinion, the dominant use of the property was as a rural homesite. Sales of rural homesites throughout the Inglewood Shire had been investigated by the Department's officers, in the valuation process. It seems that the sales which had been adopted as providing a relevant basis, indicated increases in levels of value of at least 80% above the unimproved values previously applied to those sale properties. Generally, except where alterations were considered warranted, previously existing relativities between valuations of lands considered to have dominant use or potential dominant use as rural homesites, were maintained, but the values increased by 80%. Mr Malone put forward as a basis of the valuation appealed against, two sales of much smaller, vacant or lightly improved rural homesites. Although those sale lands could hardly be described as comparable to the subject, Mr Malone saw the evidence as being representative of the relevant homesite market. The details of the sales were as contained in a schedule in his tendered report, a copy of which was provided to Mr Ciepierski. Mr Ciepierski did not challenge the validity of the adopted evidence. Mr Ciepierski made no submission as to whether the grazing activities under the agistment agreement might be construed, under s.17 of the Valuation of Land Act, as representing the use of the property for purposes of "farming". The evidence as to the grazing activities would support Mr Malone's contention that the dominant use of the subject land, in the period relevant to the valuation, was of a residential nature. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 However, in Mr Ciepierski's opinion, his olive growing project was unquestionably a commercially orientated enterprise, albeit one which would take some years before becoming profitable. The project was commenced within the period relevant to the valuation appealed against (ie prior to notification of the valuation). However, the Court was not favoured with any evidence from Mr Ciepierski to support his opinion that the project as it stood in early 1998 or indeed even on maturity, might be regarded as having a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character. Section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act, provides that, in making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of farming, any enhancement in that value for that the land has a potential use for any other purposes, shall be disregarded. However, s.17(2) provides the meaning of "farming" as follows: " (a) the business or industry of grazing, dairying, pig farming, poultry farming, viticulture, orcharding, apiculture, horticulture, aquiculture, vegetable growing, the growing of crops of any kind, forestry; or (b) any other business or industry involving the cultivation of soils, the gathering in of crops or the rearing of livestock; if the business or industry represents the dominant use of the land, and - (c) has a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character; and (d) is engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous or repetitive basis." In matters of this nature, the burden of proving the grounds of appeal rest with the appellant. I am not convinced that the grounds of appeal or the evidence as to the commencement of the olive-growing project, should be accepted as inferring that the property was being used for purposes of "farming" as at the relevant date of valuation, or within the period relevant to that valuation. At some future date the use of the property might qualify it to be valued on the basis that it is being used for purposes of "farming", as defined. However, it will always be the task of the appellant to substantiate that such use, as defined, exists. The only evidence of rural homesite value was provided by Mr Malone and that evidence went unchallenged. It has already been said that the evidence was used -- 3 of 4 -- 4 primarily to indicate that an increase of 80% above the previous valuation, of the sale lands, had been demonstrated. The sale lands are not comparable to the subject land. However the subject land, as a rural "homesite", has a peculiar feature in that it contains an extremely large area. Clearly the impact of the increased valuation and any consequent increased rating burden is a matter of considerable concern to Mr Ciepierski. However there is no evidence to suggest that the valuation appealed against is wrong. The appeal is disallowed and the unimproved valuation as determined by the chief executive in the amount of Thirty-eight Thousand Dollars ($38,000) as at 1 October 1997 affirmed. RE WENCK MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 4 of 4 --