Campbell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1994] QLC 37

LAND COURT BRISBANE 29 JULY 1994 Re: Appeal against Categorisation for Differential General Rating Purposes Local Government Act 1936 Shire of Laidley (VC94-78) Thomas George Brian Campbell and Margaret Elsie Campbell v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (Hearing at Gatton) D E C I S I O N Mr and Mrs Campbell are the owners of land described as Lot 3 on Registered Plan 135123, Parish of Laidley, containing an area of 2.626 hectares. The land is situated in the Shire of Laidley and at its budget meeting held on 28th July 1993, the Council resolved to make and levy differential general rates on the rateable value of rateable land within its shire for the financial year ending 30th June, 1994. In accordance with the provisions of section 27(1A) of the Local Government Act 1936 (the Act), the Council specified criteria for seven categories of rateable lands and requested the valuation authority (the Chief Executive, Department of Lands) to identify the land in each category, having regard to the criteria adopted by the Council for that purpose. In accordance with section 27A of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Chief Executive identified the Campbells' land as being included in Category 1. The Council's criteria for Category 1 are as follows: "All rateable lands (except those in Category 7) in the area of the Shire of Laidley which are vacant urban or used for the purpose of a single dwelling-house in urban areas and coded with primary land use codes 01 and 02." In accordance with the provisions of section 27(1E) of the Act, Mr and Mrs Campbell objected to the categorisation of their land claiming that the land should have been included in Category 3. The criteria adopted by the Council for Category 3 are as follows: "All rateable lands (except those in Category 7) in the area of the Shire of Laidley [1994] QLC 37 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 which are vacant and vacant in globo rural residential land or used for dwellings or outbuilding on rural residential land and coded with primary land use codes 04 to 06 and 72." It appears that the Chief Executive disallowed the owners' objection and they then appealed against that decision under the provisions of section 27(1M) of the Act. The facts and circumstances on which the claim is based are set out in a letter from Mr Campbell dated 17th February, 1994. No objection was raised by the respondent to this letter being read with the Notice of Appeal which was dated 24th February, 1994. This letter deals with the situation of the property between Grandchester and Rosewood on the Laidley Cemetery Road, which is an unsealed sandy and corrugated road which allegedly receives little attention from the Laidley Shire Council. Mr Campbell appeared and gave evidence at the hearing. He tendered a statement and a map which dealt with the condition of Cemetery Road and Ryans Road, the traffic using those roads and the resulting dust. Much of the evidence would be more appropriate for an appeal against the quantum of valuation than an appeal against categories. As best I can understand the thrust of his evidence in relation to this appeal, Mr Campbell points out that the owners have had difficulties with the road being unsealed, which would indicate that they are not in an urban area, as a dusty gravel road is more akin to a rural or rural residential area. Moreover, their property is 2.626 hectares, about 6.5 acres, situated 2 kilometres south-west of Laidley. A dwelling-house is constructed on the property and it is not used for any other purpose. Mr Campbell contends it is more a rural residential site than an urban site. Mr Campbell went on to say that the property has town water, but this was connected at the owners' expense at a cost of approximately $1,900. It has no sewerage, septic or rubbish collection. He said that the owners had wanted to subdivide the land but to do so they would have to pay for the cost of a bitumen road for approximately 300 to 400 metres. Evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by Mr Jonathan Millar, -- 2 of 3 -- 3 registered valuer, employed by the Department of Lands. Mr Millar was the valuer responsible for valuing the subject land and for its land use categorisation. He stated that the property is being used for purposes of a single unit dwelling-house and is recognised as an urban property, being located within the town benefited area of the Town of Laidley, as determined by the Laidley Shire Council. Therefore, he had coded it as 02. Mr Millar went on to say that he considers the property falls into Category 1 as it had always been considered by the former Valuer-General to be in an urban area. It is also within the Laidley Shire Council headworks area. He said that there were many properties in that area which were, like the subject land, zoned "Rural A" . In this case the appellants have not convinced me that the land should be included in Category 3. The evidence indicates that although it has some of the attributes of a rural residential site, it is included in the Laidley Shire Council headworks area and has long been regarded as being in an urban area. Without further convincing argument, I am not prepared to hold that it has been wrongly categorised by inclusion in Category 1. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands, that the land should be included in Category 1, is affirmed. JJ TRICKETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 3 of 3 --