Burtenshaw v Minister for Lands [1993] QLC 150
Re: Determination of Rent -
Second Rental Period
LAND COURT
BRISBANE
26TH NOVEMBER, 1993.
Special Lease No. 26/49997 -
Lessees: Garry Frederick Burtenshaw and
Rosemary Anne Burtenshaw
(Hearing at lnnisfail)
DE C"I SI ON
For the second period of the lease of Special Lease No. 26/49997 the
Crown is asking a rent of $570 per annum. The lessees have requested that this
matter be referred to the Land Court for hearing and determination and have
advised that their estimate of the rent that should be charged is $200 per annum.
The rent for the first rental period was $210 per annum.
Special Lease No. 26/49997 is in respect of the land described as Lot 297
on Plan NR 5437, Parish of Mourilyan, containing an area of 47.592 hectares. This
Special Lease was granted for a term of 30 years from 1st January, 1988 for
primary industry (sugarcane growing) purposes. It is situated about 10 kilometres
north of Silkwood and about 29 kilometres south of lnnisfail. It is about 5
kilometres east of the nearest rail head at Warrabullen Siding and about 21
kilometres south of the Mourilyan Sugar Mill. Access is by means of a bitumen
road except for about 2 kilometres of formed earth and gravel road and 1 kilometre
of earth and gravel track which is difficult to negotiate in the wet season.
According to the Departmental report tendered on behalf of the Crown, the
land comprises about 33.5 hectares of moderately to steeply sloping scrub and
[1993] QLC 150
-- 1 of 7 --
2
bloodwood and wattle forest in the east, and about 14.092 hectares of low-lying to
gently sloping scrub in the west. The property has limited views of the countryside
to the south and west. Soil types comprise grey brown loams and clay loams and
brown gravelly loams. About 14 hectares is considered to be suitable for cane
production and approximately the same area is assigned to the Mourilyan Sugar
Mill. The balance area of 33.5 hectares is considered to be of use for limited
marginal grazing. It is worked with adjoining land.
Mrs R A Burtenshaw tendered a written statement and gave evidence. She
said that only about 20 acres (8 hectares) of the land is used for cane growing.
The balance is made up of swamp, headlands, drains, gullies and hilly scrub
country. Although there is dedicated access to the subject land, actual access is
through adjoining land and across cane farm headlands, which becomes
impassable in wet weather.
Much of Mrs Burtenshaw's evidence was directed towards the cost of
providing all-weather access and other services to the subject land. She said that
she had provided this information on the basis, mistakenly as it turns out, that the
Crown had valued the land as a rural residential site. I will not review this evidence
as it is not relevant as the subject land has been valued as primary production
land.
Mrs Burtenshaw referred to one sale from Stanford to Halbriener of Special
Lease No. 26/52738 comprising an area of 39.6592 hectares. This property sold
on 31st May, 1989 for $10,000. Mrs Burtenshaw said that this land was similar to
some of the subject land and is a fairer indication of the real value of leasehold land
in the area.
-- 2 of 7 --
3
Mrs Burtenshaw said that the cane land is heavy clay land producing about
one unit below the mill c.c.s. When the lessees bought the subject land in 1989 it
was producing 14 tonnes per acre of cane and since they have built up the soil it is
now producing closer to 30 tonnes per acre. They have spent a lot of money on
drainage and feel that they cannot grow cane on any more than 8 hectares of the
land and even on that area some of the cane rots when there is a wet season. The
bottom part of the property is below the level of Liverpool Creek and in wet
seasons the majority of the 8 hectares floods and unless the water gets away
quickly, .it will wipe out the cane. About 4 hectares of the cane land is flat and the
other 4 hectares is hilly, which makes it very difficult to work with wheeled
machinery.
Mrs Burtenshaw said they can only use about 10 to 15 acres (4 to 6
hectares) of the lower parts of the balance area, as the higher areas are too steep,
not well grassed and infested with lantana. She said that the lessees did not use it
for grazing all year round, but only on occasions.
Mrs Burtenshaw knew the land comprised in the Crown's sale No. 1. She
said that it is more open land, higher and of better quality, with no swamp, a far
superior piece of land which has better access and is watered by a good bore.
Apart from the fact that it has better access, Mrs Burtenshaw did not know
much about sale No. 2.
Mr G F Burtenshaw also gave evidence. He said that sale No. 1 has
potential for running cattle and growing bananas, has a permanent creek and once
was assigned cane land. He considered it to be much superior to the subject land.
He also knows sale No . 2 to be better and more fertile country and thinks part of it
-- 3 of 7 --
4
is assigned cane land. On the whole he considers it to be superior country.
Mr S A Cross, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave
evidence on behalf of the Crown. Mr Cross said that he arrived at the
recommended rent by adopting 3 per cent of the unimproved value which he
assessed at $19,000. In arriving at this valuation, Mr Cross referred to the sales of
two properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject land.
Sale No. 1 has an area of 71.12 hectares, zoned "Rural B", which sold in
September 1992 for $170,000 or $2,390 per hectare. This sale analysed to show
an unimproved value of $34,500 or $485 per hectare. Mr Cross classifies this sale
as comprising 25 hectares at $1,000 per hectare and 46.12 hectares at $200 per
hectare.
This property is situated about 27 kilometres south of lnnisfail with access by
means of formed earth and gravel road. Services are similar to those available to
the subject land. The land consists of level to moderately sloping coastal scrub
country intersected by gullies, with a section of arable country in the south-western
corner of the property. Mr Cross said that the sale has a higher percentage of
arable land (35 per cent) than the subject property and is larger, with similar access
and services. Therefore, he considers it superior to the subject land.
Mr Cross's sale No. 2 is situated in Edgerton Road, about 25 kilometres
south of lnnisfail, and has an area of 23.2694 hectares. It is zoned "Rural" and sold
in April 1992 for $80,000 or $3,438 per hectare. This sale analysed to show an
unimproved value of $25,000 or $1,075 per hectare. Mr Cross classifies this sale
as 16 hectares at $1,200 per hectare and 8 hectares at $400 per hectare. Access
to the sale land is principally by means of a formed gravel road with a short
-- 4 of 7 --
5
distance of earth track. Services are similar to those available to the subject
property. This land comprises fairly level to moderately sloping rainforest country
adjoining Little Moresby Creek, with soils varying from low-lying brown grey clays to
easier brown clay loams, rising to sections of red brown schists, with some stone.
Mr Cross said that the sale property has a higher percentage of better-class arable
land (16 hectares or 70 per cent), it is similar in access and services, but it is
smaller than the subject land. Overall he considers it to be marginally superior.
Mr Cross said that he rejected the sale of Special Lease No. 26/52738
adjacent to the subject land, even though it is similar to part of that land. He said
that the sale of a Special Lease tenure is of no assistance to him in arriving at the
unimproved value of the subject land for this purpose, as it must be made on the
basis of the land being held in fee simple. He said that he had adopted 3 per cent
of the unimproved value in the absence of evidence of market rentals in the area.
In arriving at his unimproved value of $19,000, Mr Cross has valued the
subject property as follows:
13.5 hectares of third-class cane land
at $800 per hectare
34.092 hectares moderate to steep grazing
at $250 per hectare
Adopt $19,000.
$10,800
$8,522
$19,322
- - --- - --- -
Mr Cross adopted these levels of value by reference to the two sale
properties. He said that he obtained the area of cane land by measuring from the
aerial photograph the area that had been cultivated. However, I have the sworn
evidence from Mr and Mrs Burtenshaw that they can use only 20 acres or 8
-- 5 of 7 --
6
hectares of the subject land for growing cane and even some of that is marginal at
best. They say that while 1O acres or 4 hectares is flat country, it is so low lying
and boggy that cane is lost on occasions. The other 4 hectares is higher, but is
sloping and this makes it difficult to use machinery. Even though about 14
hectares of the subject land is assigned land, I think this is an occasion when the
land which cannot be used as cane land should be valued as grazing only.
I think that Mr Cross has valued the land correctly as third-class cane land
and his assessment at $800 per hectare seems appropriate, However, the
Burtenshaws say that they can only use a very limited area of the grazing land as
the slope is too steep and the land is infested with lantana. They have lost stock
from eating this lantana. On the other hand, Mr Cross said that the land is usable
in his opinion, and he has had the advantage of seeing all the grazing land in the
shire and should be in a position to judge the district practice for working such
areas.
Therefore, after weighing the respective arguments, I have adjusted Mr
Cross's valuation as follows:
8 hectares, third-class cane land
at $800 per hectare
39.592 hectares, moderate to steep
grazing at $250 per hectare
Adopt $16,000.
$6,400
$9,898
$16,298
----- -----
In the circumstances, as neither party was able to produce evidence of
market rents in the area, I propose to adopt 3 per cent of the unimproved value to
arrive at the rent. This method has been approved by this Court as appropriate in
-- 6 of 7 --
7
certain circumstances.
Therefore, the rent for Special Lease No. 26/49997 lnnisfail District for the
second period of the term of the lease is determined at $480 per annum.
J J TRICKETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
-- 7 of 7 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QLC/1993/150