Agostinelli v Minister for Lands [1993] QLC 131

Re: Determination of Rent Third Rental Period Special Lease No. 24/44435 Ingham District LAND COURT BRISBANE 8TH OCTOBER 1993 Lessees: Laurence Peter AGOSTINELLI and Lucy AGOSTINELLI (Hearing at Ingham) DECISION In this case the Crown is seeking an annual rent of $905 per annum for the third period of this Special Lease, which commenced on 1st December, 1991. 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 annual rent that should be charged is $450 per annum, which is the same as the annual rent for the second period of the lease. Special Lease No. 24/44435 is in respect of the land contained in Lot 141 on Plan CWL3261 in the Parish of Garrawalt, containing an area of 15.43 hectares. It is situated approximately 44 kilometres north-west of Ingham with access by means of approximately 41 kilometres of bitumen sealed road, then about 2 kilometres of gravel road and about 1 kilometre of dirt track. Access is not all weather. The Special Lease was granted for a term of 30 years from 1st December, 1981 for primary industry (sugar-cane growing) purposes. The Departmental report tendered by Mr D T Treston describes the land as consisting of coastal forest country falling from the north to the southern boundary. Soils range from brown loamy soils to coarse clays and sands. It emerged in the evidence that the [1993] QLC 131 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 northern part of the property comprises good dark brown sandy loams, while the southern part of the property consists more of clay loams to clays. About 9.23 hectares are assigned to the Victoria Mill and are used for sugar-cane growing. Mr A F Antcliff, Assistant Manager, Canegrowers Herbert River, appeared on behalf of the lessees. Mr Antcliff submitted that the lessees' case was based on two grounds: first, that the correct productive capacity of the subject land is at a lower level than has been used in determining the rent; and, second, that the rent per hectare applied to the subject land is higher than the rentals adopted by the Land Court in its decision dated 12th February, 1993 in respect of other similar leases in the Ingham District. He amended the lessees' estimate of the rent that should be charged to $550 per annum. Mr L P Agostinelli gave evidence on behalf of the lessees. He said that this lease was one of a number which were issued as additional areas to canegrowers whose home farms did not have sufficient productivity. Of the subject land, he said that presently about 9 hectares were under cane, with a further 3 hectares to be planted eventually, while there were about 3 hectares of headlands. Because the subject land adjoined State forest, it was necessary to leave wide headlands in case of fires. There were also gullies and creeks at the back end of the property. Of the 9 hectares assigned and planted, about 6 hectares at the top end of the property is sandy loam while the bottom end is clay. The top end can take a lot of rain while the bottom end does not tolerate too much rain. Mr Agostinelli said the productive capacity of the property varied from 22 tonnes per acre for plant cane, to 18 tonnes per acre for ratoons. Three ratoons were the maximum for the property as the soil would not carry any more than that. -- 2 of 6 -- ., 3 It was therefore limited to four crops maximum from one planting. He said that the tonnage produced was poor compared with that from his home farm. The 3 hectares of potential cane land contained some hollows which had to be filled and laser-levelled before it could be planted. At present it was waterlogged, as it was at the lower end of the farm with the heavy clay soils. Of the Special Leases the rents for which were determined on 12th February, 1993, Mr Agostinelli said that the subject land was most comparable with Special Lease 24/44434, the lessees of which were RJ Giddins and JM Giddins. He thought that the subject land would have a productive capacity similar to that of the Giddins' block. It was established that the quality of the home farm is much superior to that of the subject land. In fact, Mr Agostinelli said that he anticipated only being able to cut 200 tonnes maximum from the subject land this year, although 6 acres of it were fallow and had just been planted. He said that if all his land was of similar quality to the subject land, he would not bother farming it. The evidence established that the subject land suffers from a number of problems. Growing cane adjacent to a forested area meant that the trees cast a shadow over the cane, necessitating that a fairly wide strip had to be left or the shaded cane was stunted. Animal pests such as wallabies, pigs and cockatoos were a problem. Mr D T Treston, registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Crown. Mr Treston said that he was not the valuer responsible for the original rent assessment. However, Mr Treston had inspected the subject land and agreed with the previous valuer's report, but not with his rental -- 3 of 6 -- 4 assessment. He therefore submitted a further calculation of the rent that should be charged, based on the finding of the Land Court in its decision of 12th February, 1993. This calculation was further amended during the course of the hearing to the following: 9.23 hectares assigned at $55 per hectare 4.2 hectares unassigned at $40 per hectare 2 hectares waste at nil 15.43 hectares $507.65 $168.00 $675.00 Mr Treston said that he thought there were 2 hectares of wasteland because of the length of watercourses through the property and the area that could not be used as a result. He did not regard the headlands and the land left as a buffer between the cane and the forested area as wasteland and had included them in the area of unassigned land. Mr Treston did not disagree with the classification of the land given in evidence by Mr Agostinelli. However, he considered that the capacity of the land to produce cane could not be classified as "poor". He saw it more as "average", but he did concede that the subject land suffered from a considerable number of problems. Therefore, he had adopted a rate of $55 per hectare for the assigned area. He agreed that the remaining 4.2 hectares was at the poorer end of the scale and said he would categorise it as "poor" to "average" unassigned land. He attributed no value to the 2 hectares of wasteland, which he said comprised strips along the watercourses. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 In its determination of the rent for the second and third rental periods of Special Leases in the Ingham District, decision delivered 12th February, 1993 (not reported), the Crown was seeking increases in the rents of eight special leases situated in the Parishes of Leach and Garrawalt, for rental periods of those leases which also commenced on 1st July, 1991. These determinations included that in respect of Special Lease No. 24/44434, lessees RJ Giddins and JM Giddins, containing an area of 11.5 hectares. In those cases the Court considered the basis of valuation put forward by the Crown and, for reasons set out in that judgment, determined that the rents should be adjusted. For good quality assigned land the Court adopted $80 per hectare per annum, for average quality assigned land $70 per hectare per annum, and for poor quality assigned land $50 per hectare per annum. Proportional reductions were made in respect of the unassigned land. In the case of Special Lease 24/44434, lessees RJ and JM Giddins, the Crown had applied a rate of $75 per hectare per annum to the assigned area of 11.41 hectares. That land was described as having soils which varied from sandy soil on the top part of the block to a lower lying area which had a drainage problem. In that case the Court applied a rate of $60 per hectare to the assigned area. Having regard to the problems suffered by the subject land, I can see nothing wrong with Mr Treston's application of $55 per hectare for the assigned land in this case. Nor do I find any fault with his assessment of $40 on the unassigned land. Therefore, having regard to the evidence in this case and the comparison with the Giddins' Special Lease, the amended rent as submitted by Mr -- 5 of 6 -- 6 Treston of $675 per annum seems fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the rent for Special Lease No. 24/44435 for the third period of the lease is determined at the sum of $675 per annum. J J TRICKETT MEMBER OFTHE LAND COURT -- 6 of 6 --