Anderson & Ors v Minister for Lands [1992] QLC 226

J Lessees: LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 29th May, 1992. Re: Determination of Rent - Third Rental Period Special Lease No. 30/40017. Edward John Anderson, Pamela Lorraine Anderson, Debra Lee Anderson, Margaret May Anderson and Edward James Anderson. (Hearing at Mackay) DECISION For the third period of ten years of the term of the abovementioned Special Lease which commenced on 1st June, 1990, the Crown is seeking an annual rent of $540 per annum. The annual rent for the first period was $6 per annum and the annual rent for the second period was $255 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 which should be charged is $350 per annum. This special lease is in respect of the land contained in Lot 39 on Plan Ci.3257 in the Parish of Hazledean, containing an area of about 1.87 hectares. It is situated on the bitumen sealed Peak Downs Highway, approximately 7 kilometres from the township of Eton. Electricity is available to the subject land but it receives no other services. The subject special lease .was granted for a term of 24 years and 5 months from 1st January, 1976, for manufacturing, industrial, residential or business purposes. The report submitted by Land Inspector Penny describes the land as "... steeply sloping gravelly ironbark, box and poplar gum ridge." Mr Edward John Anderson appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the [1992] QLC 226 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 lessees. He stated that the land was full of rocks which prevented the drilling of bores on the land. He also stated that he had been unable to grow anything on the land as it was just too rocky. In wet weather the access track is washed out. He indicated that the rocks were some 2 to 3 metres round in some places and the ground was generally so rocky that it was virtually impossible to build a house on it. Because of the nature of the land he did not think it would be worth $18,000 unimproved and gave his estimate of something approaching $12,000 to $13,000. Mr Stephen Francis Penny, land inspector and registered valuer employed by the Department of Lands, gave evidence on behalf of the Crown. Mr Penny arrived at his recommended rent of $540 per annum by applying 3% of the unimproved value of $18,000. He arrived at this unimproved value by having regard to sales of two freehold properties in the area. Mr Penny's basic Sales No. 1 & 2 are in respect of two freehold parcels of land, both of which are situated in an area known as Siderail Court, some 14 kilometres south-east of the subject land. Both these blocks have similar areas, one being 1.952 hectares and the other being 1.953 hectares. The former sold on 7th September, 1989, for $26,000 and the other sold on 12th January, 1990, also for $26,000. Mr Penny describes each of these blocks as "Mostly cleared gently sloping forest country. Superior building site." In making his comparison between the sale properties and the subject land Mr Penny states the following: "Both basics are comparable in area and are located in a predominantly rural residential area as is the subject. The basics possess bitumen access, however, the subject has an inferior building site and inferior access problems due to the steep nature of the land. Overall the subject is -- 2 of 3 -- 3 considered to be inferior to both basic sales and due allowance has been made for these disabilities when arriving at the unimproved value for the leased land." Mr Penny elaborated on his written report by saying that the sales were not directly comparable to the subject land as they consisted of easier forest country compared with the steep and rugged nature of the subject, which limited the use to which the land could be put. He sums this up in a novel but effective way, by saying that·the subject land was generally at the rugged end of the scale of rural sites. Mr Penny agreed that this was not the easiest of sites to prepare for building, but the neighbours on similar blocks have managed to build houses and he considered that there were areas on the subject land which were available. On the evidence before me I have come to the conclusion that Mr Penny did the best that he could in a situation where there were no directly comparable sales. It appears from that evidence that he has carefully considered the problems associated with the subject land and the allowances that he made seem reasonable. In the circumstances, having regard to the provisions of Section 204 (5B)(c), I have come to the conclusion that the rent asked by the Crown in this case is not excessive. Accordingly, the rent to be charged for Special Lease No.30/40017 for the third rental period is determined at the sum of $540 per annum. (signed) J.J . Trickett Member of the Land Court . -- 3 of 3 --