Conrad v Minister for Lands [1992] QLC 332

Re: Determination of Rent - Third Rental Period Special Lease No 35/35145. LAND COURT, BRISBANE 3rd April, 1992 Lessees - Noel Neville Conrad and Rosslyn Anne Conrad. DECISION (Hearing at Rockhampton) Special Lease No 35/35145 is of Lot 190 on Plan MC 431, parish of Stoodleigh, containing an area of 6.526 hectares. The lease was granted for 30 years from 8th June, 1971. The leased land is situated in Carbon Street, Ogmore, which is bitumen surfaced. The land has unformed roads on two other boundaries and is separated from Montrose Street by a row of lots on the remaining boundary. The lease was issued without limitation on the purpose for which the land may be used (manufacturing, industrial, residential or business purposes) with specific conditions requiring that the land be fenced and that all standing scrub be cleared and improved pastures sown. The lessees acquired the lease by transfer in 1987. They live in Ogmore and use the land for grazing purposes. For the purposes of the third rental period of the lease, the Minister determined the rent at $360 per annum. The lessees have come to court contending for a rental of $100 which is double the rent determined for the previous rental period. Evidence in support of a rental of $360 per annum was given by Mr J.A. Thomas, Land Inspector in the employ of the Department of Lands. Mr Conrad gave evidence on behalf of the lessees. He is of the opinion that an increase in rent of 100% is reasonable in the circumstances in view of the use made of the land for grazing purposes. Mr Thomas based his estimate of rental on sales of acreage parcels within the urban environment of Ogmore. Inherent in his reasoning is the submission that the subject land should be valued as an acreage homesite for which the land may be used under the terms and conditions of the lease. In that respect he pointed to the location of the land, to its access from [1992] QLC 332 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Carbon Street and to the fact that reticulated water was available to the site at cost. He considered sales of three parcels in the area of comparable location which realised (1) ($15,200 unimproved for 21.64 hecta~es - sale 1), (2) ($19,400 unimproved for 32.38 hectares - sale 2), and (3) ($2,550 unimproved for 4,477 square metres). The last sale is in Carbon Street adjoining the subject land. On this basis Mr Thomas argued that the subject land unimproved would fetch a price of $12,000 if sold on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. He then submitted that in view of the unlimited use which may be made of the land, a rental at 3% of this sum would be reasonable. This method of assessment has been approved by the Court in circumstances where there are no limitations on use. The evidence of Mr Thomas provides the only real valuation evidence before the Court and being satisfied that the capital value estimated by him sits reasonably well with the sales, I must determine the rent in the sum recommended. Accordingly, the rent to be charged for Special Lease No 35/35145 during the third rental period is determined at Three hundred and sixty dollars ($360) per annum. D.M. White Acting President of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --