The tribunal backed the LLS methodology for charging rates. Photo: File.
A Riverina farmer’s bid to reduce his land rates has failed, after a tribunal ruled authorities are entitled to charge based on what land could produce – not what it actually does produce.
The NSW Government’s Local Land Services (LLS) charges rates based on a property’s Notional Carrying Capacity (NCC) – an estimate of how many livestock the land could sustainably support per hectare in an average year.
Stuart Heffer, who owns a farm near Griffith, took LLS to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, arguing the stocking capacity assigned to his properties was unrealistic and unfair, and that his rates were therefore too high.
However, the tribunal dismissed his appeal, backing the government’s methodology and leaving his rates unchanged.
According to the tribunal’s published decision, Mr Heffer argued the formula used by LLS was flawed. He claimed the NCC for his two neighbouring properties should be the same, as they are adjoining blocks with the same layout, soil type and average rainfall.
He also argued the assessment did not reflect the actual capacity of the land to run stock.
Mr Heffer said his farm was not irrigated, as he no longer held water delivery entitlements with irrigation provider Murrumbidgee Irrigation (MI).
He said some paddocks did not have stock or domestic water and claimed MI had removed boundary fences and refused to repair them. He argued it was “not possible to run the number of stock” calculated by LLS on his land.
In response, LLS said that when assessing NCC, it considered land that was “laid out to irrigation” – meaning land that had the ability to be irrigated – not whether water was currently being delivered.
The tribunal accepted that evidence.
“The formula is applied irrespective of whether the land is in fact irrigated. The fact is that it could be,” the tribunal said.
“I accept that it is reasonable for LLS … to take into account the ability of the land to be irrigated, not whether water is actually being delivered.
“While that evidence does not establish how the formula … was arrived at, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I accept that it is reasonable.
“Other than disputing the validity of the current formula, Mr Heffer has not put forward any alternative … His only evidence is that his land cannot support the number of stock as assessed. In those circumstances he has not demonstrated that the current formula is unreasonable.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the original assessments – and rates – were confirmed.
No name, should mean no consideration, not protection of identity while trying to destroy the young… View