Heffer v Local Land Services [2026] NSWCATAD 101;

1. Division 2 of Part 5 of the LLS Act deals with rates, levies and contributions. There appears to be no dispute that the holdings are rateable land for the purposes of the LSS Act: s 56.
2. Section 57(1) of the LSS Act provides that:

(1) Local Land Services may make and levy, in accordance with the regulations, such types and amounts of rates, levies and contributions on rateable or other land in a region as are prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(2) The regulations may -

(a) provide for the period in respect of which a rate, levy or contribution is payable, and

(b) describe the purposes for which or basis or bases on which any particular type of rate, levy or contribution may be imposed, and

(c) describe the rateable or other land in respect of which a particular type of rate, levy or contribution is payable.

1. Clause 6 of the Local Land Services Regulation 2014 (NSW) (the LLS Regulation) states that each year LSS is to make and levy a general rate on all rateable land and an animal health rate. Under cl 6 LSS may also make and levy one or more special purpose rates for any year on any land within a district if LSS considers it is necessary to do so.
2. Clauses 6(3) and 6(5) set out how general rates are to be calculated. Clause 6(3) provides:

(3) A general rate, or a special purpose rate (if any), for rateable land is to consist of -

(a) a base amount for each holding of rateable land (determined by Local Land Services), and

(b) an amount payable for each stock unit based on the total notional carrying capacity of rateable land in the district or for each constituent part (within the meaning of clause 49 of Schedule 7 to the repealed Act as in force immediately before its repeal) of the district.

1. Clause 6(5) sets out a formula in accordance with which a rate is calculated:

R = B + (A x C)

where -

R represents the amount payable under the rate.

B represents the base amount determined by Local Land Services for the purposes of the rate.

A represents the amount, determined by Local Land Services, payable for each stock unit in accordance with this clause.

C represents the notional carrying capacity of rateable land determined in accordance with clause 17.

1. B is a fixed base amount determined by LSS which is added to a holding specific amount that consists of a small fixed charge (A) multiplied by a NCC which represents the quantity of livestock that could be held on the individual landholding (C).
2. Relevantly, cl 17(3) requires LLS to assess the notional carrying capacity of land by reference to the number of stock units that could be maintained on the land in an average season under management practices that, in the opinion of LLS, are usual for the district. A stock unit is represented by a notional 40-kilogram wether sheep, which is also known as a Dry Sheep Equivalent or DSE.
3. A NCC may be expressed either as a total figure (e.g. 300 stock units) or on a per-hectare basis (e.g. 3 DSE/ha). The assessment is to be made whether or not the land is, at the date of assessment, used for any purpose: cl 17(4). Clause 17(5) provides a non-exhaustive list of matters LSS may also have regard to in assessing the NCC of particular rateable land. In particular, LSS

(a) must disregard the presence of noxious weeds or pest animals on the land, and

(b) must not take into consideration the use of irrigation if the land is irrigated land used for permanent plantings of trees or vines, and

(c) must make its assessment as if the raising of stock were the only use of the land, and

(d) in the case of land that remains in or is reverting to its original undeveloped state - must base its assessment on the condition of the land as at the date of assessment.

1. Following the reassessment of the NCC at the request of Mr Heffer, LSS calculated the NCC for PT Farm to be 3.00 DSE/ha and for Amaroo 2.91 DSE/ha (although the previously lower figure of 1.96 DSE/ha was in fact applied).

1. Tribunal's jurisdiction is conferred under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act) and other legislation: s 28 NCAT Act. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal consists of the general jurisdiction, the administrative review jurisdiction, the appeal jurisdiction and the enforcement jurisdiction. In its appeal jurisdiction the Tribunal has external and internal appeal jurisdiction. Under s 31 of the NCAT Act the Tribunal has external appeal jurisdiction over a decision made by an external decision-maker if legislation provides that an appeal may be made to the Tribunal against any such decision.
2. Following a review of an assessment of the notional carrying capacity of a holding by LSS, cl 20 of the LSS Regulation provides an owner or occupier of land with a right to appeal to the Tribunal against the assessment. Clause 21 provides a similar right of appeal with respect to the validity of any rate levied on land. Clause 22 provides that the Tribunal, after hearing the appeal, must confirm or vary the assessment or rate.
3. Clause 14 of the LLS Regulation provides that an external appeal under the LLS legislation may be made without requiring the leave of the Tribunal and is to be by way of a rehearing. Fresh evidence may be given in the appeal with the leave of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has previously held that the nature of an external appeal under the LLS legislation is by way of a hearing de novo: Yammatree Pty Ltd v North West Local Land Service [2015] NSWCATAD 35 at [16]- [18]; Mills v Local Land Services [2015] NSWCATAD 207 at [10]- [14]; Ryan v Northern Tablelands Local Land Services [2021] NSWCATAD 36 at [10].
4. Mr Heffer appeals against the assessment of the NCC and corresponding rates levied against the holdings. There is no question that the appeal was made within time and is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

1. In his application to the Tribunal Mr Heffer put forward the following grounds:

(1) The formula used by LSS is flawed as the NCC for PT Farm and Amaroo should be the same as they are adjoining blocks with the same layout, same soil type and same average rainfall.

(2) LSS has simply changed the numbers to suit their narrative.

(3) The other half of the farm (PT Farm)) is also paying full rates. This may be fraud on the part of LSS.

1. In an affidavit dated 16 December 2025, which is part statement/part submission, Mr Heffer expands upon his grounds. In essence, he argues that the assessment by LSS of the stocking rates on the holdings is flawed and does not reflect the actual capacity of the land to run stock.

1. The reassessment of the NCC for each holding was conducted by way of a desktop audit of the holdings. No physical inspection was carried out.
2. Raymond Willis, General Manager for the Riverina district of LSS provided two statements dated 25 November 2025 and 30 January 2026. Mr Willis gives details of the matters that were considered in the reassessment. These included aerial satellite images of the holdings, information collected from previous annual land and stock returns for the holdings, a map of the location of the holdings and surrounding properties as well as LLS records in relation to the NCCs of the neighbouring properties. The reassessment was conducted by reference to LLS documents titled "Statewide Procedure - Notional Carrying Capacity Review" and "Notional Carrying Capacity Reassessment Form and Guide".
3. In relation to PT Farm Mr Willis sets out the steps followed by the officer who carried out the reassessment. The officer noted that the whole of PT Farm (143.6ha) is laid out to irrigation. In these circumstances, in assessing the NCC in accordance with the "Notional Carrying Capacity Reassessment Form and Guide", the only required information is the area of land laid out to irrigation that can be irrigated. A formula is then used whereby a stock unit of 4 per hectare is applied to 50% of the irrigable land and a rate of 2 stock units to the remaining 50%. This resulted in a NCC of 3 stock units per hectare.
4. A similar process was undertaken with respect to Amaroo which is also laid out to irrigation but 5 hectares of land was excluded from the calculations as it was not under irrigation, being the house and driveway. Applying the same formula and based on 220.5 ha of the holding being irrigable, the NCC for Amaroo was calculated to be 2.91 stock units per hectare.
5. Mr Willis states that the assessments indicate a proper application of LLS's current practices for assessing NCCs for irrigable land. He also states that the formula for irrigable land yields a NCC which is reasonable and reflects the number of stock units that could be maintained in an average season under usual management practices in the Riverina district.
6. Mr Heffer refers to the fact that his holdings are not in fact irrigated as he no longer holds entitlements with Murrumbidgee Irrigation. Some paddocks do not have stock or domestic water. He makes several comments about Murrumbidgee Irrigation (a company that provides irrigation services in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area) and states that the company has removed boundary fences and refuses to repair them. He makes allegations of corruption against Murrumbidgee Irrigation.
7. Mr Heffer states that is not possible to run the number of stock as calculated by LSS on his holdings. He also states that other properties in the area are being overcharged and have vastly different stocking rates although they have very similar climatic conditions and similar soil types. He queries why the NCC for his holdings is so much more than his neighbours. Mr Heffer also compares the low stocking rate for the Hay Plains with the much higher rate for the Riverina in circumstances where there is a similar rainfall.
8. In response to Mr Heffer's statements that, while the land may be laid out to irrigation, it is in fact not irrigated, Mr Willis states that the holdings fall within a gazetted irrigation area within the meaning of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and water in the area is controlled and managed by Murrumbidgee Irrigation. That Mr and Mrs Heffer currently have no entitlements to water, for whatever reason, is not relevant to the NCC assessment. Mr Willis states that land that is laid out to irrigation is land with characteristics that facilitate greater water access. This in turn enables the carrying capacity of land laid out to irrigation to be generally higher than land that is not laid out to irrigation such that it can support more intensive farming activity.
9. Mr Willis states that, in assessing the number of stock that could be maintained on the land for the purposes of determining the land's NCC, LLS considers the area of land that is "laid out to irrigation", that is, the land that has the ability to be irrigated, not whether water is in fact being delivered to the holding.
10. Mr Willis also sets out various reasons why the actual amount of water that may be delivered to land is an unsuitable factor to take into account in assessing the NCC of land. This is because the actual supply of water is variable and uncertain.
11. At the hearing Mr Heffer disputed the formula that is used by LSS for land laid out to irrigation. He said no-one has provided any explanation about how the figures of 4 and 2 stock units in the formula have been arrived at, noting that a stock unit of 4 per hectare is applied to 50% of the irrigable land and a rate of 2 stock units to the remaining 50%.

1. The important thing about the assessment of the NCC for any rateable land is that it is a notional or theoretical assessment of the number of stock units that could be maintained on the land in an average season under management practices that, in the opinion of LLS, are usual for the district: cl 17(3) LLS Regulation. The notional carrying capacity is intended to be the hypothetical number of stock units that could be maintained on the land, not the actual number of stock units maintained on the land: see Moore v Local Land Services [2023] NSWCATAD 140 at [49].
2. Because the NCC is a notional assessment, the fact that it may differ from what might be the actual carrying capacity in any one month or year, does not mean that the assessment is flawed. The LSS Act and Regulation clearly establish a system for the assessment of rates that to a large extent is streamlined and does not require LSS to base its assessment on variables that may change from year to year. Hence the reference in cl 17(3) to "an average season" and "usual" management practices. That is not to say, however, that over time, particularly in light of any long-term trends with respect to the ability of land in a particular district to support stock, LLS would not be required to revisit its assessment.
3. The NCC assessments in this matter relate to land that is laid out to irrigation. I note that Mr Heffer makes several statements about Murrumbidgee Irrigation. These are not matters that can be taken into account in this appeal.
4. The evidence of Mr Willis is that where land is laid out to irrigation a particular formula is applied. The formula is applied irrespective of whether the land is in fact irrigated. The fact is that it could be. I accept that it is reasonable for LLS in assessing the number of stock that could be maintained on land that is laid out to irrigation, to take into account the ability of the land to be irrigated, not whether water is actually being delivered.
5. Unfortunately, it only became apparent during the hearing of the appeal that Mr Heffer disputes the validity of the formula used by LSS with respect to land laid out to irrigation. That is, he disputes that the NCC should be calculated with reference to 4 stock units in respect of 50% of the land and 2 stock units for the remaining 50%. He states his land cannot support that stock capacity.
6. There is no substantive evidence before the Tribunal about the basis upon which the formula was arrived at that land that could be irrigated could notionally support 4 stock units on 50 % of the land and 2 stock units on the remaining 50%. The only evidence is that of Mr Willis who states in his statement of 25 November 2025 that the formula for irrigable land yields a NCC which is reasonable and reflects the number of stock units that could be maintained in an average season under usual management practises in the Riverina district.
7. I accept the submissions of LLS that, given Mr Willis's experience as set out in his statements and his seniority, his evidence should be given considerable weight. While that evidence does not establish how the formula with respect to land laid out to irrigation was arrived at, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I accept that it is reasonable.
8. Other than disputing the validity of the current formula, Mr Heffer has not put forward any alternative formula, including the basis upon which such a formula has been arrived at. 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 and the assessments of the NCCs for PT Farm and Amaroo are therefore flawed.
9. I note that, as stated above, the powers of the Tribunal in an appeal against a decision on review of an assessment of the NCC of a holding are to either confirm the assessment or to vary the assessment by altering the assessment. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which would enable the Tribunal to vary the assessment and alter it to provide for a different NCC. It is not the role of the Tribunal to simply set a different assessment without there be a sound evidence based rationale for that different assessment.
10. I accept Mr Heffer's statements that other landholders may also be dissatisfied with the rates being charged. That does not, however, establish that the NCC (and therefore the rates) for PT Farm and Amaroo should be varied. Similarly, the fact that the assessment of the NCC for land in the Hay Plain is different to that in the Riverina is not, without anything more, proof that the assessments under appeal in this application should be varied.
11. In his grounds of appeal in the application (although these were refined over time) Mr Heffer stated that the formula used by LSS is flawed as the NCC for PT Farm and Amaroo should be the same as they are adjoining blocks with the same layout, same soil type and same average rainfall. I am not satisfied that the NCC for each holding was incorrectly arrived at as the same formula was applied to each.
12. Insofar as Mr Heffer raises issues of fraud on the part of LSS, there is nothing in the material to substantiate any such allegation.
13. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

(2) The assessments of notional carrying capacity made by Local Land Services for holding reference numbers 11107077 and 111042164 are confirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.