Western Downs Green Power Hub Pty Ltd v Valuer-General, Department of... [2025] QCAT 463 | Case summary

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-11-14

STATUTES - INTERPRETATION - where the respondent determined that the subject land has ceased to be zoned rural land - where the applicant lodged a Rural Land Application requesting that the respondent declare the subject land as rural land - where the respondent refused and confirmed the original decision - where the applicant applied to the Tribunal for an external review of that decision - whether the Tribunal ought to set aside the respondent's decision and, instead, declare that the land is rural land - where the Tribunal considered the definition of 'urban purpose' - where the Tribunal exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and set aside the respondent's decision

Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, , , Ch 2, Div 2, Subdiv 1 and 2

Jimboomba Lakes Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Ors [2014] QPEC 61

SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137

MJ Batty KC, with W Isdale (instructed by in-house legal) for the respondent

[1] Western Downs Green Power Hub Pty Ltd has constructed a large solar farm and battery storage facility (jointly "the facility") about 38km south of Chinchilla. The facility footprint is 799.4ha, about half of the land the subject of this dispute. The land surrounding the facility is either vacant or used for farming.
[2] The land is zoned rural under the Western Downs Planning Scheme. In 2018 the land was the subject of a material change of use approval to a Renewable Energy Facility (500MW Solar Farm).
[3] The Valuer-General determined that the subject land has ceased to be rural land because, under the development approval, it is now being used for an urban purpose.
[4] Changing the zoning from rural to non-rural land results in an increase in value of 328.6%.
[5] Western Downs lodged a Rural Land Application, asking the Valuer-General to declare the subject land as rural land. The Valuer-General declined to make that declaration. Western Downs sought an internal review of that decision. The Internal Review Decision confirmed the original decision.
[6] Western Downs has applied to the Tribunal for an external review of the Internal Review Decision. It wants the Tribunal to set aside the Valuer-General's decision and, instead, declare that the land is rural land.
[7] There are two issues for consideration. The first is whether the use of the land is for an 'urban purpose'. The second is whether the Tribunal has power to, and should, make the declaration.

[8] David Perkins was engaged by Western Downs to provide a town planning report. He notes that the purpose of the rural zone coder in the Western Downs Planning Scheme is to:

(b) Provide for other uses and activities that are compatible with -

(i) existing and future rural uses and activities; and

(ii) the character and environmental features of the zone; and

(c) maintain the capacity of land for rural uses and activities by protecting and managing significant natural resources and processes."[1]

[9] Mr Perkins also notes that the relevant outcomes for the rural zone are, "...the environmental, character and landscape values of all rural land are protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses"[2] and that a renewable energy facility is a code assessable use in the rural zone. He concludes that a renewable energy facility is still a rural use.
[10] The Valuer-General engaged Gregory Ovenden. Mr Ovenden concluded that the nature of the use is not rural but a form of community/facilities infrastructure. He concluded that it is an urban type of activity, like other energy production and utility uses, regardless of its physical location. He conceded that large solar facilities are more likely to be situated in rural areas because they need expansive areas of land. He noted that other forms of electricity generation, such as coal or gas fire power stations, are also generally located in the countryside but he did not consider these facilities to be rural uses.
[11] Mr Ovenden did not provide any information on whether the Valuer-General valued coal or gas fired power stations as being for 'urban purposes'. I note that a coal mine is similar to the solar panel section of the facility in that it is the source of energy that powers the electricity generator. Despite that similarity, I have no submissions on whether a coal mine in a rural area is valued as rural or urban.
[12] Ultimately, the question of whether the land is used for a rural purpose is a decision for me and the town planners' opinions are of limited assistance.

[13] Justice Gageler (as his Honour then was) set out the principles of statutory interpretation in SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles:[3]

"Statutory construction is the process by which meaning is attributed to statutory text. In a doubtful case, it involves constructional choice. The statutory text must be considered from the outset in context and attribution of meaning to the text in context must be guided so far as possible by statutory purpose on the understanding that a legislature ordinarily intends to pursue its purposes by coherent means." (citations omitted)

[14] Section 11 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) ("LVA") states that zoned rural land ceases to be rural land and becomes non-rural land if, under a development approval approving a material change of use, it is used for an 'urban purpose'.
[15] The term 'urban purpose' is not defined in the LVA. The place to start in interpreting the meaning of the term is its natural meaning.
[16] The Macquarie Dictionary definition of 'urban' is "of, relating to, or comprising a city or town, living in a city or cities, occurring or situated in a city or town, or characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified".
[17] The Valuer-General submits that the provisions for rural land in the LVA, specifically Chapter 2, Division 2, Subdivisions 1 and 2, refer to the zoning of the land under a planning scheme and, therefore, the context requires me to to look at the Western Downs Planning Scheme, and other planning definitions, for guidance.
[18] As I read the authorities, however, the purposive approach to interpretation is relevant only where there is doubt as to the proper meaning. Given the natural meaning of 'urban purposes' I cannot see where any doubt exists.
[19] Even if I adopt the Valuer-General's suggested course, the meaning of 'urban purpose' is the same. Although the Western Downs Planning Scheme defines 'urban purposes' as including residential (other than rural residential), retail, commercial, industrial, community and government related purposes, that definition is not reflected in other planning related legislation or regulations.
[20] Section 106D(4) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) states that 'urban purpose' means "a purpose for which land is used in cities or towns-- including industrial and commercial purposes". (emphasis added)
[21] Schedule 24 of the Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld) defines 'urban purpose' as "a purpose for which land is used in cities or towns-- including residential, industrial, sporting, recreation and commercial purposes". (emphasis added)
[22] As Western Downs has observed, using the definition from the Western Downs Planning Scheme is 'cherry picking' one definition from one regional planning scheme and inserting it into legislation. Such an approach - picking up the planning scheme for a particular location - can lead to anomalies in interpretation across the State. That result would not be compatible with an Act designed to govern, equitably and transparently, the valuation of rural land throughout Queensland.
[23] The normal principles of statutory interpretation require subordinate legislation to be interpreted in the context of the primary legislation. It would be an odd result to turn those principles on their head, particularly where the subordinate legislation is only tangentially related to the primary legislation. To do so would be the tail wagging the dog.
[24] Counsel for the Valuer-General submits that the decision of Rackemann DCJ in Jimboomba Lakes Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Ors ("Jimboomba")[4] supports their interpretation of the LVA.
[25] Jimboomba is of limited assistance. It concerned whether a relocatable home was an urban purpose outside the urban footprint pursuant to a planning scheme. My decision does not involve the interpretation of a planning scheme, it involves the interpretation of legislation. To the extent that the case is relevant, I note that the definition of 'urban activity' in Schedule 2 of the Draft Regulatory Provisions is "a residential, industrial, retail, commercial, sporting, recreation or community purpose normally found in a city or town". (emphasis added)
[26] It is clear that, except for the Western Downs Planning Scheme, statutory definitions view the location of the use as a threshold factor in deciding whether a use is for 'urban purposes'. If the use is not in a city or town, it is unlikely to be an urban use.
[27] The facility is not in a city or town. It, therefore, does not meet the threshold to be considered 'urban'.
[28] It is not necessary for me to consider the Valuer-General's arguments about the meaning of 'commercial' or 'industrial'. For completeness, however:

(a) I am not persuaded that the facility ceases to be rural land simply because it operates for profit. Most rural production is operated to make money. The pursuit of profit does not, by itself, mean that a use is automatically an urban use.

(b) The scale of the operation is of little assistance. Intensive animal husbandry and horticulture are both code assessable with the Western Downs Planning Scheme rural zone. Neither activity could be considered an 'urban purpose'.

[29] The facility may power a city or town, but it is not of a city or town. The facility is not used for an 'urban purpose'. The land should not have been deemed non-rural land.

Does the Tribunal have power to make the declaration?

[30] Section 12 of the LVA allows an owner of land to apply to the Valuer-General to declare the land to be rural land (a "Rural Land Application"). The Valuer-General must decide a Rural Land Application under s 13 of the LVA.
[31] The zoning makes a material difference only if it causes a change in the land's value of at least 30%.[5]
[32] The Valuer-General submits that s 8 through to s 11 inclusive of the LVA act as a 'gatekeeper' for the operation of s 12 and s 13 and, effectively, s 13 cannot be excised and read alone.
[33] The LVA has three sections that identify what is rural land. The first is if it is zoned rural land and has not ceased to be rural land.[6] Clearly, there is no scope for a Rural Land Application in that case.
[34] The second, in s 10(1), states that an area of land is zoned rural if more than half the land is zoned rural land, however called, under a planning scheme. That circumstance might lend itself to a Rural Land Application as there may be a factual dispute about the extent of the land within the rural zone or whether the land is, in fact, in a rural zone.
[35] The third section is, of course, s 11.
[36] The Valuer-General submits that the exercise of the discretion in s 13(2) is largely informed by s 11 and that the determination is made pursuant to s 11. I am rhetorically asked to consider why the Valuer-General would make a declaration of rural land if s 11 says there had been a cessation of zoned rural land.
[37] The answer is obvious. As this dispute shows, there is ample scope for reasonable minds to differ about whether affected land should be rural land. A landowner should be entitled to challenge the effect of s 11 and there is nothing in the LVA to suggest that s 11 is excluded from the operation of s 13 or that the Valuer-General's ability to make a declaration under s 13 is in any way limited by s 11.

Should the Tribunal declare that the land is rural land?

[38] The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Valuer-General. Therefore, I may declare the land as rural land only if I am satisfied that:

(a) At least 95% of the land in the State used for the same purpose is, under s 10, zoned rural land; and

(b) The land's zoning makes a material difference to its value.

[39] A material difference is a change in the value of at least 30%.
[40] Western Downs has filed evidence to show that it meets these criteria. Mr Perkins states that 100% of land supporting six commercial solar farm and battery storage facilities throughout Queensland are on rural land.[7]
[41] The Valuer-General submits that, by the operation of s 11, Western Downs cannot demonstrate that at least 95% of the land in the State used for the same purpose is, under s 10, zoned rural land.
[42] It is a circular argument. The land is zoned rural but for the operation of s 11. The application is a challenge to s 11. It is illogical to use s 11 to defeat a challenge to its operation. In addition, the submission fails to address Mr Perkins' analysis of the balance of land used for the same purpose.
[43] There is no dispute that there is a difference in valuation because of the change in zoning. The Valuer-General's own valuations show an increase above 30%.
[44] The Valuer-General submits that, even if Western Downs can meet the criteria in s 13, I should not exercise my discretion in its favour. It submits that to do so would be contrary to the clear parliamentary intention of s 11.
[45] The clear parliamentary intention of the LVA was to simplify the State's statutory land valuation process consistent with other Australian jurisdictions, provide a more credible, transparent and less contentious valuation system,[8] and to provide landowners with the opportunity to alter their statutory valuation methodology only once to rectify anomalies in categorisation.[9]
[46] To construe s 13 as having no application to s 11 denies a landowner the opportunity to alter the statutory valuation method and is not consistent with a credible and transparent valuation system. There is no reason why I should not exercise my discretion in favour of Western Downs.

The internal review decision of 30 November 2023 is set aside.
The subject land at 16 Mile Hall Road, Hopeland QLD 4413, is declared rural land pursuant to s 13 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld).

[1] Perkins Town Planning Expert Report [26].

[8] Explanatory Memorandum, Land Valuation Bill 2010 (Qld) 1.

Western Downs Green Power Hub Pty Ltd v Valuer-General, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development [2025] QCAT 463

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (32 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)