Body Corporate for 'Omeo' Community Titles v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1999] QLC 72
•25 June 1999
|
LAND COURT
BRISBANE
25 JUNE 1999
Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation Roll No.: 487
Local Government: Redcliffe
(AV98-180)
Body Corporate for "Omeo" Community Titles
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
D E C I S I O N
BACKGROUND:
This matter relates to a property at the corner of Prince Edward Parade and Queen Street, Scarborough, and described as Lots 1 and 2 on BUP6234. The subject land has an area of 653 m² and is located about 1.2 km north of the Redcliffe Central Business District. Access to the subject land is legally available from both Prince Edward Parade and Queen Street, both of which are bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. The subject land is zoned as "Residential C" under the Town Planning Scheme of the Redcliffe City Council (the Council) of 19 April 1986 and effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 1997.
Prince Edward Parade is a major two-lane road which carries a heavy traffic volume. Because of the heavy traffic volume, and difficulties of access from that road, it is understood that access to the subject was likely to be preferred from Queen Street, which is a two-lane carriageway ending at a dead end and terminating at the beachfront. All normal services are available. The key issues are the nature of the land, use of the land, relativity and the comparison of sales.
The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, issued a valuation of the subject on 30 March 1998 at $212,500. Following an objection, the Chief Executive confirmed that valuation on 22 June 1998. The appellant has now appealed that figure, claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $95,000. At the hearing on 20 April 1999 Mrs Sharp, for the appellant, amended its estimate of the unimproved value to be $95,000 if assessed as a unit site, or $120,000 as a single homesite. Mrs Sharp argues that her assessment of the market in that area indicates that its highest and best use would be as a single homesite.
Mr DR Sharp appeared and gave evidence for the appellant, calling evidence also from Mrs RJ Sharp. Mr G Dunn appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Mr MM Woodbridge, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation.
THE EVIDENCE
(1)The Nature of the Land –
The subject land has a width of only 10 metres to Prince Edward Parade, a frontage of 65.3 metres to Queen Street, and a 10 metres direct access to the Esplanade and the beachfront. The subject is at road level to Prince Edward Parade for about 50% of its depth, then falling towards the Esplanade, where direct access to the beachfront is inhibited by a substandard dirt track which provides access to a parcel (Lot 2 on RP 100690), two lots removed to the east of the subject, and also a pedestrian walkway.
The appellant argues that the dirt track access to Lot 2 is in such a poor state of repair that it has an unsatisfactory impact upon the subject land in that it inhibits direct access to the waterfront. The track is also used by service vehicles to Lot 2, which caused noisy intrusion upon the subject, often during the middle of the night. Mr Dunn argues that noise from such vehicles would be no worse than experienced elsewhere in the area. The dirt track also provides turning space for private vehicles which visit the beachfront via Queen Street, and is constantly in a state of disrepair.
Another matter is also the lack of privacy from noise intrusion as a consequence of the narrow width of the subject land, and the consistent noise from visitors down Queen Street. Access down the footpath towards the beachfront along Queen Street is also difficult due to the removal of a former set of steps, which were determined to be illegal and ordered to be demolished by the Council.
The subject land has also been filled on two occasion, on the lower areas near the dirt road providing a flatter area than was originally available. The subject falls about 5 metres over the eastern half of the land. Because of the slope of the land it is not possible to provide gravity feed to sewerage services from Prince Edward Parade, unless an automatic sewer pump is installed with possible intermittent maintenance problems. Several properties in that area have in fact installed such a device, including the home units on the opposite side of Queen Street. Because of this limitation on the provision of sewerage services, Mr Sharp argues that would impact the value of the subject land. The current two units on the subject land have had to be designed with sewerage points restricted to the upper floor. Mr Woodbridge argues that careful design can overcome any problems with sewerage services. However, he concedes that most existing premises fronting Prince Edward Parade have gravity feed to the sewer lines.
There is agreement that the subject land has good views of Moreton Bay, and that similar lands along Prince Edward Parade are in public demand, predominantly to capitalise on those views. However, Mr Sharp argues that the existence of views of the water can be overestimated, in view of the difficulties associated with strong prevailing south-easterly offshore winds. He argues that living directly fronting the beach tends to develop some complacency towards the views, and in fact may be seen as a disadvantage at times due to the difficulties of the weather patterns. Mr Woodbridge discounts that opinion claiming that it is the presence of direct access to the Esplanade, and the beachfront, with its views of water, which influences the very high prices paid for land along Prince Edward Parade.
The influence of the corner location of the subject land is also a matter of difference between the parties. Mr Woodbridge sees the corner influence as opening up the vista of views of the water, as well as providing increased light, air and safety of access and greater privacy from adjoining neighbours. Mr Sharp argues that the privacy is in fact less because of the movement of people along Queen Street, although he concedes that vehicular access via Queen Street is safer than from Prince Edward Parade.(2) The Use of the Land –
A key component of the appellant's argument lies in its claim that the usable part of the subject land is only about 320 m², which is only about 50% of the total area. This occurs as a consequence of the existing building regulations which prevent buildings within 6 metres of either Prince Edward Parade and the Esplanade, 2 metres from Queen Street, 1 metre from the southern side boundary, and the need for a 12-metre truncation at the intersection of Prince Edward Parade and Queen Street, and also Queen Street and the Esplanade.
As a result of the side boundary restrictions and the narrow 10-metre width of the lot, the maximum width of any building (allowing for eaves) is only 5.8 metres. This, therefore, is a further restriction upon the shape of any dwelling which may be erected, and is not conducive to the erection of an expensive stately dwelling as exists elsewhere on wider lots along Prince Edward Parade. The narrow width of any dwelling is likely to incur a higher than normal building unit cost. Mr Sharp also argues that if a dwelling was to be built only on the flatter land, thus avoiding expensive retaining walls or specially designed structures, then the available area for building purposes would be only 220 m². Because of the larger size of the more expensive homes in that area, a multi-level dwelling would be needed to locate a suitable dwelling upon the subject land. The appellant argues that there is no other comparable small lot along Prince Edward Parade with such severe limitations on buildings.
The subject land is presently used for multi-unit (two) residences, although the appellant understands that Council would not now approve such a use at this time. Mr Woodbridge argues that there are other 10-metre wide lots along Prince Edward Parade backing onto the Esplanade. Mr Sharp argues that because of the severe limitations upon the subject land, any developer of units would find the added expense of building upon the subject a major disincentive, and would look elsewhere. For that reason, the appellant sees the highest and best use of the subject land as to be used as a single residence site. Mr Woodbridge does not contest that view, but argues that the market reveals that unit developers and home owners compete in the same market in that area, and there is no difference in the prices paid for either purpose.
Mr Dunn argues that there could be some potential for use of the subject land (if it was vacant) for units, or a premium homesite, if the subject land could be amalgamated with the adjoining Lot 48 to the south (the Anand property). However, that parcel has only recently had an expensive home erected, after some 18 years on the market for sale as a vacant site. Mr Sharp argues that there is virtually no potential to value the subject land as an extension of a larger homesite in view of the past history of the Anand property.
Mr Dunn argues that there has been some relaxation of the building regulations in respect of setbacks, noting examples where Council has approved variations. It was noted that an improved property at 109 Flinders Parade (Grieve to Adsett) was acquired with an existing dwelling which had a lesser setback (3 metres) than required under the regulations (6 metres). With the consent of Council the purchaser was able to sell the old dwelling for removal (at $10,000), and build a new dwelling using the former setbacks.
Another example of relaxation of the regulations was noted at a 12-metre wide property at Queens Beach Lane, located just north of the subject land. That relaxation allowed a setback from the rear beachfront boundary of 2 metres instead of the normal 6 metres. A third example is the existing dwelling on Lot 2 on RP 100690 (at the end of the dirt track adjoining the eastern boundary of the subject land). From the photographs supplied to the Court that dwelling is clearly less than 6 metres from the Esplanade beachfront boundary. On the basis of those examples Mr Dunn argues that relaxation of setbacks upon the subject land was a real possibility.
Mr Sharp counters by noting that potential purchasers would not pay a high price for the subject land, merely on some hope that they might get a concession from the Redcliffe City Council. He further argues that in view of the uncertainty of obtaining a relaxation of the regulations, any purchaser would seek a reduction in the price paid, and hence the value in the marketplace.
(3) The Method of Valuation –
In support of the appellant's estimate of the unimproved value, Mr Sharp provides the following analyses:
| Property | Gross Area | Value per m² | Usable Area | Value per m² |
| Cnr Stevens St | 1171 m² | $260 | 825 m² | $369 |
| 109 Flinders Parade | 405 m² | $321 | 298 m² | $436 |
| 133 Prince Edward Pde | 1968 m² | $99 | - | - |
| The neighbouring lot (Anand property | 981 m² | $242 | 650 m² | $365 |
| Subject | 653 m² | $325 | 320 m² | $664 |
Based upon direct comparisons in those properties on a per m² basis, Mr Sharp determines unimproved values of the subject as follows:
| Gross Area Basis | Usable Area Basis |
| $65,000 to $212,500 | $116,800 to $212,500 |
In view of the wide divergence of values Mr Sharp concludes that the respondent has made serious errors in the determination of the valuation of the subject land. It is his contention that the most appropriate comparison should be on the basis of usable areas, which, he argues, is why purchasers acquire the land.
To support his conclusion Mr Sharp provides a valuation report by professional valuers, which estimates the improved value of the front unit of the subject property on 16 March 1995 at $200,000. He also provides a separate estimate of the replacement cost of the 2-unit complex on 16 February 1995 at $355,000. That figure was then compared with the apparent original construction cost of $181,303 on 22 May 1985. Mr Sharp agrees that those replacement costs provide little assistance in determining the unimproved value of the land.
Mr Woodbrdge determines his valuation on the comparison of comparable sales of vacant of lightly improved lands. He argues that residential lands are purchased on a site basis, rather than a per m² basis, while multi-unit residential properties are valued on a per m² basis. However, Mr Woodbridge argues that for Redcliffe beachfront properties, such as the subject land, the market indicates that there is no difference between the price paid for multiple-unit sites, and single-unit sites. He argues those different purchasers compete in one market for those selected areas.(4)Comparison of Sales –
Mr Sharp provides no alternative sales to those supplied by Mr Woodbridge, relying upon an alternative analysis of those sales. Mr Woodbridge provides the following sales:
· Sale 1 – (Fortune Street, Scarborough – Lot 10 on RP 899520). This is a 634 m² "Residential B" hatched-shaped, single-unit residential direct waterfront lot with good views of the water. All services are available, and there is good access to Fortune Street, which is a divided carriageway. The sale is level with Fortune Street and falls gently to the beachfront, overall the sale is superior.
The sale was sold in July 1996 for $235,000 which, after allowing for improvements, was analysed at $233,500 and applied at $233,000 ($367 per m²).
· Sale 2 – (109 Flinders Parade, Scarborough – (Lot 194 on RP 30468). This is a 405 m² "Residential C" Esplanade lot separated from the beachfront by a dual carriageway and park reserve, with interrupted views of the water, with all services available. The sale is located on a service road which is above the two-way Flinders Parade. The sale is level with Flinders Parade and generally level. The sale is overall inferior to the subject.
The sale sold in June 1995 for $150,000 which, after allowing for improvements was analysed at $139,000 ($343 per m²) and applied at $130,000
· Sale 3 – (36 Prince Edward Parade – Lot 1 on RP 182400). This is a 1,171 m² "Residential D" beachfront lot with pedestrian walkway access to the beach. The sale is a corner lot, with all services available, and good access to both Prince Edward Parade and Stevens Street. The sale is at road level for 75% of its depth, then falls moderately to the beachfront. Overall the sale is superior.
The sale sold in October 1997 for $460,000 which, after allowing for improvements and cleaning up of the site, was analysed at $489,000 ($418 per m²), and applied at $305,000.
· Sale 4 – (42 Prince Edward Parade – Lot 96 on RP 74531). This is a 946 m² "Residential C" lot with beachfront access via a dirt track and pedestrian walkway. All services are available and the sale has good access to Prince Edward Parade. The sale is at road level for 75% of its depth, then falling gently to the beachfront. Overall the sale is superior.
The sale sold in November 1997 for $400,000 which, after allowing for improvements and cleaning up of the site was analysed at $429,000 ($453 per m²) and applied at $290,000.
· Sale 5 – (155 Flinders Parade – Lot 4 on RP 30474). This is a 405 m² "Residential C" Esplanade lot with restricted views of the water, via dual carriageway and parkland. The sale was later resold showing an increase in the market. There is good access to Flinders Parade.
The sale sold in February 1998 for $163,500, and was analysed at $164,500. It was again resold in June 1998 for $200,000 and analysed at $199,000.
· Sale 6 – (153 Flinders Parade – Lot 3 on RP 30474). This is a 405 m² "Residential C" Esplanade lot with interrupted views of the water.
The sale sold in February 1998 for $143,500 and was analysed at $142,500, and later resold in November 1998 for $182,500 and analysed at $181,500.
· Sale 7 – (118 Prince Edward Parade – Lots 35 and 36 on RP 30456). This is a 1,437 m² "Residential C" multi-unit beachfront lot via a pedestrian walkway. The sale is level for 75% of its depth, then falls moderately to the beachfront. Overall the sale is superior.
The sale sold in October 1997 for $720,000 which, after allowing for improvements, was analysed at $709,000 ($493 per m²) and applied at $285,000.
· Sale 8 – (Osbourne Street). This is a 584 m² lot similar in topography to the subject land, although it is filled towards the beachfront. There are comparable views of the water, with a gentle fall to the beach. There is no dirt track or formed esplanade in front of the sale, but it has a pedestrian walkway to the beachfront. There was an old single-unit dwelling in very poor condition, which was analysed at $70,000.
The sale sold in November 1997 for $300,000, which was analysed at $230,000, and applied at $212,500.
In his assessment of the subject land Mr Woodbridge made allowance for the detriment of the dirt track along the eastern boundary. Had that track not existed, he estimates that the subject would have been assessed at an unimproved value of $235,000. The sales provided all had comparable topography as the subject land, as demonstrated by a contour map supplied to the Court.
Mr Sharp was familiar with Sale 8, which had been purchased by a builder who used the sale to deposit filling, after the sale, from another building site. Mr Sharp also believes that the old dwelling, which extends to within 150 millimetres of the Osbourne Street boundary, has a potentially higher added value than allowed by Mr Woodbridge, although he does not offer any alternative value of the building. He also argues that Sale 8 does not have the same difficulties with sewerage disposal, as most of that site (80%) can be gravity discharged. Mr Sharp also notes that the whole area of Sale 2 may provide gravity discharge for sewerage.
In comparing Sale 3 with the subject Mr Sharp notes that lot to be 20 metres wide, has a lesser slope towards the water, and 75% of that site is near level. For those reasons, he sees that parcel as not comparable to the subject. Mr Woodbridge also agrees that Sale 8 (Osbourne Street) and the subject land are the only two sale lots in that area of Prince Edward Parade, with a width in the region of 10 to 12 metres. He also notes that Sale 3 is now being developed for 10 units, while it is agreed that the subject land could not now be used for that purpose.
DECISION(i)The Nature of the Land –
I turn first to the nature of the subject land and note that both parties agree that the substandard dirt track causes some disability which would impact the value of the land. Mr Woodbridge has estimated that impact at $22,500.
In respect of the noise intrusion from vehicles and service trucks, I believe the impact upon the subject land would be comparable to that experienced in other streets in that area. While the appellant is undoubtedly disturbed by those noises, such noises are a fact of modern urban living. The impact upon the valuation is determined by the extent to which the subject land is subjected to a level beyond that experienced at the sales provided for comparison purposes. In the matter of privacy from people passing down Queen Street, I would agree that the closeness of the dwelling upon the subject land could contribute to that intrusion.
The definition of usable area by the appellant does assist in comparing the subject land to surrounding parcels. The evidence is that most properties along Prince Edward Parade have in fact been built upon the flatter parts of those lots. As a consequence, the foundation and structural costs of those properties would be minimised, compared to properties which could be forced, or choose to locate, beyond the flatter areas. Because of the very small area of flat usable land on the subject land (220 m²), it would be a disadvantage for that purpose.
In the matter of the provision of sewerage services, I believe that the general trend for owners to retain living areas at the level of Prince Edward Parade, presumably to maximise also on the extent of views of water, would suggest that a residence upon the subject land would tend to use structural enhancements, thus minimising sewerage problems. However, that does limit the provision of toilet facilities on any lower level, unless a further cost for a sewer pump is contemplated. However, to seek some provision for both the additional structural building costs, and the sewerage difficulties, would, in my opinion, indicate some double dipping in any allowance for that purpose.
That leads then to the matter of the corner location and the extent and value of the views of water. While I accept the appellant's argument that views tend to be taken for granted after residence for some time, that is a subjective matter. It is also a fact that a key part of the attractiveness of the Prince Edward Parade area lies in its proximity to the beachfront, and the attendant views that occur. The marketplace demonstrates that conclusion. The major impact to the appellant of the corner location lies in its impact upon the usable area, not its greater exposure or views.
(ii)The Use of the Land –
The disadvantage of a reduced building area, as discussed earlier, places the subject land at a disadvantage over adjoining lands as the site of a prestige home. As a single residence homesite, therefore, there is no doubt that the subject land would be less attractive than other parcels along Prince Edward Parade. Any relativity for such purpose should therefore make allowance for the smaller area of the subject. As the current exercise is to ascertain the unimproved value of the subject land on the premise that the existing improvements do not exist, and in fact are considered to have never existed, then it is reasonable at present to conclude that the highest and best use of the land would be for a single-unit residence. On that basis, any presumption that the subject land could be amalgamated with the adjoining Lot 48, in my opinion, has little likelihood of such a conclusion.
I then consider the likely impact upon a potential purchaser of the possibility of some relaxation of building setback requirements. Certainly the history of several sites in that area suggests that Council has been prepared to consider some discretion in such matters, but usually associated with a site where a previous building already had such a benefit. As it is part of the current exercise to consider the subject land as if there was no building upon the site, any existing relaxation provisions must also be ignored. I therefore find little comfort from Mr Dunn's conclusion that relaxation is a distinct possibility.
(iii)The Method of Valuation –
On the basis that the highest and best use is likely to be as a single residence homesite, I look to precedents for the most appropriate method of comparison. I note that Mr Woodbridge has followed the method generally favoured by the Courts. I note, for instance, in the matter of PH Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, the Land Appeal Court said at p.76:
" It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements."
Such an approach was also followed by the Land Appeal Court in NR & PG Tow v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, where it said at p.381:
"Courts of the highest authority have laid down that the best test of value is to be found in the sales of comparable properties, preferably unimproved, on the open market round about the relevant date of valuation and between prudent and willing, but not over-anxious parties."
(See also R & MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1990-91 13 QLCR 13 at p.17).
In seeking comparisons on the basis of unimproved sales, I note that Mr Sharp has sought to compare the sales on a per m² basis. In considering the sales I note that support for the use of Mr Woodbridge's approach may be found in the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Ward v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 48, at p.50:
"Sites are valued overall and not on a rate per hectare basis. The experience of the market place reflects the former not the latter practice."
That practice was also followed in H and E Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, where the appellants argued for comparison on a pro-rata basis, and the Land Appeal Court found at p.330:
" The appellants fail on this point because the appropriate basis for the valuation of a residential lot is not the application of a rate per square metre but an assessment of the unimproved value of each lot as land used for single unit residential purposes. As the Land Appeal Court said in its decision on the appellants' previous appeal (H and E Grahn v. The Valuer-General, AV89-246 and 247, 13 December 1990):
'for the purpose of valuing residential sites, the preferable method of comparison is on a site to site basis and not on the basis of a unit area valued comparison. Site for site comparison should take into comparison such matters as the size of the lots, the situation of and access to the lots, the shape and topography of the lots etc and comparisons on a unit area basis do not necessarily reflect valuation considerations for the above features.'"
The decision of Grahn supports that the area of a residential lot is but one of the features which influences its value.
(iv)The Comparison of Sales –
If I consider then the sales provided, I find the following comparisons as single residence sites:
| Sale | Analysed Value | Comparison |
| 1 | $233,500 | Superior |
| 2 | $139,000 | Inferior |
| 4 | $429,000 | Superior |
| 8 | $230,000 | Comparable |
I note that Sales 5 and 6 are not compared with the subject land, and are included in the analysis merely to demonstrate an upward trend in the market. However, I note that the first sale of both Sales 5 and 6 occurred in February 1998, just prior to the date of issue of the current valuation. The second resale of either property occurred in June 1998 (Sale 5) and November 1998 (Sale 6). The upward trend would therefore appear to be more related to a subsequent valuation period and those sales do not assist me much in this matter.
In respect of Sales 3 and 7 I note that both of those properties are currently being developed as multi-unit sites. While I acknowledge that Mr Woodbridge has given evidence that, in his opinion, single-residence sites and multi-units sites are both in the same market and tend to achieve comparable prices, his sales evidence, however, does not demonstrate that conclusion. Sale 3 has an area of 1,171 m², and Sale 7 has an area of 1,437 m². For the reasons mentioned earlier, I believe neither of those two sales provides a fair comparison to the subject land.
In respect of Sale 8 there was no definitive description of that parcel, although both parties appear to be well informed of that sale. The sale apparently has some physical access to a private laneway to the west of the sale, although that is apparently only at the discretion of the owner of the land. The sale was noted on a map tendered to the Court, and would appear to have access to Osbourne Street and direct access to the Esplanade and beachfront. The sale was improved by an old dwelling, the added value of which is in dispute. Mr Sharp argues that Sale 8 provides the best comparison to the subject land.
In drawing comparison with Sale 8 I note that it does not occupy a corner location on Prince Edward Parade, as does the subject land. However, as a comparably small parcel, it also does not suffer the setback requirements of the subject land. On balance, the two parcels would appear to be comparable, except that the subject land has the substandard dirt track along its frontage to the Esplanade, which Mr Woodbridge has allowed at $22,500 in the valuation. As Sale 8 has been analysed at $230,000, and Mr Woodbridge agrees the unimproved value of the subject land without the dirt track would be assessed at $235,000, I believe a reasonable analysed figure for the subject may be $212,500. Adopting a comparable conservative application rate such as for Sale 8, would result in an applied unimproved value of the subject land at $196,332 (say $195,000).
I am aware that Mr Woodbridge may have applied a conservative percentage (92.4%) to the analysed figure in view of the nature of the added value of the improvements on Sale 8. Such an approach would support the principle established by the High Court in Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v. Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Limited & Others (1946-47) 74 CLR 358, where Dixon J said at p.373:" I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Williams J and agree in it. I should like, however, to add for myself that there is some difference of purpose in valuing property for revenue cases and in compensation cases. In the second the purpose is to ensure that the person to be compensated is given a full money equivalent of his loss, while in the first it is to ascertain what money value is plainly contained in the asset so as to afford a proper measure of liability to tax. While this difference cannot change the test of value, it is not without effect upon a court's attitude in the application of the test. In a case of compensation doubts are resolved in favour of a more liberal estimate, in a revenue case, of a more conservative estimate."
In keeping with that principle I believe a similar conservative approach should also be taken with the subject land.
SUMMARY:
In considering the analysis I am aware of the need to demonstrate that the Chief Executive has made some error in method or calculation. That principle was established in Brisbane City Council v. The Valuer-General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41, where Gibbs J said at p.56:"In my opinion once it is shown that in making the valuation the Valuer-General acted upon a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact, the presumption created by s.13(7) is rebutted." (Now s.33).
However, in seeking to prove its case, the appellant is restricted to the grounds of appeal under s.45(4) of the Act which states:
"45(4). Such notice shall state the grounds of appeal and the appeal shall be limited to the grounds so stated and the burden of proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner."
The appellant has argued that the value of the land as a homesite should be compared only to parcels with comparable attributes. The comparison with Sale 8 would appear to satisfy that criteria.
CONCLUSION:
Having considered the whole of the evidence, I am persuaded that the appellant has partly proved its case. The appeal is upheld, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of Lots 1 and 2 on BUP6234 is determined at One Hundred and Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($195,000).
NG DIVETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0