Cardwell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 38
•4 April 1997
|
BRISBANE
4 APRIL 1997
Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Valuation Roll No 3009
Local Government: Brisbane City Council.
(AV95-610).
Kenneth J and Maria Cardwell
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(formerly Department of Lands)D E C I S I O N
Background:
The key issues in this case relate to the permitted use of the land, comparison of sales of comparable land, relativity, impact of Local Government Character Protection Controls, percentage increase in valuations and per unit area calculations. The appeal relates to a parcel of land at 36 Stopford Street, Wooloowin, which is used as a multi-unit site (two flats), and is described as Lot 553 on RP 47264, with an area of 688 square metres. The lot is zoned as "Residential B (R4)" under the City of Brisbane Town Plan of 13 June 1987, and effective at the date of valuation of 1 January 1995.
The parcel is a rectangular shaped lot with a frontage of 17.09 metres, a depth of 40.23 metres, and a northerly aspect. At the frontage to Stopford Street, the lot is about 40 cm above the footpath, then falls over the building area gently falling about 0.8 metres in 20 metres, then falling about 3.6 metres to the rear boundary, which fronts Bells Lane. There is a steep slope from the rear boundary, falling about 1.8 metres to Bells Lane. There is an easy cross slope from east to west. Both parties agree on these features of the land.
Both Stopford Street and Bells Lane are bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. Electricity, gas, water, sewerage and telephone are available, and there is easy access to the site from Stopford Street. The existing dwelling was erected prior to World War II (circa 1930), and has been converted into two flats which are registered with the Brisbane City Council as an existing use. The owners do not occupy either of the flats as their place of dwelling. The conversion of the single dwelling into the two flats occurred many years ago and involved minimum alterations to the building. There is a large block of six units on the adjoining lot (Lot 3 on RP 168006) to the eastern side of the subject, and further up the slope of Stopford Street. The units are on No. 32 Stopford Street. On the western side of the subject (No 40 on Lot 3 on RP 19446), there is a single unit dwelling similar to the subject building.
The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, on 20 March 1995, issued a valuation for the property at $164,250. Following an objection, the Chief Executive partially allowed the objection and on 10 October 1995, advised that the amended valuation was $132,500, which is now being appealed by Mr Cardwell, who has submitted that the valuation should be $120,000.
Mr Cardwell appeared for the appellants, and Mr R Paterson appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Mr Ian Geoffrey Savage, the registered Departmental valuer who determined the valuation.
Evidence:
The appellant argued that, as the valuations are determined upon the potential use of the land, and as the original dwelling had been only slightly modified in order to convert its use to two flats, then the subject should be valued on a similar basis to other similar aged old buildings in Stopford Street. He noted in particular that No 44 Stopford Street (Lot 1 on RP 19446) had a similar aged house (photographs supplied of both the subject and 44 Stopford Street), which he contended was a more attractive parcel of land than the subject. Mr Cardwell was aware that improvements were to be disregarded in arriving at the valuation and argued only the physical characteristics of the land for comparison purposes.
In evidence, Mr Cardwell compared the easier slope of 44 Stopford Street, and its better access to Bells Lane as reasons for it being superior to the subject. Mr Savage contested that view and saw little difference in the unimproved value of the two lots. Based on the larger area (for unit development purposes) Mr Savage believed the subject was superior, but based as a single unit residential homesite, he may favour 44 Stopford Street. Without the benefit of a detailed inspection of 44 Stopford Street, Mr Savage considered that within $5,000 to $6,000 (valued as single residential sites) he would not say which parcel was the better.
However, Mr Savage argued that as the use of the land was different under the Valuation of Land Act, as 44 Stopford Street was used for a single dwelling purpose, and the subject is used for two flats, then comparison between those properties in respect of the Act was irrelevant.
Mr Cardwell also argued that while the subject is currently zoned as "Residential B(R4)" similar to other properties in Stopford Street, the property must also satisfy the requirements of the "Character Protection Controls" of the Town Plan of the Brisbane City Council, in respect of the possible preservation of homes built prior to World War II, where development control plans do not apply. The impact of such a policy for the subject, is that prior to any proposal to redevelop in accordance with the existing town plan zoning requirements, any developer must satisfy the Council of the suitability of the redevelopment. Mr Cardwell argued that approval in such cases could never be anticipated, and in fact, in his opinion, there is some doubt that an approval to redevelop could be forthcoming.
Mr Cardwell based his view of such an outcome, following an approach to the Council, on several facts. Firstly he noted that under section 7.6.6 of the Brisbane City Council Town Plan, the requirements include:
"7.6.6Where the site is in a residential development area R4 -
(a)the area of the site shall be not less than 800 square metres;
(b)the length of the frontage of the site shall be not less than 20 metres;
(c)site cover shall not exceed 50 percentum of the area of the site;
(d)no building within 10 metres of a side or rear boundary abutting a site containing a single detached house shall contain more than two storeys above ground level; otherwise no building shall contain more than three storeys above ground level;
(e)the gross floor area of the planning unit shall not exceed 50 percentum of the area of the site;
The gross floor area of the planning unit shall not exceed 60 percentum of the area of the site for sites which have a road frontage which is wholly within 200 metres of a pedestrian access point to a railway station, or have a frontage to a type D or F road, or where all of the abutting sites currently are developed, or have a current development approval for, an apartment building with 60% GFA, or other development other than a detached house; "
While he agreed that this amended part of the Town Plan has only had effect from 6 October 1995, and therefore falls after the relevant period of valuation for the current case, Parts (a) and (b) of the section were in fact similar to the previous ordinance current at the time of valuation, a fact agreed by Mr Savage. Mr Cardwell therefore argued that it was entirely only hearsay to assume that approval could be forthcoming from Council in respect of any redevelopment, where the gazetted Town Plan stipulates a certain minimum area (800 square metres) and a minimum width of parcel (20 metres), and where the subject fails to meet either of those criteria.
Further Mr Cardwell argued that the impact of the "Character Protection Controls", cannot be assumed in view of their intent to preserve old homes prior to World War II, which is the character of his property. He noted that the aim of this policy was "to require any proposal for the demolition or removal of any existing building in a residential zone within the area defined by Figure 7.1.1 of that Plan, generally corresponding to the parts of Brisbane development prior to World War II, to be subject to the Council's consent". His communications with planning officers of the Brisbane City Council indicated that Council was not prepared to provide any indication of approval to redevelop until a "pre-lodgment conference" was undertaken outlining what is intended in any redevelopment. Because of the character of the streetscape, he believes approval is likely to be hard to achieve for the subject, particularly if adjoining neighbours are consulted in respect of the impact upon their community. Mr Cardwell stated that while there are a number of multiple units in Stopford Street, nearly all are old properties similar to his, and there are not many newer unit buildings in the street. He is not sure if the block of six units adjoining the subject (Lot 3 on RP 168006) was constructed prior to the introduction of the "Character Protection Controls" in about 1990.
In response to the matter of conforming to the provisions of the Town Plan, Mr Savage agreed that five years ago it had been a fair assumption that strict compliance with Section 7.6.6 (and its predecessor) would have been correct. He supported the appellant that Council had historically shown little flexibility in enforcing the minimum requirements. However, as a result of his recent investigations (verbally) with the planning officers of the Council, and in view of a recent development at 32 Wooloowin Avenue, (see later Sale 1 in this case), there was now some room for a more optimistic view of an outcome in respect of a Council approval to redevelop the site. Mr Savage had subsequently reconsidered his valuation, based upon this later information, and submitted that he now considered that the valuation, should a Council approval to redevelop be forthcoming, would now be $155,000 for the subject.
While he could not speak for the Council, in view of these recent discussions with the planning officers of Council, Mr Savage had determined that possibly four units could be built upon the subject, bearing in mind that six units had been built on Sale 1 (later), and there was six units next door to the subject on Lot 3 on RP 168006. However, Mr Savage could not confirm that advice in writing from the Council.
Mr Savage saw two major issues impacting the highest and best use of the subject:(i)Would the Council restrict development? - He feels approval is likely to be forthcoming.
(ii)The land is used for two flats, and must be valued accordingly as unimproved land, and therefore the "character" restriction which affects only the building, should not impact the unimproved valuation.
Mr Savage confirmed that had Mr Cardwell lived on the subject, then he most likely would have satisfied the requirement of section 17 of the Act, and the value would have been reduced accordingly, and a figure for that purpose of $120,000, would have been appropriate.
The appellant also argued that when he compared the percentage increases in valuations between the last two valuations (1994 and 1995), he believed the subject had been unfairly treated. He provided evidence in the form of a graph showing percentage increases for 16 houses and 6 multiple dwellings in Stopford Street. The subject based at $132,500 had the third largest percentage increase in Stopford Street.
In determining the valuation, Mr Savage said that adopting the principles of giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant as established in the High Court case, Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v. Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Limited and Others (High Court) 74 CLR (1946-47) 358, where Dixon J. at page 373 said:
"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 text 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. "
Mr Savage said that he had initially taken a very conservative approach based upon the size of the lot, and its "Residential B (R4)" zoning. At the time he was not fully aware of all the details of his comparative Sale 1, and in order to give the balance of fairness to the appellant he had determined the valuation at $132,500. This he saw as a higher value for the subject than if it was "Residential A" zoning, but allowed for the impact upon it of the size of the area, and its reduced frontage. This was determined at a value of $192 per square metre.
In arriving at his valuation Mr Savage provided three sales of comparable sites:•Sale 1 -(32 Wooloowin Avenue, Wooloowin - Lot 184 on RP 19392 and Lot 1 on RP 19399).
This is a medium elevated lot, falling 3.5 metres in 40 metres from the front to the rear. It has limited western views, and is larger than the subject with similar zoning but not as steep as the subject, and an area of 708 square metres. The lot is seen as superior to the subject, and sold in June 1993, for $170,000, which after allowing for clearing improvements of $1,000, gave an analysed value of $169,000 (or $239/m2), and an applied valuation of $162,000 (or $229/m2).
•Sale 2 -(40 View Street, Wooloowin - Lots 665-666 on RP 19431). This is a medium elevated lot falling about 4 metres in 40 metres from the road level to the rear. It is larger than the subject, has similar zoning, and is not as steep as the subject, and has an area of 809 square metres. The lot is seen as comparable to the subject, and sold in July 1993, for $202,000, and after allowing for clearing of $1,000, gave an analysed value of $201,000 ($248/m2), and an applied valuation of $182,250 ($225/m2).
•Sale 3 -(70 Adamson Street, Wooloowin - Lots 623 and 624 on RP 19431 and Lot 1 on RP 54670). This is an irregular shaped lot, with a fall of just over 1 metre from the rear to the road. The sale had two sets of flats when sold, one brick flat was later demolished at an estimated cost of $2,000, the other flat was an old house and was sold for $6,000 for removal. The parcel has an area of 1120 square metres. The lot is seen as comparable to the subject, in respect of the price paid per square metre, although it is a much larger site. The sale has the same zoning, but is not as steep as the subject. The sale sold in August 1993, for $260,000 which when improvements allowed for in removing the house (sold for $6,000), demolishing the brick flats (cost of $2,000) and clearing ($2,000), gave an analysed value of $254,000 ($227/m2) and an applied valuation of $252,000 ($225/m2).
While the appellant did not have any in-depth knowledge of the sales, he was familiar with the general area of the sales. Mr Savage noted that Sale 1 now has a block of five units erected upon it since the date of valuation, and has a frontage of 17.7 metres and a depth of 40 metres, which is reasonably similar to the subject.
In respect of the block of six units adjoining the subject, Mr Cardwell noted that the existence of a retaining wall along the common boundary with the subject, and the fact that the units "overlook" the subject, further disadvantage the value of the subject. Mr Savage agreed but said that those facts were not unusual in higher density areas of the City and had been allowed for in his valuation.
In respect of the "as of right" conditions that would apply in the event of the subject building being destroyed, Mr Savage contended that approval would be forthcoming from Council under section 24 of the Town Plan up to the same number of living units, but subject to replacing those units with building materials that met current building codes. Mr Cardwell contended that was not an automatic right, but that it was only hypothetical at this time, as he had no intention of seeking Council approval to redevelop anyhow.
In summary, Mr Cardwell contended that the physical disadvantages of the subject, involving its slope and steep access to Bells Lane, have not been adequately allowed for by Mr Savage. Mr Savage responded by noting that those features of the subject would not be a problem for a developer, who would accommodate them in his design.
In response to Mr Savage's opinion that a redevelopment approval for the subject was likely to receive agreement by the Council for four units, Mr Cardwell in comparing the development potential of the subject, sought comparison with the adjoining block of six units (Lot 3 on RP 168006), the six units approved for Sale 2, the nine to eleven units approved for Sale 3, and also with the five units approved for Sale 1, determining his value on a "per unit basis" as follows:
Parcel Unimproved Value Per UnitSale 1 $ 32,400
Sale 2 $ 30,375
Sale 3 $ 28,000
Adjoining Lot (6 units) $ 35,250
Subject (4 units) $ 33,150
However, Mr Cardwell argued that, noting his current use of the subject was only for two units, then his valuation seemed excessive to the sales. Mr Savage responded to this conclusion by noting that the use of a "per unit basis" for comparison is likely to be impacted by variables such as the entrepreneurial skills of the developer who often varied the number of units in the development in order to address particular niche markets for large unit sizes, not always building the maximum number of units permissible. For this reason, Mr Savage argued, it is a better approach to determine the valuations based upon a per square metre site area, which is how he approached the valuation of the subject.
Decision:
In the matter of comparing the subject with other parcels in Stopford Street, which while having similar zonings as the subject, were in fact currently used as single residences, I note Mr Savage's evidence that those other properties had been valued in accordance with section 17(1) of the Act. To clarify the impact of this approach, I go to the meaning of the Act:
"Exclusive use for single dwelling house or farming
17.(1).
In making a valuation of the unimproved value of land exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house or for purposes of farming, any enhancement in that value for that the land has been subdivided by survey or has a potential use for industrial, subdivisional or any other purpose shall be disregarded irrespective of whether or not, in case of potential use as aforesaid, that potential use is lawful when the valuation is made.
(2)
In sub-section (1) -
A "single dwelling house" means -
(a)a dwelling used solely for habitation by not more than one family; or
(b)a dwelling occupied by the resident owner and used solely for habitation -
(i)part of which stands converted for use as a flat; or
(ii)part of which is used or for use as a furnished room or furnished rooms;
by a person or persons other than the owner's family; or
(c)a building used solely for habitation and that consists of two flats, one of which is occupied by the resident owner;"
As the subject is used for two flats, neither of which is occupied by the appellants as their residence, the subject fails to qualify for either section 17(2)(a)(b)(c), and cannot be valued by the Chief Executive as a single dwelling house. Any comparison with properties such as 44 Stopford Street have no relevance to the valuation.
In the matter of the impact of the "Character Protection Controls" which are part of the Town Plan of the Council, I note that prior to any redevelopment proceeding, the appellant would have to approach the Council and seek agreement on the type of development proposed. There is some difference of opinion between the parties in respect of whether such a proposal would be favourably looked upon by the Council and while I see reasonable argument from both parties, I find that the evidence is hearsay only from either side at this time. It is unfortunate that both parties chose to not seek formal evidence from the Council at this time, which may have given some clarification on this matter.
Further in the matter of the compliance of the subject with the current requirements of Section 7.6.6 of the Town Plan, I note that Mr Savage believes that, following his verbal discussions with the planning officers of the Council, and the fact that Sale 1 has now been given approval to redevelop, albeit it not in strict compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of the new ordinance, that there is evidence to suggest that Council has now relaxed its approach to implementing section 7.6.6. Mr Savage pointed out that this is only a reasonably new approach, and it is the first time he has detected such a relaxation of the controls by Council. However, in view of the consistent previous approach by Council to require strict performance to the planning standards set out in section 7.6.6, I am cautious in adopting that evidence as establishing a firm precedent by the Council.
I was referred in this matter by Mr Paterson to GJ and MJ Tickle v. The Valuer-General (1984-85) 10 QLCR 156. That case involved a 2.581 hectare site at Alexandra Headlands and involved varying contentions by the parties in respect of the likelihood of permission being obtained from the Local Government to a change of zoning of the land. The valuer for the appellants, in coming to his conclusions, relied strongly on the advice he received from a town planning officer of the Maroochy Shire Council, "that there is little likelihood of a change of zoning of the subject land". Accordingly, the appellant based his valuation upon that advice. The learned Member found at page 161:"In this light it is expected that a prudent person would weigh into his considerations what has previously occurred in respect of applications for the rezoning of land in the area and if satisfied by his own initiative or on the advice of experts that the subject land is ripe for development in a higher and more intensive usage, would have included amongst his gatherings arguments and reasons supporting the proposed development from a town planning point of view as a credit to the area and as complementing or improving the amenity of the neighbourhood. He would not I suggest, and as will be evident later herein, blandly walk away from a proposal which he believes has merit, simply on the receipt of unencouraging advice from an officer of the Local Authority. "
In the current case, the verbal advice from the planning officer of the Council was of an "encouraging" nature. As outlined in the Muir case, (see later), it would be a fallacy to dismiss the higher and better use as indicated by the planning officer, as a consequence of some relaxation of Council policy, without some further extensive investigation. Mr Savage has pursued that further investigation by disclosing the subsequent development approval for his Sale 1.
However it is a true saying that "one swallow does not make a summer". For this reason I believe the respondent's assumptions about future Council relaxations may be premature at this time and I am drawn to Mr Cardwell's conservative approach. Should later evidence of a continuing pattern of relaxation become evident, then the higher valuation would apply.
I note also in the matter of the valuation of the subject, Mr Savage has revised his determination in light of the potential relaxation of section 7.6.6 by Council to an amount of $155,000. However, I also note in The Valuer-General ats Queensland Club (AV90-174) 13 QLCR 207, where the Valuer-General argued that the test of the effect of a restriction on a building was not the effect of the restriction if the building was demolished but rather the effect of the restriction if the building had not been erected at all and the land was in its virgin state at the date of the valuation. The Land Appeal Court disallowed that appeal, noting that the provisions of the (Town) Plan run with the land and not with the improvements, noting at page 220:
"It is also necessary that some observations be made on terminology and the effect of that terminology in the Act and in the decisions under review; that is, the assumption that as at the relevant date, the improvements 'did not exist' section 12(1)(b) 'had not been made' (section 12(1)(a)) or 'never had existed' (Tooheys). We see this terminology as language necessary to describe the notional physical state of the land to be considered as a specific point in time, in this matter, 31 March 1989. There should be no difficulty then with the proposition that the valuer is required by the assumption to ignore improvements existing at the date of valuation. The valuer must simply say - 'as at this date, this land is in its unimproved condition'. The land is then identified as such in its existing environment within its relevant town planning zone. The language relevant to improvements is the necessary machinery to be used in making certain that the improvements are removed to reduce the land to the unimproved physical state. "
In the current case, the restrictions of the Town Plan are therefore impacted upon the land, and not just the use of the current building.
I also note that this Court, under section 45(a) and section 66 of the Act, has authority to amend the valuation appealed:
"Order of Court 66.Upon an appeal under section 55 the Land Court or, upon the rehearing of such an appeal, the Land Appeal Court may -
(a)affirm the valuation appealed against; or
(b)reduce or increase the amount of that valuation to the extent necessary in its opinion to determine the same correctly under, subject to, in accordance with this Act; "
In this regard I was also referred by Mr Paterson to the decision of the Land Appeal Court in TKW Muir v. The Valuer-General (1977) 4 QLCR 81 (LAC) at p.84:
"We have given considered and serious thought to the powers of this Court on the hearing of an appeal pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 21(7)(b) (now section 66(b)) in that it refers to 'the amount' of a valuation, are sufficiently wide to require this Court to reduce or increase the amount of any valuation made by the Valuer-General and under appeal to the extent necessary to determine the same correctly under, subject to and in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act. "
I note also that Mr Savage gave evidence that in the event of the recent relaxation of section 7.6.6 not being accepted by the Court, then Mr Savage believed a valuation of $132,500 is appropriate for the subject.
This then leads to the evidence of sales supplied by the respondent to support the valuation. While Mr Cardwell had some difficulty with the sales evidence, he did not in my opinion discredit their reliability or relevance to the subject. I note also the appellants' comparison of the sale with the subject on a "per unit basis" but am drawn to the respondent's caution in respect of the potential weaknesses of such an approach. I believe Mr Savage's method of adopting a per square metre basis for "Residential B(R4)" land is the most appropriate method.
In respect then of comparing the relevant per square metre calculations, I note that the sales evidence suggests an amount of $225 per square metre is appropriate for the sales. However, Sales 2 and 3 conform to the minimum standards of section 7.6.6 of the Town Plan, while the subject does not at this time. For the reasons stated earlier, I do not believe that Sale 1 can be used as a precedent of Council policy at this time and I am therefore cautious about the adoption of a figure of $225 per square metre for the subject. I note that in his evidence Mr Savage has used a figure of $192.50 per square metre which, in view of no other evidence to the contrary, would seem reasonable. Based on this figure, the valuation of the subject would be $132,500.
In respect of the use of percentage increases as a means of assessing the valuation of the subject, I note in NR and PT Tow v. The Valuer-General - Redland Shire (LAC) (1978) 5 QLCR 378 at page 381:"It follows that a large increase over and above the previous valuation is in itself not a relevant issue provided bona fide sales of comparable parcels supports the new valuation. "
In the current case, the sales evidence has not been discredited, and percentage increases would not seem relevant.
In respect of seeking relativity between the subject and other properties in Stopford Street as noted by Mr Cardwell in his comparison of percentage increases, I also note the comments of the Land Appeal Court in ACF and Shirleys Limited v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 370 at page 375:"We do not think that relativity can be established with any degree of confidence as between various land categories with different highest and best usages. "
In respect of the particular disadvantages of the subject, I note the impact of the steeper slope of the subject and the more difficult access to Bell Lane at the rear, but am drawn to Mr Savage's conclusion in his valuation that they are of no more considerable impact than would normally be accommodated for in the design of any new development.
In respect of the "as of right" conditions applying to the subject, I seek direction in section 28 of the Town Plan:"28.1Continuance of Existing Uses
28.1.1Subject to this section, nothing in the Plan shall preclude the continuance of an existing use.
28.1.2(a)Without limiting the circumstances under which an existing use ceases to be continued, where it is established that those activities which characterise the purpose of a particular existing use have been discounted for any one period of not less than six months, that use shall be taken to have ceased to be continued.
28.1.6Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, subject to this section, where -
(a)any existing building or modified existing building constituting part of the premises being lawfully used by way of an existing use is demolished or destroyed or is so substantially damaged as precludes its repair;
(c)The rebuilding of that existing building or modified existing building "may be carried out with the consent of the Council under the Plan".
Section 28.1.7 goes on to establish that the erection of any new building shall only occur on the land previously occupied by the relevant use, and shall be by the erection of a new building which does not provide any lessee compliance with the Plan than did the former use, or will not significantly increase the degree of development of the former use. Under those conditions the new building and its use will be taken to be existing buildings and uses.
In summary the Plan protects the rights of the appellant to replace or restore the existing use of the subject as multi unit (2 flats).
Summary:
In determining amendments or alterations to the valuation, the onus of proof rests upon the appellants, under section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944:
"Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the Chief Executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered. "
In summary, I believe that there is no clear pattern established yet that the Council has relaxed its former policy of requiring compliance with section 7.6.6 of the Town Plan. For this reason, it would be premature to conclude that the subject would receive favourable approval to redevelop into, say, four units at this time. I accept Mr Savage's opinion that under those circumstances the correct valuation of the subject is $132,500.
Conclusion:
After having considered the whole of the evidence I am not persuaded that the appellants have proved their case. The appeal is dismissed, and the Chief Executive's valuation at $132,500 is affirmed.
NG Divett
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0