Esperia Court Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales

[2025] NSWLEC 104

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Esperia Court Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales [2025] NSWLEC 104

Hearing dates:

28 to 30 April 2025

Date of orders:

16 September 2025

Decision date:

16 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 3

Before:

Robson J

Decision:

See orders at [133]

Catchwords:

VALUATION — Eight appeals against land value determinations by Valuer General — Selection and adjustment of comparable sales — Appeals upheld

Legislation Cited:

Strathfield Development Control Plan No 13 – Strathfield Town Centre, cl 3.6.4

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 4.4B

Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), ss 6A, 37

Cases Cited:

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2009] NSWLEC 225

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305

Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWLEC 199

New South Wales Cremation Company Pty Limited v Valuer General [2016] NSWLEC 135

Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 265; (2018) 234 LGERA 444

Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (1906) 5 CLR 418; [1907] HCA 82

Trust Company of Australia Ltd v The Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 181; (2007) 154 LGERA 437

Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Limited [2016] NSWCA 48; (2016) 217 LGERA 1

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Esperia Court Pty Ltd (ACN 000 457 492) (Applicant)
Valuer General of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
N Eastman SC (Applicant)
M Carpenter (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Brown Wright Stein Lawyers (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/00267267; 2023/00267268; 2023/00219693; 2023/00219694; 2023/00219695; 2023/00219696; 2023/00219697; 2023/00219698

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

Introduction and outcome

1. Esperia Court Pty Ltd (‘Esperia’) brings eight appeals pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) (‘Valuation Act’) against the determinations by the Valuer General of New South Wales (‘VG’) of objections to the valuations of four adjoining parcels of land owned by Esperia at 1 The Boulevarde, 3-9 The Boulevarde, 2-10 Churchill Avenue and 12 Churchill Avenue in Strathfield (collectively, ‘Properties’) as at the base valuation dates of 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022.

2. The hearing of these eight appeals proceeded concurrently for three days from 28 April 2025. Esperia relied upon the expert valuation evidence of Grahame Hollinshead and the expert town planning evidence of Jeff Mead. The VG relied upon the expert valuation evidence of Andor Kabok and the expert town planning evidence of David Haskew. The Court received extensive documentary material including 21 expert reports and conducted a view of the Properties and various other properties in Strathfield and Burwood, the sales of which were considered in the expert evidence.

3. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that each of the appeals against the determinations of the VG should be upheld.

Structure of judgment

4. These reasons for judgment are structured as follows. First, I will briefly detail the salient background facts including the descriptions of each of the Properties (and their individual physical attributes and town planning controls), most of which are uncontroversial. I will then summarise the applicable legal principles and consider the evidence before the Court. I will then record the remaining issues, consider the parties’ submissions and make primary findings which relate to issues that are common to all of the discrete appeals, before determining the outstanding issues in each appeal remaining conscious of the material differences between each of the Properties.

Background

5. The Properties are variously adjoining, mostly under common ownership and located next to each other at the intersection between Churchill Avenue and The Boulevarde in Strathfield. The relationship between each of the Properties can be observed in the two aerial photographs annexed to this judgment and marked “A” and “B”, respectively. As noted above, the Court received extensive documentary and oral evidence. As there was agreement in relation to certain background town planning and valuation matters, the relevant facts in relation to each of the Properties may be conveniently summarised as follows.

1 The Boulevarde

6. The land at 1 The Boulevarde, being Lot 1 in DP 173763, has an area of 44.26m², is zoned B3 – Commercial Core under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (‘SLEP’), has a maximum floor space ratio (‘FSR’) of 5:1, a maximum building height of 42m, and a maximum potential gross floor area (‘PGFA’) of 221.3m². It has limited development potential in isolation due to its small land area of 44.26m². It is located within the Strathfield Town Centre, close to Strathfield Plaza, opposite Strathfield Square and approximately 55m south of Strathfield Railway Station. At the relevant base dates, the improvements comprised a two-level mixed-use building, with ground floor retail tenancies and a first-floor office. A small portion of the land is identified as land prone to overland flooding.

3-9 The Boulevarde

7. The land at 3-9 The Boulevarde, being Lot 1 in DP 172769, has an area of 360.4m², is zoned B3 – Commercial Core under the SLEP, has a maximum FSR of 5:1, a maximum building height of 42m, and a maximum PGFA of 1,802m². It is located within the Strathfield Town Centre, close to Strathfield Plaza, opposite Strathfield Square and approximately 55m south of Strathfield Railway Station. At the relevant base dates, the improvements comprised a three-storey mixed-use building with retail tenancies on the ground floor and office premises on the upper floors. A small part of the land is identified as land prone to overland flooding.

2-10 Churchill Avenue

8. The land at 2-10 Churchill Avenue, being Lot 1 in DP 173685, has an area of 796.7m², is zoned B3 – Commercial Core under the SLEP, has a maximum FSR of 5:1, a maximum building height of 42m, and a maximum PGFA of 3,983.5m². The land is located within the Strathfield Town Centre, opposite Strathfield Square and approximately 55m south of Strathfield Railway Station. At the relevant base dates, the improvements comprised a two-level mixed-use building, with the ground floor comprising four retail tenancies and the first floor being occupied by the Strathfield Private Hotel. Part of the land is identified as land prone to overland flooding.

12 Churchill Avenue

9. The land at 12 Churchill Avenue, being Lot 1 in DP 305568, has an area of 645m², is zoned B3 – Commercial Core under the SLEP, has a maximum FSR of 3:1, a maximum building height of 54m, and a maximum PGFA of 1,935m². The land is located within the Strathfield Town Centre, directly adjoining Strathfield Plaza, opposite Strathfield Square and approximately 55m south of Strathfield Railway Station. At the relevant base dates, the improvements comprised a two-storey mixed-use building with retail tenancies along a central thoroughfare with office premises above. Part of the land is identified as land prone to overland flooding.

Parties’ positions

10. As will be further considered, at the hearing, the parties’ respective positions for the relevant base years were:

1 The Boulevarde

3-9 The Boulevarde

2-10 Churchill Avenue

12 Churchill Avenue

11. Notwithstanding that the issued land value in six of the eight proceedings is conservative compared to Mr Kabok’s valuations, the VG does not contend for higher than the issued land value in those six proceedings and consequently seeks an order in seven of the eight proceedings that the appeal be dismissed. As such, the VG concedes that Esperia may succeed in its challenge to the issued land value for valuation year 2022 for 1 The Boulevarde and contends that Esperia’s appeal (proceedings 2023/00267268) should be upheld and the land value should be reduced from $2,435,000 to $1,630,000 based on the opinion of Mr Kabok.

Statutory framework and legal principles

12. This appeal focuses on the application of s 6A of the Valuation Act, which relevantly provides:

(1)   The land value of land is the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona-fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other than land improvements, and made or acquired by the owner or the owner’s predecessor in title had not been made.

…

13. The broader statutory framework relevant to these appeals was summarised, in terms I respectfully adopt, by Sackville AJA in Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Limited [2016] NSWCA 48; (2016) 217 LGERA 1 at [61], [68], [70], as follows:

“[61]   Subject to certain exceptions, the land value of each parcel of land in New South Wales is to be ascertained each year. The valuation is to be made as at 1 July in the valuing year in which the valuation takes place. The Valuer-General is empowered to value any parcel of land at any time.

…

[68]   The Valuer-General is required to give notice of each valuation of land to specified persons, including the owner of the freehold estate on the land. A person to whom the Valuer-General has given notice may lodge a written objection to the valuation...

...

[70]   A person entitled to object to a valuation may appeal to the [Land and Environment Court] if dissatisfied with the Valuer-General’s determination of the objection. Section 40(1) of the [Valuation Act] provides that on appeal the [Land and Environment Court] may do any one or more of the following:

‘(a)   confirm or revoke the decision to which the appeal relates,

(b)   make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates,

(c)   remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in accordance with the Court’s finding or decision.’

On an appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant’s case.” (Some citations omitted.)

14. In undertaking the statutory valuation task and determining land value for the land at the base date, the Court needs to consider a notional sale whereby the land (shorn of improvements) is being hypothetically purchased for its “highest and best use”: Trust Company of Australia Ltd v The Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 181; (2007) 154 LGERA 437 at [32]; Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 265; (2018) 234 LGERA 444 at [16].

15. In this way, the notional sale occurs between a hypothetical willing purchaser and a not unwilling vendor: Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (1906) 5 CLR 418 at 432; [1907] HCA 82 (‘Spencer’). This means that a hypothetical “bona-fide seller”, cognisant of land value (based upon the land’s potential use or continuing use), would not part with the land for less than what it is worth.

16. It is well-established that if there are comparable sales available, being sales of properties sufficiently similar to the subject property (or here, each of the Properties) so as to allow a comparison to be made between them, then direct comparison should provide the conventional method of valuation. Given that both Mr Hollinshead and Mr Kabok adopted the comparable sales approach, and that there is a dispute as to how each one of them approached the task, it is relevant to note that generally this methodology is undertaken in four steps, being: accumulation, analysis, adjustment, and application, as described and considered in Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWLEC 199 (‘Marroun’) at [197]; New South Wales Cremation Company Pty Limited v Valuer General [2016] NSWLEC 135 at [99].

17. First, the valuer (which includes the Court acting as valuer on appeal) is to accumulate comparable properties. As will be seen, there is a dispute as to what market sales evidence relied upon is sufficiently comparable.

18. Secondly, the valuer then analyses those comparable sales. This often involves converting the value of those sales into another measurement that can be easily compared: Marroun at [201]. Here, the valuers have adopted a value rate per square metre of PGFA as the unitary value of assessing the value of each of the Properties.

19. Thirdly, the valuer (judicial or otherwise) then adjusts those properties it considers comparable to create equivalence with the unimproved subject property. Again, as there is disagreement between the valuers as to what adjustments (and the amounts thereof) are necessary, I note the comments of Biscoe J in Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2009] NSWLEC 225 at [31]:

“... Accepted valuation practice permits adjustments for differences, such as in location, area and time to enable valuers to have comparable values which, following adjustment, account for the various differences with the subject property. Such adjustments are generally based on a reasoning process drawing on the skill and experience of the valuer and are undertaken to derive an opinion of value through a deductive process. Because properties are rarely identical, adjustments for differences are obviously necessary but caution is required through making as few adjustments as possible, in a consistent manner, to ensure the reliability of the comparable sale when related to the subject property. Too many adjustments potentially render the comparable sale unsafe to rely upon. Caution is therefore required where large adjustments are to be made. ...”

20. Fourthly, the valuer then applies the comparable sales approach to determine the value of the subject property based on the adjusted values of the comparable properties.

Town planning evidence

21. The town planners, Mr Mead (on behalf of Esperia) and Mr Haskew (on behalf of the VG), were mostly in agreement in relation to the applicable planning controls which are recorded in the descriptions at [6]-[9] above. However, they remained at issue in relation to the application of cl 3.6.4 of the Strathfield Development Control Plan No 13 – Strathfield Town Centre (‘DCP’), which provides that vehicular access is not permitted across property boundaries fronting The Boulevarde and Churchill Avenue. While they agreed that this provision would apply to each of the Properties irrespective of whether they were developed individually or amalgamated with one or more adjacent parcels of land because each has a frontage either to The Boulevarde or Churchill Avenue, and agreed that there were no realistic prospects for isolated functional development of 1 The Boulevarde or 3-9 The Boulevarde given their respective sizes, they disagreed in relation to the isolated development potential of 2-10 Churchill Avenue and 12 Churchill Avenue.

22. Mr Haskew opines that 12 Churchill Avenue would need to amalgamate with southern or western adjoining lots (namely, Strathfield Plaza) to activate the 5:1 bonus FSR available under cl 4.4B of the SLEP, and that there is potential for 12 Churchill Avenue to be developed in isolation provided that amalgamation attempts (including with 2-10 Churchill Avenue) were made and refused, which would then permit a development application for isolated development because the width of 12 Churchill Avenue is sufficient to accommodate an efficient basement parking layout. Similarly, he opines that 2-10 Churchill Avenue is capable of accommodating isolated development (again provided that amalgamation attempts were made before lodging a development application for isolated development) as the width of 2-10 Churchill Avenue would also accommodate an efficient basement parking arrangement.

23. Mr Mead opines that it is unlikely that residential development (in the form of shop-top housing) would be approved for either 2-10 Churchill Avenue or 12 Churchill Avenue, given the degree of variation to the minimum lot size control in the SLEP and because he considers that the DCP does not allow for vehicular access from Churchill Avenue which would preclude car parking. Despite this, he agrees with Mr Haskew that there would be an expectation that some amalgamation arrangements would be required to meet the minimum lot size if an isolated development application were submitted for either 2-10 Churchill Avenue or 12 Churchill Avenue.

24. Noting that a development application for an eleven-storey retail and commercial development over three levels of basement parking (DA 2016/087) across three of the Properties (being 1 The Boulevarde, 3-9 The Boulevarde, and 2-10 Churchill Avenue) providing for access onto Churchill Avenue, had been approved on 16 November 2017 by the Sydney Central Planning Panel, Mr Mead and Mr Haskew agree that access from Churchill Avenue may be supported by Strathfield Council on the premise of a consolidation of multiple lots. Despite this, Mr Mead maintains that access to individual lots would not be approved, with which Mr Haskew disagrees.

25. Mr Mead and Mr Haskew agree that the impact of the need to consolidate parcels of land to achieve the highest and best use for the Properties is a matter for the valuers.

Valuation evidence

26. As noted above, Mr Hollinshead (on behalf of Esperia) and Mr Kabok (on behalf of the VG) provided detailed expert valuation evidence and agreed that the method of valuation should be the comparable sales approach, with the land value of each of the Properties being assessed by applying a value rate per square metre of the land’s PGFA.

27. In summary, as will be considered later in this judgment, the valuers agree that the highest and best use for 1 The Boulevarde and 3-9 The Boulevarde is commercial redevelopment in conjunction with adjoining lots, and that the highest and best use for 2-10 Churchill Avenue is commercial redevelopment that incorporates residential accommodation.

28. Notwithstanding these agreements, Mr Hollinshead opines that with respect to each of the Properties, in light of the risks associated with, first, obtaining an approval due to the lack of vehicular access even if/when amalgamated; and second, the time and cost associated with any potential amalgamation, the highest and best use of the land at the base dates was for “land banking”, being for “future redevelopment that incorporates residential accommodation, subject to achieving amalgamation” (for example, Ex A, p 365). In particular, Mr Hollinshead maintains that the highest and best use for 12 Churchill Avenue is commercial premises, whereas Mr Kabok opines that 12 Churchill Avenue also has the potential for a shop-top housing development if amalgamated with an adjoining site.

Sales evidence

29. Mr Kabok analysed three comparable sales for his valuations, being: 5 Strathfield Square, Strathfield; 12 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield (noting that 12 Churchill Avenue is one of the Properties); and 37A-39 Burwood Road, Burwood. He opines that he accumulated these sales having regard to his view that these mixed-use sales are the best form of evidence because they reflect the highest and best use of the Properties.

30. Mr Hollinshead analysed six sales, being: 54 The Boulevarde, Strathfield; 32-34 Burwood Road, Burwood; 81 Burwood Road, Burwood; 37A-39 Burwood Road, Burwood; 62-64 Burwood Road, Burwood; and 20-24 Railway Parade and 2-4 Burleigh Street, Burwood (which I will refer to as ‘20-24 Railway Parade’). He opines that given the lack of market sales evidence within the Strathfield local government area, his sales are in the adjoining local government area of Burwood as these sales have a “latent development potential” similar to the Properties.

31. Notwithstanding that there is only one common sale between them (being 37A-39 Burwood Road, Burwood) and that each expert otherwise disagreed with the other expert’s primary selection of comparable sales, the valuers analysed all the selected sales and, in relation to each, agreed on, first, the deduced land value; second, the PGFA; and third, the land value on a value rate per square metre PGFA basis as at the respective sale dates as follows.

32. For 1 The Boulevarde, the agreement is:

33. For each of 3-9 The Boulevarde, 2-10 Churchill Avenue, and 12 Churchill Avenue, the agreement is:

34. As will be considered later in this judgment, the valuers disagreed as to the appropriate adjustments for time/market movement to their agreed land value rate to reflect the differences between the date of each sale when compared to the relevant valuation base dates (being 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022).

35. With respect to 1 The Boulevarde, their respective opinions (which reflect Mr Hollinshead’s adjustment of 1% per month and Mr Kabok’s adjustment of 0.5% per month), are:

36. With respect to 3-9 The Boulevarde, 2-10 Churchill Avenue, and 12 Churchill Avenue, their respective opinions are:

37. Having clarified their respective calculations of the applicable land value for each comparable sale, each valuer applied explicit adjustments to the common unit of comparison ($/m² PGFA) to create equivalence between them and each of the Properties. Each valuer then determined the respective land values (as shown in the tables at [10] above) by applying his derived rate (shown in bold below), as follows.

1 The Boulevarde

38. Mr Kabok’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $1,580,000, calculated 221.3m² PGFA multiplied by $11,875/m² PGFA minus 40% for limited marketability.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $1,630,000, calculated 221.3m² PGFA multiplied by $12,250/m² PGFA minus 40% for limited marketability.

39. Mr Hollinshead’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $1,130,000, calculated 221.3m² PGFA multiplied by $5,100/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $1,260,000, calculated 221.3m² PGFA multiplied by $5,700/m² PGFA.

3-9 The Boulevarde

40. Mr Kabok’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $14,575,000, calculated 1,802m² PGFA multiplied by $8,090/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $14,955,000, calculated 1,802m² PGFA multiplied by $8,300/m² PGFA.

41. Mr Hollinshead’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $5,765,000, calculated 1,802m² PGFA multiplied by $3,200/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $6,670,000, calculated 1,802m² PGFA multiplied by $3,700/m² PGFA.

2-10 Churchill Avenue

42. Mr Kabok’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $29,475,000, calculated 3,983.5m² PGFA multiplied by $7,400/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $30,630,000, calculated 3,983.5m² PGFA multiplied by $7,690/m² PGFA.

43. Mr Hollinshead’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $12,150,000, calculated 3,983.5m² PGFA multiplied by $3,050/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $14,340,000, calculated 3,983.5m² PGFA multiplied by $3,600/m² PGFA.

12 Churchill Avenue

44. Mr Kabok’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $17,995,000, calculated 1,935m² PGFA multiplied by $9,300/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $18,670,000, calculated 1,935m² PGFA multiplied by $9,650/m² PGFA.

45. Mr Hollinshead’s determination:

1. As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $6,770,000, calculated 1,935m² PGFA multiplied by $3,500/m² PGFA.

2. As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $7,740,000, calculated 1,935m² PGFA multiplied by $4,000/m² PGFA.

Issues arising from the expert evidence

46. The issues between the parties remain, first, the selection of the comparable sales (in circumstances where Mr Hollinshead doubts that 5 Strathfield Square and 12 Churchill Avenue are sufficiently comparable sales, and Mr Kabok doubts that the “Burwood sales” (being 54 The Boulevarde, 32-34 Burwood Road, 37A-39 Burwood Road, 62-64 Burwood Road, 81 Burwood Road and 20-24 Railway Parade), other than the sale of 37A-39 Burwood Road, are comparable sales); second, the adjustment required for time/market movement to their agreed land value rate; and third, the determination of which specific adjustments are required to be made to each of the selected comparable sales including location, size, shape, height, easement (in relation to 5 Strathfield Square), flooding (in relation to 12 Churchill Avenue), town planning (in relation to 20-24 Railway Parade), access (in relation to 20-24 Railway Parade and 5 Strathfield Square), and amalgamation (in relation to 37A-39 Burwood Road, 12 Churchill Avenue and 62-64 Burwood Road).

47. While I keep the differences between the town planners’ evidence in mind, those differences are not determinative of the issues which primarily now relate to the determination of the most appropriate comparable sales and the adjustments to be made thereto. This is particularly so when the valuers have helpfully agreed on a unitary form of comparison.

Submissions

5 Strathfield Square

48. Esperia submits that the sale of 5 Strathfield Square is not a sufficiently comparable sale as it appeals to a different class of purchaser, evidenced by the 50% adjustment made by Mr Hollinshead to this sale for “buyer profile”, and that this large adjustment is a good indication that this sale should not be accepted by the Court as being sufficiently comparable or reliable because 5 Strathfield Square is not reflective of the highest and best use of the Properties.

49. Esperia maintains that in circumstances where 5 Strathfield Square has proximity to Strathfield Railway Station and fronts public spaces such as Strathfield Square itself, with access and amalgamation potential difficulties, 5 Strathfield Square is clearly a good site for a pub use and, as such, the maximisation of controls for floor space do not matter to a purchaser with a pub use in mind, and the analysis of this sale should not occur on a PGFA basis.

50. Esperia submits that the evidence demonstrates that the subsequent use of 5 Strathfield Square for the purpose of a pub “clearly” does not involve a “mixed-use site” sale, which sale Mr Kabok maintains is the “best form of evidence because they reflect the highest and best use of the [Properties]” (Ex A, p 366).

51. Esperia submits that the VG’s contention that the sale of 5 Strathfield Square should be treated “equivalently” because it has all of the same controls is inconsistent with the fact that the highest and best use is not simply determined by the planning controls, but by the nature of the class of purchaser who seeks to exploit them potentially for different purposes.

52. Esperia submits that Mr Hollinshead has adopted a logical and plausible approach with respect to the sale of 5 Strathfield Square as his evidence was that, because there had been an “expression of interest” campaign, the successful bidder would need to have put the best bid forward (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 148(33-37)). As the class of purchaser for 5 Strathfield Square has sought and received approval for a pub, Esperia maintains that the class of purchaser is different with a potentially different methodology.

53. In summary, Esperia submits that it is clear that the sale of 5 Strathfield Square does not meet the criteria for having the same highest and best use as that of the Properties, and as such, the Court should disregard this sale.

54. The VG submits that the Court should reject Mr Hollinshead’s opinion that the sale of 5 Strathfield Square is not comparable to any of the Properties because its sale was determined based on its intended use as a “pub use” and therefore appeals to a different market. The VG submits that because 5 Strathfield Square has the same zoning and permissible uses as the Properties, any purchaser of land in the B3 – Commercial Core zone will be competing against other purchasers in the B3 – Commercial Core zone regardless of whether one purchaser wants to build a pub or a medical centre.

55. The VG submits that, while Mr Hollinshead agreed in cross-examination that, first, 5 Strathfield Square was sold via an expression of interest on the open market; second, it is located close to the Properties; third, it has the same zoning and permissible uses as each of the Properties; and fourth, purchasers for the B3 – Commercial Core zone would be competing against each other (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, pp 146(34-50), 147(1-32)), he simply states that the subsequent development application for the pub use reveals the intention of the purchaser, however he did not make any enquiries of the selling agent. Conversely, Mr Kabok made such enquiries, and his evidence is that the selling agent was of the opinion that a premium was not paid for 5 Strathfield Square (for example, Ex A, p 723). As such, the VG submits that Mr Hollinshead’s position should not be preferred.

Finding

56. I consider 5 Strathfield Square is a comparable sale that can be relied upon. I do not accept Esperia’s position that it was put to a “pub use” subsequent to its purchase is persuasive. I consider that, even if it had been purchased on that basis, and even if the purchaser determined the purchase offer based upon anticipated capitalised income (based upon use as a pub), I accept the VG’s submissions summarised above.

57. Moreover, I do not accept that this sale is not a sufficiently comparable sale because it appeals to a different class of purchaser and that this sale is not reflective of the same (or similar) highest and best use as that of the Properties. In forming my view, I have taken into account that this sale comprises a regularly shaped corner block, is located opposite Strathfield Square, is in close proximity to Strathfield Railway Station and is “blighted” by a 3m-wide easement. The evidence shows, and Mr Hollinshead agrees, that the property was sold by an expression of interest on the open market. It is, and I find, located close to the Properties and clearly has the same permissible uses and is therefore appropriately comparable.

58. It follows that I do not accept the fact that there was a development application subsequently made which did not involve a “mixed-use” is determinative. While I am conscious of various descriptors of the highest and best use (being “for the most advantageous purpose for which it was adapted”: Spencer at 440-441), and that there is no statutory definition of “highest and best use”, I prefer the evidence of Mr Kabok such that I do not accept that this sale is not comparable because it appeals to a different market. It is clear on the evidence that this land has the same zoning as the Properties and the same permissible uses. As such, I find that any purchaser of land in the B3 – Commercial Core zone will be competing against other purchasers of land in that zone irrespective of whether one purchaser desires to build a pub or a medical centre or put the land to some other permissible use. I am comforted in this regard by Mr Kabok’s evidence that the selling agent whom he enquired was of the opinion that a premium was not paid for 5 Strathfield Square.

59. In noting my preference for the evidence of Mr Kabok in relation to this sale, I accept and take into account in my various findings in this judgment that, in relation to a number of issues between the valuers, there is some weight in Esperia’s criticisms of Mr Kabok that he did not, in accordance with the accepted obligations of an expert, articulate with precision in his reports the reasoning behind a number of his stated opinions.

60. In summary, in relation to 5 Strathfield Square, I do not accept that there is a different “class of purchaser” who seeks to exploit a different use or who would not be interested or would not transact on the basis of residential floor space, and I do not accept Esperia’s position that a “different class of purchaser with a ... different methodology” alters the fact that a sale took place on land similarly zoned and closely located as to the Properties. As such, I do not consider that this sale should be disregarded, nor should Mr Hollinshead’s adjustment of 50% for buyer profile be applied.

Sale of 12 Churchill Avenue

61. Mr Hollinshead does not rely on the sale of 12 Churchill Avenue which occurred on 28 March 2017 on the basis that it was “too old”. Mr Kabok relies on it primarily because of its proximity to the Properties and maintains that “dated” sales are acceptable provided that adjustments in market movement can be, and are, made.

62. The VG submits that Mr Hollinshead is wrong to exclude this sale as a “dated” sale, primarily because it was agreed that there are very few sales in Strathfield Town Centre which are located next to Strathfield Plaza and opposite Strathfield Railway Station that occurred around the relevant valuation years in circumstances where this sale, being one of the Properties, is effectively a “perfect” sale.

63. The VG notes that although Mr Hollinshead agreed that the deduced land value of 12 Churchill Avenue as at the date of its sale was $22,500,000, in his individual report he values this sale at $6,440,000 ($6,770,000 in the joint report) for the 2021 valuation year and $8,195,000 ($7,740,000 in the joint report) for the 2022 valuation year. The VG submits that there is no evidence to support such a reduction in land values.

64. Esperia submits that Mr Kabok’s stated approach that mixed-use sales are to be relied upon is “breached” by his use of this sale as he agreed in cross-examination that this sale was the subject of an “existing commercial use” and not a mixed-use development site (for example, Ex A, p 385), while Mr Kabok also accepted that the use of a sale “so old” can be “unreliable” (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, pp 80(45-50), 81(1-22)).

65. Esperia also maintains that the same approach which should be applied to the sale of 5 Strathfield Square (noted at [48]-[52] above) is applicable to the 2017 sale of 12 Churchill Avenue, which sale was for a different purpose or a different highest and best use, was not a mixed-use development site, was not purchased to maximise the floor space, and thus, should not be analysed on a PGFA basis. Esperia again submits that Mr Kabok’s analysis does not provide any reasoned basis as to how a sale can be adjusted for time over a four or five-year period to provide a reliable indicator that such a “large” adjustment is warranted in circumstances where Mr Hollinshead’s analysis of the sales indicates a significant drop in the market pre and post the COVID-19 pandemic, and as such, there is no reliable information for the Court to be satisfied that an adjustment for time could be made for such a dated sale.

Finding

66. While dealing with comparable sales under the rubric of accumulation, I do not accept Esperia’s criticism of Mr Kabok’s reliance upon the sale of 12 Churchill Avenue. Although there are difficulties in relation to analysing sales due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I do not accept that it is “old” or “dated” in circumstances where both valuers have made not insignificant adjustments.

67. Although Esperia submitted that this sale was for “a different purpose” (or a different highest and best use) in that it was not a mixed-use development and, as such, was not bought to maximise the floor space and should not be analysed on a PGFA basis, I do not consider Esperia’s submissions compelling, and find that, although this sale occurred some years before the relevant valuation dates, the fact that 12 Churchill Avenue is both one of and very close to the Properties is persuasive.

Adjustment for time/market movement

68. The adjustment for time across each of the comparable sales relevant to both the 2021 and 2022 valuation dates (noted at [35]-[36] above) remains an issue. It is the different data relied upon by each of the valuers which separates their adjustments (being 1% per month by Mr Hollinshead and 0.5% per month by Mr Kabok) in circumstances where Mr Kabok relies on the CoreLogic (and Pricefinder) published data which primarily relates to the sale of residential apartments in both Strathfield and Burwood, while Mr Hollinshead relies on a different set of data extracted from two reports published by the VG titled “Report on NSW land values at 1 July 2021” and “Report on NSW land values at 1 July 2022” (collectively, ‘VG Reports’).

69. The VG submits that the Court would prefer the market movement calculated by Mr Kabok as the CoreLogic figures upon which he relies are sales that have occurred in Strathfield and Burwood, while Mr Hollinshead relies on the VG Reports which are not specific to Strathfield as the “Sydney Central Region” used in the VG Reports includes a number of local government areas.

70. Esperia submits that in each of the joint valuation reports, Mr Hollinshead adopted a reasoned, market-based approach to the disputed adjustment for time by adopting a three-step approach. First, he conducted a paired-sales analysis which showed variable results reflecting a post COVID-19 pandemic decline in development sites and that, where different classes of purchasers were involved, he was not able to extract a reliable “per calendar month” figure.

71. Secondly, he reviewed Mr Kabok’s primary evidence and considered the expanded material that both valuers had access to (as listed in the “Agreement” section of each of the joint reports).

72. Thirdly, although he had initially adopted a 2% per calendar month adjustment for time in his reports (based on his analysis of sales of commercial properties), after considering Mr Kabok’s primary evidence indicating “about half a per cent a month” which was based on the sale of residential apartments, he opined that an appropriate compromise was “some middle ground between those two components” and proceeded to adopt an adjustment of 1% per calendar month which placed some weight on the commercial statistics and some weight on the residential data (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 140(23-31)).

73. Esperia submits that, conversely, Mr Kabok did not shift his reliance on the CoreLogic data for residential apartment sales which data does not reflect the market for development sites, as it involves a different class of purchaser with different risks and exposure to, first, development cost variations; second, lending restrictions and conditions; third, exposure to planning risks and delay; and fourth, construction costs and delay, which are not reflected “at all” in the end user “purchasers of units on an individual basis” data relied upon by Mr Kabok.

Finding

74. Subject to matters considered later in this judgment, I generally accept the position of Esperia for the reasons noted at [70]-[72] above and I prefer the evidence and approach of Mr Hollinshead in relation to the adjustments for time/market movement and, particularly, his reliance upon the VG Reports (although they do not specifically relate to the Strathfield local government area) as they analysed some 67,000 sales in 2021 and 61,000 sales in 2022. I find his “compromise” of 1% per month for the relevant period 1 July 2021 to 1 July 2022 appropriate. I therefore adopt Mr Hollinshead’s figures for market movement noted at [35]-[36] above.

Adjustment for height

75. Mr Hollinshead made no adjustment for height, whereas Mr Kabok included an adjustment for height with respect to all the Properties: 1 The Boulevarde (adjustments ranging from 5%, to −5%, to −10%); 3-9 The Boulevarde (adjustments ranging from 5%, to −5%, to −15%); 2-10 Churchill Avenue (adjustments ranging from 5%, to −15%); and 12 Churchill Avenue (adjustments ranging from 12.5%, to −2.5%, to −10%).

76. Esperia submits that Mr Kabok’s adjustments for height should not be made as it would amount to “double counting”, because height is a function of floor space (which is the relevant metric for measuring PGFA, the unitary value agreed between the valuers) and the suggestion that higher buildings fetch higher end prices is not made out by any evidence directed to the development of mixed-use properties. Esperia further submits that Mr Kabok does not provide any written explanation of how he has determined his adjustments for height, despite addressing them in the joint report.

77. The VG submits that the Court should prefer the evidence of Mr Kabok on the need for an adjustment for height, since Mr Hollinshead noted that he was familiar with the proposition that residential units which are higher up in a building sell for more when views are obtained (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 145(24-28)) but maintained his position that height does not matter because the building is limited by the FSR (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 145(46-48)).

Finding

78. Although not without concern, and while accepting the proposition that a residential unit that is higher in a building will generally be considered more valuable, in circumstances where the parties have accepted a unitary value based upon PGFA, I accept Mr Hollinshead’s evidence that there should be no discrete adjustment for height because the height limit controls that affect the Properties are “so great” that the floor plate and the FSR controls never achieve those (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 145(40-42)).

Adjustment for the easement burdening 5 Strathfield Square

79. Esperia submits that in considering 5 Strathfield Square, no adjustment for the easement burdening that property is required as Mr Hollinshead’s evidence shows that, taken at its highest and best use for a pub use, the easement presents no development impediment of any type, and in any event, as considered earlier in this judgment, Esperia maintains that 5 Strathfield Square is not a comparable sale.

80. The VG submits that the Court ought to consider an adjustment (as made by Mr Kabok) for the easement burdening 5 Strathfield Square because it does not matter whether the land is being developed for a pub use or a mixed-use development, as the right of way needs to be maintained so as to provide clear and free access to the land that is benefitted by the easement, despite Mr Hollinshead’s opinion that the market acquired the land for a pub use and that the easement does not impact on that use.

Finding

81. In addition to the findings I have made above in relation to 5 Strathfield Square (which I will adopt when considering adjustments later in this judgment), I prefer the VG’s position that there must be some recognition (and therefore an adjustment) for the easement burdening 5 Strathfield Square for the reasons submitted by the VG. Although I accept that Esperia’s position is related to its contention that there is a separate “buyer profile” and that the property was not purchased for a mixed-use development (submissions which I have not accepted), I remain of the view that there is a need to adjust for the sale of a property which is burdened by an easement.

Adjustment for amalgamation

82. The VG submits that the Court would accept the adjustment for amalgamation made by Mr Kabok at −10% to the sale of 62-64 Burwood Road and, effectively, his −10% (“rule of thumb”) adjustment for an “adjoining owner premium” (and not for a discrete amalgamation “risk”) to the sale of 12 Churchill Avenue which is “fair and reasonable”. In respect of 12 Churchill Avenue, Mr Hollinshead claims the adjoining owner premium is the same as the amalgamation risk for which he makes a −30% adjustment but the VG submits that there is no evidence which suggests that a 30% premium was paid, and as such, the Court should prefer Mr Kabok’s adjustment for amalgamation.

83. Esperia notes that Mr Hollinshead’s −30% adjustment for amalgamation was made only for three sales, being 37A-39 Burwood Road: −30% for Mr Hollinshead (noting 0% for Mr Kabok); 12 Churchill Avenue: −30% for Mr Hollinshead (noting −10% for Mr Kabok for so-called “adjoining owner premium” which Esperia maintains is the same as “amalgamation risk”); and 62-64 Burwood Road: −30% for Mr Hollinshead (noting −10% for Mr Kabok), and submits that when Mr Hollinshead agrees on the PGFA with Mr Kabok for each of the Properties, he is agreeing that each is capable of achieving the maximum floor space under the planning controls which will take time and, as such, that there is the time value of money that a Spencer purchaser would legitimately and reasonably factor in.

84. Esperia therefore submits that Mr Hollinshead’s approach to adjustment for amalgamation is reasoned and sound, which Mr Kabok accepted (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, pp 117(44-50), 118(1-7)), because as each of the Properties and the comparable sales has an “agreed PGFA”, there is no real dispute regarding this issue such that the valuers agree that amalgamation will allow the Properties (and the comparable sales relied upon) to yield the relevant PGFA.

Finding

85. I accept that the valuers’ agreement in relation to adopting PGFA, at least according to Mr Hollinshead, is on the basis that achieving the maximum allowable floor space may take some time, noting that I find some confusion in Mr Kabok’s oral evidence that his adjustment for “amalgamation” is, in fact, an “adjoining owner premium”. I also accept the VG’s submission that there is no evidence that a premium of 30% was paid in relation to 12 Churchill Avenue. However, I note Mr Hollinshead adopts an adjustment of −30% (for example, Ex A, pp 1285-1286), which represents an interest rate and a time factor such that the purchaser of one of the Properties would actively seek to acquire adjoining sites, but would factor in the time to do so. This would include the holding costs of the Property until amalgamation. I accept Mr Hollinshead’s evidence that an appropriate interest rate would be 5% per annum plus a risk allowance (as amalgamation may take longer), which leads to his −30% adjustment. In these circumstances, I prefer the adjustments made by Mr Hollinshead (except for the common sale of 37A-39 Burwood Road in relation to 1 The Boulevarde, for which I make a lesser adjustment for amalgamation given the relatively similar size and development potential of those properties).

Adjustment for town planning

86. Both valuers make an adjustment for “town planning” (25% by Mr Hollinshead and 40% by Mr Kabok) to 20-24 Railway Parade (which sale is not relied upon in relation to 1 The Boulevarde) because the applicable planning controls restrict the yield of residential floor space. Esperia submits that while Mr Kabok maintains where a change to potential residential floor space yield occurs, a large adjustment is warranted, he makes no adjustment to his sales of 5 Strathfield Square and 12 Churchill Avenue (despite Esperia’s position that neither sale was transacted for the highest and best use to add “any” floor space) which reveals a “logic flaw” in Mr Kabok’s evidence.

87. Esperia thus submits that Mr Hollinshead’s evidence and reasoning in relation to the adjustment for town planning to 20-24 Railway Parade should be preferred and adopted as he has set out a logical basis for making his adjustment (as per Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 (‘Makita’)) (for example, Ex A, p 282), whereas Mr Kabok simply asserts that the adjustment should be 40% without any analysis in his reports (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, p 111(2-22)).

Finding

88. I find that an adjustment of 30% should be applied to reflect the fact that 20-24 Railway Parade has planning controls restricting residential use to one third of the floor space.

Burwood sales

89. In relation to Mr Hollinshead’s reliance on the Burwood sales which are disputed by Mr Kabok (being 54 The Boulevarde, 37A-39 Burwood Road, 62-64 Burwood Road, 32-34 Burwood Road, 81 Burwood Road and 20-24 Railway Parade), Esperia again submits that Mr Kabok does not provide reasons for his contention that each requires a large adjustment for location and fails to meet the usual requirements for expert evidence (per Makita at [85]), and as such, the Court should prefer Mr Hollinshead’s position as he has provided a mathematical basis for his calculations where a large adjustment is made and has explained how he approached the task of pricing or quantifying the percentage adjustments that he has made to the Burwood sales (for example, Ex A, p 279).

90. The respective (disputed) adjustments for location to the Burwood sales are:

1. 54 The Boulevarde (which is only relevant to 1 The Boulevarde): 5% for Mr Hollinshead, and 20% for Mr Kabok;

2. 37A-39 Burwood Road (for all of the Properties): −5% or −10% for Mr Hollinshead, and 0% for Mr Kabok;

3. 62-64 Burwood Road (for all of the Properties except 1 The Boulevarde): 5% or 10% for Mr Hollinshead, and 45% for Mr Kabok;

4. 32-34 Burwood Road (for all of the Properties except 1 The Boulevarde): 15% or 20% for Mr Hollinshead, and 45% for Mr Kabok; and

5. 20-24 Railway Parade (for all of the Properties except 1 The Boulevarde): 5% or 10% for Mr Hollinshead, and 35% for Mr Kabok.

91. In relation to 81 Burwood Road, Esperia submits that the fact that both Mr Hollinshead and Mr Kabok agree on a 5% adjustment for location confirms that nothing in the fact that the Burwood sales are within a neighbouring local government area would make these sales “unreliable”. As such, Esperia contends that these sales either do not require adjustment or require a modest adjustment of 5% for location.

92. In relation to 54 The Boulevarde (which only relates to 1 The Boulevard), Esperia notes that this sale is less than 170m away and is able to be “directly observed” from 1 The Boulevarde. Although that distance of itself equates to a “slightly” inferior location which Mr Hollinshead opines warrants a modest adjustment of 5% for location, this fact cannot justify Mr Kabok’s adjustment of 20% (for which he did not provide any written justification) and there is no evidence to justify this “stark” adjustment.

93. In relation to 37A-39 Burwood Road, Esperia notes that while Mr Kabok initially adjusted for location consistent with Mr Hollinshead’s evidence, he changed his view in the joint report to a 0% adjustment but did not explain this change. As a consequence, Esperia maintains that the Burwood sales are comparable without large location adjustments.

94. In relation to both 62-64 Burwood Road and 32-34 Burwood Road, Esperia notes that they are only a few hundred metres away from Burwood Westfield shopping centre and from 37A-39 Burwood Road, for which Mr Kabok did not adjust, and again, little explanation is given for his position.

95. In relation to 20-24 Railway Parade, Esperia notes that Mr Kabok’s adjustment for location of 35% to the Properties (except 1 The Boulevarde) is not supported by evidence nor by an explanation with respect to how it was calculated. However, Mr Hollinshead gave detailed reasons and evidence for his 5-10% adjustments for location for each of the Properties.

96. Esperia submits that the residual reason why there was a difference in the derived rate between Mr Kabok’s Strathfield sales (being 5 Strathfield Square and 12 Churchill Avenue) and Mr Hollinshead’s Burwood sales is attributable to location alone, which provides another explanation as to why Mr Kabok’s derived rate is too high (and why Mr Hollinshead’s approach is correct). As such, Esperia contends that Mr Kabok has “reverse engineer[ed]” those sales to provide a significant upward adjustment for location to sales that are visible from one another.

Finding

97. I accept the submissions of Esperia and find that the Burwood sales can be used as comparable sales. As recorded later in this judgment, I have determined adjustments of between 10% to 30% reflecting my consideration that except for 37A-39 Burwood Road, a material adjustment for their location is appropriate.

Adjustment for size

98. I have considered the adjustments made (by the valuers) to the selected sales in relation to size. The adjustment for size relates to the sales’ relative PGFA in comparison to each of the Properties. The adjustments reflect that a larger sale property would have a lower rate on a $/m² PGFA basis (if all else was equal) when compared with a smaller Property and vice versa. I have adopted those adjustments agreed between the valuers and have otherwise discretely determined the disputed adjustments. There was little difference between the valuers in relation to 1 The Boulevarde, 12 Churchill Avenue and 3-9 The Boulevarde. In relation to 2-10 Churchill Avenue, I have determined the adjustments at a figure variously between those proffered by the valuers.

Adjustment for shape

99. Esperia submits that Mr Kabok’s adjustments for shape in analysing 3-9 The Boulevarde should be disregarded as he provides no explanation as to these adjustments of −5%, particularly where he has revised his opinion (from −10% to −5%) by the time of the joint report (Tcpt, 29 April 2025, pp 105(37-48), 106(6-20)).

Finding

100. I accept that adjustment for shape should be allowed in relation to 3-9 The Boulevarde, and I find that Mr Kabok’s −5% adjustments for shape are appropriate as they reflect the fact, as stated by Mr Kabok, that 3-9 The Boulevarde is irregularly shaped having a “dog leg” fronting Churchill Avenue and the remainder of the site fronting The Boulevarde.

Adjustment for flooding

101. While there is mostly agreement in relation to adjustment for flooding, Esperia contends that the adjustment for flooding of 2.5% made by Mr Kabok to the sale of 12 Churchill Avenue is “immaterial”, repeating its submissions that this “older” sale is not a comparable sale (noted at [64]-[65] above). As noted above, I accept that this sale is comparable and find that Mr Kabok’s adjustment is warranted given the valuers’ agreement regarding its susceptibility to flooding.

Adjustment for access

102. I accept Esperia’s submission that Mr Hollinshead’s evidence in relation to the adjustments for access for 5 Strathfield Square (which Esperia maintains is not a comparable sale) and for 20-24 Railway Parade (which is made by both valuers, but with a 5% difference: −10% by Mr Hollinshead and −5% by Mr Kabok) should be preferred, as Mr Hollinshead has set out his reasons supporting an adjustment of −10% (namely, 20-24 Railway Parade has a dual frontage and is therefore superior), whereas Mr Kabok has simply made the assertion of −5%.

Determination of land value

103. I have considered all the evidence and submissions and have determined adjustments to each of the comparable sales in relation to each of the Properties which I record in four tables annexed to this judgment and marked “C” (in a format similar to that which was provided in the valuers’ joint reports).

104. In determining the adjustments, I have adopted my findings in relation to my acceptance of the comparability of 5 Strathfield Square and 12 Churchill Avenue as well as my acceptance of the comparability of the Burwood sales, all of which are now subject to my determined adjustments.

105. As noted above, I have not adopted significant buyer profile adjustments proffered by Mr Hollinshead in relation to 5 Strathfield Square and 12 Churchill Avenue.

106. Having adopted, as noted above at [74], the adjustments for the timing of each of the sales to the relevant dates (being 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022) in accordance with the opinion of Mr Hollinshead, I have formed my own view as to the adjustments (which were not agreed) to each of the sales in relation to location and size (as shown in Annexure “C” to this judgment). My adjustments in relation to those aspects (generally) fall between the respective valuers’ positions.

107. In relation to adjustments for flooding, town planning, access, and in some cases, amalgamation, I have adopted the adjustments that have been agreed between the valuers.

1 The Boulevarde

108. In relation to 1 The Boulevarde, the adjusted rate range that I have determined as at 1 July 2021 is $4,906/m² PGFA to $10,717/m² PGFA. My adjusted rate range as at 1 July 2022 is from $5,495/m² PGFA to $12,153/m² PGFA.

109. The sale of 81 Burwood Road required the highest total adjustment of 35%, and the sale of 37A-39 Burwood Road required the lowest total adjustment of 5%.

110. As at 1 July 2021, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $5,711 and the average is $6,622.

111. As at 1 July 2022, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $6,501 and the average is $7,603.

112. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 1 The Boulevarde as at 1 July 2021 in the amount of $1,460,580, calculated $6,600/m² PGFA multiplied by 221.3m² PGFA.

113. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 1 The Boulevarde as at 1 July 2022 in the amount of $1,659,750, calculated $7,500/m² PGFA multiplied by 221.3m² PGFA.

3-9 The Boulevarde

114. In relation to 3-9 The Boulevarde, the adjusted rate range that I have determined as at 1 July 2021 is $3,349/m² PGFA to $7,455/m² PGFA. My adjusted rate range as at 1 July 2022 is $3,884/m² PGFA to $8,454/m² PGFA.

115. The sale of 37A-39 Burwood Road required the highest total adjustment of −45%, and the sale of 32-34 Burwood Road required the lowest total adjustment of −10%.

116. As at 1 July 2021, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $3,748 and the average is $4,322.

117. As at 1 July 2022, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $4,287 and the average is $4,945.

118. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 3-9 The Boulevarde as at 1 July 2021 in the amount of $7,027,800, calculated $3,900/m² PGFA multiplied by 1,802m² PGFA.

119. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 3-9 The Boulevarde as at 1 July 2022 in the amount of $7,928,800, calculated $4,400/m² PGFA multiplied by 1,802m² PGFA.

2-10 Churchill Avenue

120. In relation to 2-10 Churchill Avenue, the adjusted rate range that I have determined as at 1 July 2021 is $3,150/m² PGFA to $6,989/m² PGFA. My adjusted rate range as at 1 July 2022 is $3,531/m² PGFA to $7,926/m² PGFA.

121. The sale of 37A-39 Burwood Road required the highest total adjustment of −50%, and the sales of 32-34 Burwood Road and 62-64 Burwood Road required the lowest total adjustment of −20%.

122. As at 1 July 2021, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $3,426 and the average is $4,061.

123. As at 1 July 2022, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $3,956 and the average is $4,648.

124. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 2-10 Churchill Avenue as at 1 July 2021 in the amount of $13,942,250, calculated $3,500/m² PGFA multiplied by 3,983.5m² PGFA.

125. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 2-10 Churchill Avenue as at 1 July 2022 in the amount of $15,934,000, calculated $4,000/m² PGFA multiplied by 3,983.5m² PGFA.

12 Churchill Avenue

126. In relation to 12 Churchill Avenue, the adjusted rate range that I have determined as at 1 July 2021 is $3,628/m² PGFA to $7,921/m² PGFA. My adjusted rate range as at 1 July 2022 is $4,237/m² PGFA to $8,983/m² PGFA.

127. The sales of 20-24 Railway Parade and 37A-39 Burwood Road required the highest total adjustments of ±40%, and the sales of 32-34 Burwood Road and 62-64 Burwood Road required the lowest total adjustment of −10%.

128. As at 1 July 2021, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $3,854 and the average is $4,587.

129. As at 1 July 2022, placing equal weight on all the sales evidence, the median of the adjusted rates is $4,461 and the average is $5,250.

130. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 12 Churchill Avenue as at 1 July 2021 in the amount of $7,740,000, calculated $4,000/m² PGFA multiplied by 1,935m² PGFA.

131. Having regard to all the evidence, I have determined the land value of 12 Churchill Avenue as at 1 July 2022 in the amount of $8,901,000, calculated $4,600/m² PGFA multiplied by 1,935m² PGFA.

Conclusion

132. Taking into account the above, I find that Esperia has discharged the onus required by s 40(2) of the Valuation Act by establishing that in each matter the value determined by the VG was too high, and I make the following determinations.

1 The Boulevarde

−   As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $1,460,580.

−   As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $1,659,750.

3-9 The Boulevarde

−   As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $7,027,800.

−   As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $7,928,800.

2-10 Churchill Avenue

−   As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $13,942,250.

−   As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $15,934,000.

12 Churchill Avenue

−   As at 1 July 2021 the land value was $7,740,000.

−   As at 1 July 2022 the land value was $8,901,000.

Orders

133. The orders of the Court are:

1. In proceedings 2023/00267267 (1 The Boulevarde, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2021) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $1,460,580.

2. In proceedings 2023/00267268 (1 The Boulevarde, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2022) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $1,659,750.

3. In proceedings 2023/00219697 (3-9 The Boulevarde, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2021) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $7,027,800.

4. In proceedings 2023/00219693 (3-9 The Boulevarde, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2022) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $7,928,800.

5. In proceedings 2023/00219696 (2-10 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2021) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $13,942,250.

6. In proceedings 2023/00219695 (2-10 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2022) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $15,934,000.

7. In proceedings 2023/00219694 (12 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2021) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $7,740,000.

8. In proceedings 2023/00219698 (12 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield for valuation year 1 July 2022) the appeal is upheld and the land valuation is determined in the amount of $8,901,000.

**********

Annexure A (285 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (272 KB, pdf)

Annexure C (111 KB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 24 October 2025