Frizelle v Chief Executive Department of Natural Resources; Lin Hsui-O Family Trust v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources; DAC Properties Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources;

[1999] QLC 220

LAND COURT, BRISBANE

10 SEPTEMBER 1999

Re:Appeals against Annual Valuations – Valuation of Land Act 1944 –
Valuation Roll Nos: 129-7442/5; 129-3656; 129-3657;
129-3660; 129-3648/1; 129-3469; 129-3644; 137/3685;
129-3640/1; 129-3638/5; 129-3692/1; 129-3688; 137-3558;
129-3680; 129-3392; and 129-3674/7.

Local Government: GCCC-Gold Coast.

(AV98-765; AV98-759; AV98-761; AV98-762; AV98-760; AV98-818; AV98-758 and AV98-763)
James E Frizelle v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
and
(AV98-756; AV98-755; AV98-816; AV98-815 and AV98-817)
Lin Hsui-O Family Trust v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
and (AV98-814)
DAC Properties Pty Ltd v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
and (AV98-757)

Walker Properties (Queensland) Pty Ltd v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
and (AV98-823)
Southport Mazda Pty Ltd v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearingat Coolangatta and Brisbane) D E C I S I O N

Background:

These 16 matters (referred to as "Group 1") comprise a significant part of the northern part of the Central Business District (CBD) of Southport, and were heard

concurrently as much of the evidence submitted was common. The 16 matters were part of a total of 21 appeals in the Southport CBD which were contested as key to establishing true relativity throughout the CBD area. The remaining 5 matters ("Group 2") are the subject of a separate decision. The Group 1 matters are located to the north of the Southport Mall, and the Group 2 to the south of the Mall.

All subject lands are zoned as "Comprehensive Development" under the Town Plan of the Gold Coast City Council of 11 February 1994 and effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 1997. All normal services are available to all properties. The key issues are the method of valuation, the nature of improvements, comparison of sales and the application of sales.
On 2 March 1998, the Chief Executive issued the following valuations:

Property	Unimproved Value	Property	Unimproved Value
1. (AV98-765)	$1,400,000	9. (AV98-755)	$665,000
2. (AV98-759)	$325,000	10. (AV98-816)	$640,000
3. (AV98-761)	$172,500	11. (AV98-815)	$140,000
4. (AV98-762)	$290,000	12. (AV98-763)	$190,000
5. (AV98-760)	$625,000	13. (AV98-814)	$535,000
6. (AV98-818)	$750,000	14. (AV98-757)	$630,000
7. (AV98-758)	$465,000	15. (AV98-817)	$1,650,000
8. (AV98-756)	$465,000	16. (AV98-823)	$1,025,000

At the hearing on 10 May 1999, the respondent sought leave to amend the valuation of property 6 to $725,000.
From the records of the Court’s files the following objections were undertaken; subsequent to which the appellants have now appealed to this Court as follows:

Property	Decision on objection	Date issued	Value appealed for
1.	Disallowed	31.08.98	$1,040,000
2.	Partly allowed	31.08.98	$290,000
3.	Partly allowed	31.08.98	$149,000
4.	Partly allowed	31.08.98	$273,000
5.	Partly allowed	31.08.98	$615,000
6.	Disallowed	14.09.98	$690,000
7.	Disallowed	31.08.98	$420,000

8.	Disallowed	31.08.98	$416,000
9.	Partly allowed	31.08.98	$540,000
10.	Disallowed	14.09.98	$525,000
11.	Partly allowed	14.09.98	$110,000
12.	Partly allowed	14.09.98	$162,000
13.	Disallowed	14.09.98	$390,000
14.	Disallowed	31.08.98	$568,000
15.	Disallowed	14.09.98	$1,265,000
16.	Disallowed	14.09.98	$750,000

Mr B Cronin of Counsel appeared for the appellants, calling evidence from Mr GJ Duthie, the Registered Valuer for the appellants. Mr R Paterson, Principal Legal Officer, appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Mr D Treston, the Departmental Registered Valuer responsible for determining the valuations.

The Evidence:

(1)The Road Network –

All roads in the CBD area are bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. High Street is a four lane undivided major arterial road, carrying heavy traffic volumes up to 16,000 vehicles per day just south of Nind Street. At the date of valuation there were no stopping lanes, and the heavy traffic flows inhibited overall traffic movements. However there was subsequently a major road widening exercise along High Street, which will become a divided road, and which will assist in making that carriageway more "user friendly" for local traffic. The resumption Proclamation for part of property 1 issued on 28 November 1997, and is depicted on the Plan of Survey SP108713, registered 2 September 1998. High Street provides excellent exposure to passing traffic, which is a significant advantage to the use of property 1 as a new car sale yard. However difficulties of access to High Street, because of the heavy traffic flows, ensures physical access to property 1 is restricted from that street.
Nind Street is a 30-metre wide divided road reserve with free centre and kerbside parking. Rawlins Street is a 20-metre wide road reserve, providing good access to properties 1 and 2. Scarborough Street is a 30-metre wide road reserve with metered centre and kerbside parking, and is the main commercial road in Southport CBD. Davenport Street, Windmill and Welsh Streets are 20-metre wide reserves with

metered kerbside parking. Welsh Street connects Scarborough Street to Marine Parade, and access into Welsh Street is restricted to left-turning vehicles. Marine Parade is a major four-lane divided arterial road. Nind Street has metered kerbside parking. The intersections at Marine Parade and Nind Street, and Nind Street and High Street, are controlled by traffic lights.

(2) The Nature of the Lands –

(2.1) The Description of the Lands

Property	Address	Property Description	Area
1.	High Street	Lot 2 on SP108713	5591m²
2.	62 Nind Street	Lot 3 on RP 852549	912m²
3.	64 Nind Street	Lot 1 on RP 119827	506m²
4.	68 Nind Street	Lot 1 on SP108713	949m²
5.	15 Windmill Street	Lots 13 & 14 on RP4757 & Lots 3&4 on RP 134814	1620m²
6.	139 Scarborough St	Lots 28 to 30 on RP4701	1262m²
7.	18 Nind Street	Lot 5 on RP158460	819m²
8.	8-12 Nind Street	Lots 35 & 36 on RP4701	809m²
9.	6A Nind Street	Lots 3 & 4 on RP4702 and Lot 3 on RP4703	1017m²
10.	5 Welch Street	Lots 44 & 45 on RP4701 and Lot 1 on RP 59405	1219m²
11.	15 Welch Street	Lot 3 on RP50824	278m²
12.	21 Welch Street	Lot 37 on RP4701	405m²
13.	14 Welch Street	Lot 16 on RP840727	1219m²
14.	100 Scarborough St	Lot 8 on RP892929	811m²
15.	82 Marine Parade	Lot 1 on RP810241	2433m²
16.	92 Marine Parade	Lot 1 on RP212245	1550m²

(2.2) The Physical Nature of the Properties:
·Property 1 – This is an irregularly shaped parcel at the corner of High Street and Nind Street. The area of 5591m² is the final area remaining after the road resumption. The land is bisected by an easement for stormwater drainage purposes (Easement A on RP185142), and is elevated on Nind Street, and has a gentle southerly fall of some 2 metres across the site. There are various retaining walls upon the subject land, which are estimated to have an added value of $2,640 (Mr Duthie), or NIL (Mr Treston). Plan of Survey SP 852549 shows the block walls on the common

boundaries of properties 1 and 4 and properties 1 and 3. The other walls are buildings or part of a concrete ramp on property 3.

The rates applied for the retaining walls vary with the height of the wall, but Mr Duthie allows $220 per m² and Mr Treston from $150 to $200 per m². An analysis of the concrete block retaining walls is included in the decision on the Group 2 properties. The rate allowed for fill varies from $10 per m³ (Mr Duthie) to $12.50 per m³ (Mr Treston), and the rate for cut varies from $6 per m³ (Mr Duthie) to $7.50 per m³ (Mr Treston). For the purposes of these valuations I will allow:

Retaining walls = $220 per m²

Fill = $12 per m³

Cut = $7 per m³

There is some filling upon property 1 estimated to involve 2,000 m³ (Mr Duthie), or 2800 m³ (Mr Treston). The subject land also has a frontage to Rawlins Street on its eastern side of some 35.4 metres; and a narrow access of 5 metres to Nind Street. Mr Treston obtains his estimate of the filling upon property 1 from Departmental records which showed that 4,220 m³ had been deposited upon that site during development, although it was not clear where the fill was placed. Mr Treston made a reasonable assumption that the fill was evenly distributed, and accordingly allowed a proportional reduction to 2,800 m³ as a consequence of the road resumption.

Following verbal evidence from the appellant, Mr Treston concedes that a proportional distribution may have been inappropriate, and perhaps some further allowance could be made for fill. While that was not quantified, from the examination of the photographs of property 1, and noting that most of the buildings were erected clear of the road resumption, I will allow 3,500 m³ on the land to be valued for property 1.

In the matter of the easement across property 1, it was initially argued by Mr Treston that easement documents had never been registered on the title, and Mr Treston therefore made no allowance for that factor in his valuation. Mr Cronin argues that the easement (Easement A on RP 185142), was registered on 6.11.84 (from the Plan of Survey), prior to the introduction of section 83A into the Land Titles Act 1994, and assented to on 1.12.94. Mr Cronin seeks support from the decision of Hutchinson and Another v. Lemon and Another, 5 November 1982, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, that notification of the easement upon the registration of RP185142 constituted an encumbrance against the title, and therefore a matter for which a deduction should be allowed in the valuation.

It was subsequently conceded by both parties that not only does the registration of the plan constitute an encumbrance on the title at that date, but there also exists a large stormwater drain along that

easement, which provides a physical restriction upon building upon the land. In the end Mr Treston concedes that the area of 290 m² of the easement should contribute to a further reduction in the valuation of $43,500 as a consequence of the impact of the easement (i.e. 50% of the standard area rate of $300 per m², which is an average of $275 per m² for the Rawlins Street land, and $325 per m² for the High Street land). I will adopt that approach.

·Property 2 – This is a rectangular shaped parcel at the corner of Nind and Rawlins Streets, which has a gentle fall from Nind Street. There is a 20.1 metre frontage to Nind Street, and a 45.7 metre frontage to Rawlins Street.

·Property 3 – This is a rectangular shaped inside parcel adjoining and to the west of property 2, with a frontage of 15.1 metres to Nind Street, and a depth of 33.6 metres. Mr Duthie estimates that there are 28 metres of retaining walls upon property 3, and a further 180 m³ of fill. Mr Duthie argues that he needs to allow for those improvements in order to compare the site value of property 3 with his comparable sales.

Mr Treston has no record of fill or retaining walls upon property 3 and has accordingly made no allowance for those improvements. Mr Treston sees the retaining wall along the eastern boundary of property 3 as more related to a concrete elevated ramp, than associated with retaining the land, and therefore to be ignored in seeking to determine the unimproved value of property 3,

·Property 4 – This is a rectangular shaped lot with a 20 metre frontage to Nind Street, a depth of 47.2 metres, and a gentle southerly fall from Nind Street. Mr Duthie argues that the rear southern boundary contains 22 m² of retaining wall, and there is 190 m³ of fill. Mr Treston has no record of either retaining walls or fill upon property 4, which had a small area of 5 m² resumed for roadworks. The area value of 949 m² was the remaining balance of the parcel.

·Property 5 – This is an L-shaped corner parcel with a frontage of
30.4 metres to Nind Street, 80.6 metres to Davenport Street, and
10.3 metres to Windmill Street. The parcel is generally level, and flood free. Subsequently the land was identified as a contaminated site, having underground fuel tank facilities. As part of a later sale of part of the land to Funeral Services of Australia the land was remediated. The costs of such remediation are discussed later.

·Property 6 – This is a rectangular shaped corner lot with a 30.9 metre frontage to Scarborough Street and 41 metre frontage to Nind Street. The lot rises gently from Nind Street to Welch Street, and has been cut to a level of about 1.5 metres on the southern and eastern boundaries which have been retained. Mr Duthie estimates retaining walls of 82 m² and cut of 600 m³. Mr Treston estimates

retaining walls of 30 m² and cut of 1000 m³. Mr Treston later concedes that part of the existing building along those walls also act as retaining walls, and were presumably constructed to a stronger specification for that purpose. As such he concedes that retaining walls could exist to a further total area of 30 x 0.7 metres high, or 21 m². However he argues that an additional 21 m² would be on a shared basis as the wall is on the common boundaries. Mr Treston therefore adjusts his area retaining walls to 41 m². Property 6 was a former service station and is subject to contamination.

·Property 7 – This is a rectangular shaped lot with frontage of 20.1 metres to Nind Street, and depth of 40.7 metres. The land rises from Nind Street to Welch Street, and adjoins property 6 to the west. There is a 2.2 metre cut on the southern boundary adjoining property 12, which has been retained by a concrete block wall. Mr Duthie estimates retaining walls of 44 m², and cut of 400 m³; and Mr Treston estimates retaining walls of 44 m² (shared) and cut of 400 m³.

·Property 8 – This is a rectangular lot of frontage 20.1 metres to Nind Street, and depth of 40.7 metres, and rising gently from Nind Street to Welch Street. Mr Duthie estimates retaining walls of 20 m², and cut of 100 m³; Mr Treston in his comparison of sales with similarly sloping sales, has made no allowance for either cut or retaining walls.

·Property 9 – This is an irregular L-shaped parcel of frontage 40.2 metres to Nind Street, and varying depths of 20.1 metres to 30.5 metres. The land rises gently from Nind Street, and is adjacent to property 8 to the west, and property 10 to the east. There was no allowance made for either retaining walls or fill/cut by either party.

·Property 10 – This is a rectangular lot of frontage 20.2 metres to both Nind Street and Welch Streets, and a depth of 60.5 metres. The land rises gently from Nind Street to Welch Street. There was no allowance for retaining walls or cut/fill by either party.

·Property 11 – This is a rectangular parcel of 13.8 metre frontage to Welch Street, and a depth of 20.1 metres, and falling to the adjoining property 8 to the north. In order to obtain a level site Mr Treston estimates that a retaining wall 1.5 metre high on the northern boundary would be necessary, together with about 1 metre of fill over the entire site, in order to obtain maximum site exposure for vehicle sale purposes. Mr Treston allows for hypothetical development of retaining walls to 20.7 m², and for hypothetical imported fill of 278 m³, in order to get a level site for its highest and best use.

·Property 12 – This is a square shaped parcel of frontage 20.1 metres to Welch Street, and adjoins property 7 to the north. There

is a steep graded concrete driveway joining property 12 to property
7. The land slopes sharply down from Welch Street towards Nind Street, and is partly retained on the northern boundary by a 2.2 metre concrete block wall and is partly filled. Mr Duthie estimates 44 m² of retaining wall, and Mr Treston estimates 40 m² of wall. Mr Treston allows $6,531 for partial site works (fill 208 m³), which is 50% of a total $13,062 for retaining walls and filling of the whole site. Mr Duthie concedes that he omitted to allow for any filling of the site.

·Property 13 – This is a rectangular parcel of frontage 30.2 metres to Welch Street, and depth of 40.4 metres, rising towards the south from Welch Street to Cloyne Road. The site has been cut to develop a level building pad, and there is a 4-metre high retaining wall on the rear boundary which, together with the side retaining walls, Mr Duthie estimates provides a total of 280 m² of walls, and 2,500 m³ of excavation.

Mr Treston has provided no allowance for walls or cut as his comparisons were with sales of comparable slope. However, on reflection, Mr Treston felt that he could have allowed some additional amount of site works costs in his valuation ($9,140). Mr Duthie agrees as he feels the sales used (Sales 11 and 12) have a lesser slope than property 13.

·Property 14 – This is a rectangular corner parcel of frontage 20.1 metres to Scarborough Street, and 40.3 metres to Hinze Street. The site slopes gently to the west, adjoins a public car park to the west, and is near the Southport Courthouse Complex. It is located 130 metres from the Nerang Street Mall.

·Property 15 – This is a rectangular corner parcel of frontage 60.5 metres to Marine Parade, 40.1 metres to Nind Street, and 40.2 metres to Welch Street. The site slopes gently up from Nind Street to Welch Street, has excellent exposure on a prominent corner, with easterly and north-easterly views of the Broadwater and Anzac Park.

·Property 16 – This is an L-shaped corner parcel with 60.6 metre frontage to Nind Street, 20.2 metre frontage to Marine Parade, and
16.3 metre frontage to Fig Tree Lane. The depth from Nind Street varies between 40.3 metres and 20.2 metres. The land is generally level, and the site is on a prominent corner with views of the Broadwater and Anzac Park.

(3) The Use of the Lands –

Properties 1 to 5 and 7 to 12 and 15 and 16 are all used for car sales or car detailing purposes. Property 9 is also a jet ski sales site. Property 13 is used for

office and showroom purposes, and property 14 is used for offices. Property 6 is used for drive-in dry-cleaning purposes.

The long-term highest and best use of property 1 is for car yard purposes; properties 2 to 5 for office buildings for service industry; property 6 for offices and retail purposes; properties 7, 9 and 16 for retail use; property 8 for retail and mixed residential development; properties 10, 11 and 12 for offices and mixed residential development; property 13 for offices and showrooms; property 14 as an office building; and property 15 for retail, offices and residential purposes.

(4) Contamination of sites -

In respect of the contamination of properties 5 and 6, Mr Duthie provides evidence of work undertaken or quoted for as part of decontamination of those sites as follows:
· Property 5 – $28,352.65
· Property 6 - $65,202.50

Mr Duthie concedes that he has not searched the contaminated lands register of the Department of Environment to confirm whether either site was recorded as either a former site or a release site, but argues that the presence of the underground facilities is known, as was the former use of the site as service stations. He argues that a prudent purchaser would therefore have made allowance for those facts in the price offered for the lands, and hence contamination impacts must be allowed for.
Mr Treston agrees that both sites have been subject to contamination, but argues that part of the costs detailed are more related to the process of decommissioning the sites, rather than the contamination. Mr Treston initially allowed a standard fee of $20,000 for decontamination of each site, based upon experience elsewhere. However in light of the detailed costs and estimates now supplied, he amends those figures to $22,440 (property 5) and $42,202 (property 6). In respect of property 5 Mr Treston made no allowance for removal of the underground tanks, or replacing the concrete ($5,913); and in respect of property 6 for the same reasons ($35,000).

Mr Duthie argues that any purchaser would need to remove the underground tanks in order to redevelop the sites for new building, and they would have therefore factored those extra costs into the purchase price offered. As such a decommissioned and decontaminated site would have a value in excess of any prudent price paid for

the former service station lands. In any case Mr Duthie argues that it would be necessary to remove the underground tanks first before decontamination of the soils could proceed.

(5) Planning Matters –

As noted previously all properties are zoned for “Comprehensive Development”, and all except property 14 are included in Precinct 2 of the Development Control Plan No 1. Property 14 is included in Precinct 1.
The intent of Precinct 2 is to provide for the development of service industries, mixed commercial and industrial activities, offices and residential uses. The highest and best long-term uses are consistent with those purposes. Medium to high residential densities are encouraged to reflect the location of Precinct 2 near the commercial core. Apart from lands in the Marine Parade area, all residential uses are to be located above ground level.
The intent of Precinct 1 is for commercial core activities including retail shops, offices and associated tourist entertainment. However direct retail frontage to Marine Parade will be discouraged. The area bounded by Nerang, Davenport, Nind and Scarborough Streets is to be encouraged to further develop the predominantly uses, including the Court House Complex. A public car park is located adjacent to those offices.

(6) Methods of Valuation –

(6.1) The Appellants’ Approach –

Mr Duthie has sought to apply an objective approach comparing each property on a direct comparison with like type sales as near as possible to the properties. He has therefore compared corner sites with corner sales, and inside lots with inside sales. Mr Duthie also compares properties on the basis of developed sites, and then made allowances for the added value of improvements such as retaining walls, and site works such as filling or excavation. When he was unable to compare sales of a comparable size, Mr Duthie made allowance for the difference in area of the sales adopted.
Mr Duthie has problems with the more theoretical approach taken by Mr Treston, which he argues has the potential to introduce compounding double counting into the process, and which he claims is demonstrated by a marked pattern of over-

valuation in the Southport CBD. Mr Duthie argues that his approach is supported by the marketplace, which sees these properties as a whole, rather than in some piecemeal approach to the value of the land.

Mr Duthie also relies upon his wide experience with income producing properties to support his conclusion that owner/occupier purchases often reflect more for properties, than a purely investor/purchaser would be prepared to pay. For this reason Mr Duthie provides several feasibility analyses, only as checks upon the sale, in order to demonstrate that, from a purely investment approach, some of the sales adopted are out of line with the general market.
However Mr Treston has some problems with such a conclusion, noting that courts have long had concern with such approaches when determining unimproved values, in view of the major variations in the value that can occur with minor differences in the gross rental rates and the profit rates adopted.

(6.2) The Respondent’s Approach –

In a major review of the relativities in the Southport CBD Mr Treston has sought to apply a consistent rigorous approach to all of the valuations. As part of that process he has sought to apply a standard depth model as a tool to assist his final assessment of each parcel. Mr Treston has prepared a “depth table” chart (Exhibit 8), which purports to link depth and areas as factors of an adopted standard lot in the locality. Mr Duthie argues that depth tables are more appropriate to retailing areas and not office development areas.
As the basis of his analyses, Mr Treston has adopted a standard lot of 10 metres width and 40 metres depth; based upon the original subdivision of the lots in that area. He has modified the standard 4/3/2/1 model found in the texts, in light of sales evidence recorded. Mr Treston's depth table is less severe than under standard 4/3/2/1 rule, as the first 10 metres of depth is worth 35% of the total property; the next 10 metres is worth 25%; the next 10 metres is worth 22.5%; and the last 10 metres is worth 17.5%. The tables seek to provide some quantification of the principle that the front part of any land is the most valuable, and the rear part is the least valuable. By using the depth table Mr Treston is able to allow for lots of shallower or deeper depths from the standard lot.
Mr Treston makes no allowance for difference in size on commercial lands in the range 400 m², 800 m² and 1600 m² in that locality. It is his contention that

purchasers are encouraged to amalgamate smaller parcels in order to develop larger sites. He therefore argues that in order to get larger lots one must buy smaller lots, although he provides no sales evidence to support his conclusions. However Mr Treston makes some adjustment for size on the very large parcels.

In respect of a further loading for corner influence, Mr Treston assesses each corner individually, and applies a premium only to the area of a standard lot fronting the principal road. Depending upon the level of commercial activity, Mr Treston applies a premium of 10% for properties at the corners of Nind and Davenport Streets, Windmill and Davenport Streets, Nind and Rawlins Streets, and Scarborough and Nind Streets. He also applies premiums of 20% for properties at the corners of Nind and Scarborough Streets, Marine and Nind Street, and Marine and Welch Street.
In respect of whether there is a difference in the market for purchasers who are owners/occupiers or purely investors, Mr Treston disagreed, arguing that there is one market, and if one wishes to purchase land in the area then one must meet the market. He also argues that the use of the standard “depth tables” allows comparisons of inside lots with corner lots. Mr Treston further contends that his preferred sales for determining unimproved values are vacant or lightly improved lands, rather than to use heavily developed sales. He also argued that the use of rental analyses is of little assistance in determining unimproved values, an area in which he has extensive experience. However while he makes no special allowance for difference in size in that locality, Mr Treston seeks to compare his prime sale for each property on a similar size basis where possible.
Mr Treston also notes that he was not able to apply his standard "depth tables" to all lots in the CBD, particularly where lots are best compared on a direct comparison basis due to their unusual shape or size, or are different in some other respect. Mr Treston seeks to bring all his sales to unimproved values and then compare with the relevant property. He also argues that in the end he then looks at the final figure determined for each property to assess its reasonableness within the entire relativity picture.
As key relativity benchmarks in the locality Mr Treston notes that he has applied standard lot unimproved values along Nind Street from $580 per m² in the east between Marine Parade and Scarborough Street; to $325 per m² at the west end of Nind Street near High Street. In that gradation (which is determined by judgment and

not linearly) Mr Treston sees the corner of Nind and Scarborough Streets at a standard lot rate of $580 per m²; with the corner of Nind and Davenport Streets at $400 per m².

Mr Treston also argues that he has not amended the former relativities along the street but only upgraded the quantum of the value. He notes that the rate per standard parcel along Scarborough Street varies from $420 per m² at its northern end to $1,500 per m² at its southern end near Australia Fair. Mr Treston also advises that the standard lot unimproved values were applied at the corner of Scarborough Street and Welch Street at $440 per m²; and at the corner of Davenport and Windmill Streets at $300 per m².

(7) Analysis of Sales –

The following comparable sales were analysed by Mr Duthie and Mr Treston.

The common sales are:

Mr Duthie  Mr Treston
Sale 2  Sale 4
Sale 3  Sale 14
Sale 5  Sale 2
Sale 6  Sale 3
Sale 9  Sale 11
·          Sale 1 (Duthie) – (71 Nerang Street – Lot 10 on RP 4769, Lot 2 on RP 59487, and Lot 2 on RP 74800)

Nerang Street is an extension of the Southport Mall. The sale adjoins a medical building and is opposite a new Centrelink building and is in a superior location at that point. This was a deceased estate sale formerly used as a caravan sale yard and subsequently leased as a used car yard. The sale has a total area of 2,140 m², but comparisons are made only with the front portion (650 m²) which is gravel surfaced, and has been filled to 1,000 m³ at a cost of $12 per m³. The retaining wall at the rear has an area of 32 m² and an added value of $220 per m², assuming the retaining wall is on the sale land and not on the common boundary.

The sale sold in August 1997 for $485,000 after a marketing campaign and after initially being offered for sale at $950,000. After allowing for improvements it was analysed at $446,000 ($209 per m²). The front portion (650 m²) was valued at $330 per m², and the rear portion at $159 per m². The respondent has applied the sale at an unimproved value of
$435,000 (97%).

· Sale 2 (Duthie) – (15-17 Nind Street – Lot 88 on SP 105153)

This is a key common sale on the northern side of Nind Street with an area of 825 m², and also with rear access to Fig Tree Lane, although that is restricted by a stormwater drain. The sale is a former car yard property with bitumen surface, and drainage and a Harditex sales office. The sale was subject to a lease (to 30.04.2000), at the date of sale, which was subsequently terminated on 4 months’ notice. The gross rental received was $41,124. The sale has a frontage to Nind Street of 20.4 metres, and a depth of 40.2 metres.

The sale sold in June 1997 for $535,000, which after allowing for improvements ($63,500) was analysed by Mr Duthie at $472,000 ($572 per m²). The respondent has applied the sale at an unimproved value of
$475,000 ($580 per m²). Mr Duthie argues that this is a high sale, out of line with the market, and reflects an over-anxious buyer who had a nearby expanding fishing tackle business, currently located on property 6. The purchaser needed to relocate, and paid a high price in Mr Duthie’s opinion in order to secure the site.

Mr Duthie notes that the annual gross rental would have been considered by the purchaser as a further offset against the purchase price, as those rents produced income while building approvals were obtained for the new building. Mr Duthie suggests that Sale 2 reflects the tendency for owner/occupiers to pay a price which often reflects something more than the normal value for a property investor. A four month termination notice of the lease has been deducted at a present value of $13,500.

While he has not relied upon it, as a check against his opinion that the sale is out of line, Mr Duthie sought to provide a feasibility analysis, which predicted a gross annual rental of $70,000, giving a net rent of $66,000, which was capitalised at 9% to give a developed improved capital value of
$730,000. Allowing for estimated improvements of $230,000, and interest of $25,000, plus stamp duty costs of $21,000, plus the purchase price of the land at $535,000 and selling costs of $25,000, gives a total development cost of $836,000. Compared to the estimated capital value of
$730,000, the feasibility suggests, in Mr Duthie’s opinion, that the investment reflects an overall loss of $106,000, plus the loss of any development profit, which clearly did not exist. Because of this lack of obvious commercial viability Mr Duthie concludes that the sale reflects some special value to the purchaser as an owner/occupier and is a sale to be treated with some caution.

Mr Treston uses this sale as a key sale in his analysis of the area, and analyses the improvements differently. Mr Treston notes that the old portable Harditex sales office, valued by Mr Duthie at $25,900, was in fact later onsold after the sale for $12,500. Mr Duthie argues that as the sales office building was relatively new the seller would have built the higher figure into his negotiating price. However if Mr Duthie’s conclusions are correct that the sale was negotiated with a view to redeveloping the site,

then the disposal price of the building may have reflected the actual
$12,500 obtained subsequently.

Mr Paterson counters that the sale does not reflect an over-anxious buyer, and notes that the purchaser Mr Ning, a director of Venlash the new owner, previously tried unsuccessfully to buy the property in 1994 for
$430,000, suggesting that Mr Ning was not an imprudent buyer. He would have been aware of the added value of the sales office, as the land sold subsequently for $435,000. There was no evidence supplied of any correlations between the existing fishing tackle business of Venlash in 1994 at the time of that former sale, and Mr Duthie noted that changes in the market may make any comparison between 1994 and the present of doubtful assistance. Mr Paterson argues that a comparison of the sale of this property in 1994 for $435,000, and later in 1997 for $535,000, together with subsequent sales of land at 15 Windmill Street in 1995 ($300,000) and 1998 ($350,000), and at 2 Ferry Road (Sale 28) at
$550,000 (1992) and $700,000 (1997), suggest that the market was rising during the period 1994 to 1997. Mr Duthie notes caution against making such conclusions from such evidence in isolation, without further examination.

· Sale 3 (Duthie) – (35 Nind Street – Lot 1 on RP 222329)

This is a 4421 m² common sale on the northern side of Nind Street, and on the corner of Chapel Street. The sale has a frontage of 71.1 metres to Nind Street, a depth of 62 metres, and a frontage of 50.3 metres to Chapel Street. The sale has a gentle fall to the rear, and was developed formerly as a new car sales centre for Mercedes cars. The sale site is being considerably up-graded for use as a Saab and Volvo sales centre.

The sale sold on 31 March 1998 for $1,400,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed by Mr Duthie at $1,080,000 ($244 per m²), and by Mr Treston at $1,135,748 ($257 per m²). The respondent has applied an unimproved value of $1,125,000 ($255 per m²). The difference between the valuers mainly lies in the understanding of the added value of the buildings. Mr Duthie sees the existing buildings as in reasonably good condition, and he has estimated their value at new conservative replacement costs less 40%-48% depreciation. Mr Treston notes that the buildings had to undergo considerable refurbishment, and the new owner completely refitted the upstairs office areas and replaced much of the plumbing drainage. Mr Duthie’s estimate was based upon his experience of the site at the time of the sale for rental assessment purposes. Mr Treston’s was after field inspection and discussions with the new owner. Both valuers discarded an inflated verbal estimate of the refurbishment costs supplied by the owner. Both valuers note that Sale 3 was after the date of issue of the valuation.

· Sale 4 (Duthie) – (49 Nind Street – Lot 6 on RP198684)

This is a 6097 m² parcel adjoining Sale 3, with a gentle crossfall and rise to the rear which is retained. The sale was the former new car sales and

service centre of Grand Motors Toyota, and is to be refurbished into offices and retail showrooms.

The sale sold in July 1998 for $2,150,000, and after allowing for improvements was analysed at $1,327,000 ($218 per m²), and has an applied unimproved value by the respondent of $1,450,000. As the sale was after the date of issue of the valuation, Mr Duthie concedes that it may be more appropriate to a subsequent valuation. Mr Duthie also allows an amount of $28,702 for delayed settlement arrangements, which is disputed as an improvement to that sale in terms of section 5 of the Valuation of Land Act, being in Mr Paterson’s view, more a factor which attaches to the land, although it does occur principally as a consequence of the existence of the buildings.

· Sale 5 (Duthie) – (Cnr 14 Windmill and Davenport Streets – Lot 11 on SP108000)

This is the same site as the former Lots 1 and 2 on RP 62327 which was resurveyed. The common sale has an area now of 809 m², and rises gently towards the south from Windmill Street. The sale was formerly a used car yard and has now been redeveloped into legal offices.

The sale originally sold in July 1995 for $300,000 ($371 per m² – Mr Treston’s Sale 1), and resold in January 1998 for $350,000 ($433 per m² – Mr Treston’s Sale 2 and Mr Duthie’s Sale 5). After allowing for improvements Mr Duthie has analysed his Sale 5 at $335,000 ($415 per m²), and Mr Treston has analysed his Sale 2 at $348,000 ($430 per m²). The applied unimproved value is $300,000 ($371 per m²). The difference between the valuers occurs as Mr Treston has made no allowance for lights, gates and security fencing which have been removed, and only minor costs for the existing gravel surface. Both valuers agree that the close proximity to the Court House Complex adds to the value of Sale 5, and the new owners of Sale 5 are owner occupiers.

Mr Duthie concedes that his allowance for fencing and lighting would be inappropriate, but notes that he had omitted to allow for an additional 200 m³ of fill at $12 per m³ ($24,000). On balance Mr Duthie estimates his analysed value would be say $340,000 ($420 per m²). Mr Treston argues that the amount of useable gravel would be substantially reduced by the new building activities, and he made no allowance for fill, although he concedes that the former car sales area may have contained fill.

· Sale 6 (Duthie) – (8-12 Windmill Street – Lot 10 on SP100290)

This is a 1,213 m² common sale which is the resurveyed site formerly Lots 35 to 37 on RP 4757. The sale was formerly an old dwelling which was removed and the site has been redeveloped with a new 3-storey building for owner occupier purposes as Combat Clothing, in conjunction with nearby property at Sale 7.

The sale sold in February 1998 for $580,000, which after allowing for demolition of the dwelling ($7,400), and other improvements was analysed by Mr Duthie at $587,400 ($484 per m²). Mr Duthie concedes that an existing 3-metre wide sewerage easement along the western boundary of the sale was probably allowed for in the sale price paid, and the costs of demolition should be added to the purchase price. Mr Treston analysed the sale at $580,000 ($478 per m²) and the sale has been applied at $410,000 ($338 per m²).

While he has not relied upon it, in order to support his conclusion that the sale is out of line with the market, and therefore reflects the special needs of an owner occupier in that locality, Mr Duthie provides a feasibility analysis which capitalises an estimated gross rental income. After allowing for costs that provides an estimated net loss for a developer, after allowing for interest on the development, at $310,679. Mr Duthie argues that such an economic assessment suggests that the sale reflected certain specific needs for the owner as an occupier.

Mr Treston advises that the purchaser had been negotiating with the vendor for about 2 years prior to the sale, during that period the original asking price of $650,000 had been negotiated down to $580,000. In view of that history of negotiation Mr Treston sees the sale as a genuine “arms length” sale, reflecting the value at that location. Mr Treston has no evidence to allow him to concur with Mr Duthie that there is a two-tiered market in the area which reflects the differing demands of property developers and owner occupiers. Without such evidence Mr Treston argues that there is one market operating within which all purchasers must negotiate.

· Sale 7 (Duthie) – (74 Davenport Street – Lot 6 on RP 4760)

This is a 1,012 m² level inside parcel, which was purchased by the tenant who operated a successful "Combat Clothing" warehouse business. The annual rent of that lease is $42,000.

The sale was sold in July 1998 for $450,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $350,000 ($346 per m²). The sale has been applied at an unimproved value of $285,000 ($282 per m²). Mr Duthie applied a conservative analysed rate in view of uncertainties associated with the existing lease conditions.

· Sale 8 (Duthie) – (11 Hicks Street – Lot 44 on RP 4757)

This is a 405 m² inside lot of moderate fall to the rear, which was sold by a mortgagee in possession. The sale contained an old dwelling which is converted into professional offices, and was purchased for owner occupation.

The sale sold after extensive marketing in January 1998 for $150,000 which, after allowing for improvements was analysed at $119,000 ($294 per m²), and has been applied at an unimproved value of $152,500 ($377 per m²). Mr Treston queries the depreciation rate applied to the dwelling

(60%). Mr Duthie argues that he has adopted varying depreciation rates depending on the quality of the structures. Mr Duthie also argues that the extensive nature of the marketing by the mortgagee in possession relieves any concerns that he may have held for a sale of that nature.

· Sale 9 (Duthie) – (4 Welch Street – Lot 9 on RP 4701)

This is a 405 m² inside common sale of moderate rise to the rear which has been cut and retained. An old two-storey brick and timber dwelling exists which has subsequently been refurbished. The purchaser was an adjoining owner.
The sale sold in September 1997 for $270,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed by Mr Duthie at $167,000 ($412 per m²), and by Mr Treston at $225,483 ($557 per m²). The major difference between the valuers lies in the added value of the building allowed by Mr Duthie ($57,915) and Mr Treston ($39,809). Mr Duthie also applied a further across-the-board discount of 15% ($40,500) for an adjoining owner purchase. Mr Treston argues that while adjoining owner sales should be treated conservatively, it is not appropriate to merely apply a 15% reduction without sales evidence to support that figure. There was no sales supplied to justify the 15% discount, but Mr Duthie has consistently adopted that approach based upon his wide experience.

The land is proposed for future development in conjunction with the four adjoining parcels fronting Marine Parade. Mr Treston again queried the 55% depreciation rate applied in view of the subsequent refurbishment that occurred. Mr Duthie argues that Mr Treston would appear to have only allowed for one level of building in his estimated added value of improvements.

· Sale 10 (Duthie) – (5 Marshall Lane – Lot 2 on RP 43188)

This is an elevated internal 443 m² site with views of the Broadwater to the north. There is a gently cross slope and the sale has a 23.3 metre frontage to Marshall Lane, which is a narrow one-way carriageway, providing limitations on access and exposure, but is suitable for offices.

The sale sold by a mortgagee in possession in September 1997 for
$216,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at
$152,000 ($343 per m²), and has an applied unimproved value of $165,000 ($372 per m²). Mr Duthie assessed the replacement building cost of the existing dwelling at $700 per m² for residential purposes, which he argues reflects the costs for smaller buildings.

Mr Duthie was not aware that the sale represented a mortgagee in possession, and agrees that such sales need to be treated with some caution; accordingly his analysis may be subject to some criticism for that purpose.

· Sale 11 (Duthie) – (10 Welch Street – Lots 12 and 13 on RP 4701)

This is an 809 m² inside sale which adjoins Mr Treston’s Sale 12 to the east. The sale rises steeply from Welch Street, and has a 4 metre cut at the front which is retained, and on the sides. The sale is improved with a modern 2-level office building (1987) with a basement car park for 15 vehicles. The building is fully leased to five tenants at $104,801 per annum (net), which are seen as above market rents.

The sale sold in December 1997 for $815,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $276,000 ($341 per m²), and has an applied unimproved value of $355,000 ($439 per m²).

While he does not rely upon it, Mr Duthie also supplies a feasibility analysis of that sale which, in his opinion, suggests that the sale at
$815,000 would provide a property investor with a net loss of $321,942. Thus he again concludes that the sale was out of line for that purpose, and reflects the reduced value of improved properties in that area as a result of a downturn in the rental market. Mr Treston notes that the sale is out of date for the current valuation.

· Sale 12 (Duthie) – (11 Nerang Street – Nerang Mall – Lot 1 on RP 59362)

This is a 650 m² inside lot opposite the entrance to Australia Fair, with a moderate rise with a 3-metre cut and retaining wall at the rear. The sale is improved with an old former bank building of brick and block construction (refurbished 1984).

The sale sold in August 1998 for $780,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $509,000 ($783 per m²), and has an applied unimproved value of $575,000 ($885 per m²). Mr Duthie suggests this sale again supports the tendency to overvalue the Southport CBD. While Mr Duthie concedes that the sale occurred after the relevant period, he argues that it demonstrates that the market was static at the intervening period.

Both valuers agree that Australia Fair has dominated the market, and sales in The Mall and elsewhere have been adversely affected as a consequence, with (other than project buildings) selling for less than replacement cost. Mr Duthie also agrees that Nerang Street is superior to Scarborough Street outside the influence of Australia Fair.

· Sale 13 (Duthie) – (98A Marine Parade – Lots 16 and 17 on RP 107375)

This is a late sale in March 1999 of a corner parcel of 1156 m² on Marine Parade, Railway Street and Fig Tree Lane. The sale was improved with four retail shops, and was purchased by a tenant, and provides a lease return of $36,749 per annum.

The sale sold for $800,000, which was analysed at $671,000 ($580 per m²), and has been applied at an unimproved value of $750,000 ($649 per m²) at both 01.10.97 and 01.10.98.

Mr Duthie argues that Sale 13 demonstrates the static nature of the market in that locality, and he therefore argues that Sale 13, though late, still has some relevance to the current valuation, and is in fact closer to the valuation date than some of Mr Treston’s earlier sales. Mr Duthie sees comparisons with properties in that locality of Nind Street and Marine Parade in view of similar zoning and frontage aspects. Mr Treston discounts the sale due to its date being well after the relevant period.

In addition Mr Treston also provides the following sales:

· Treston’s Sale 7 – (100 Scarborough Street – Lot 8 on RP 892929)

This was a sale of property 14 in December 1996 for $2,655,000 as a highly improved and fully tenanted property. Mr Treston merely analysed the sale to $899,953 ($1,111 per m²), and then applied it at $630,000 ($777 per m²), in order to support his assessed standard rate at that locality at $700 per m².

Mr Duthie discounts that sale claiming that Mr Treston has been very selective in using Sale 7 (and ignoring other more recent sales nearby such as the MLC Building). Mr Duthie also argues that in analysing the sale Mr Treston has ignored certain commercial factors such as provision for the impacts of the tenancy agreements which, he argued, are likened to a licence, and which go with the land such as for an hotel licence. Mr Treston places little weight on his Sale 7, because of the heavily improved nature of that sale. Mr Duthie argues that the analysis of Sale 7 demonstrates his argument that an owner occupier in the area cannot commercially develop the site.

· Treston’s Sale 12 – (8 Welch Street – Lot 11 on RP 4701)

This is a 405 m² parcel adjoining Mr Duthie’s Sale 11 to the west. The sale was improved with an old weatherboard and concrete block dwelling which had been renovated and is now used as an office building.

The sale sold in April 1996 for $210,000 and after allowing for improvements was analysed at $180,822 ($446 per m²), and has been applied at $178,000 ($440 per m²). Mr Duthie notes that it is an old sale and relies on more recent sales close by. Mr Treston sees his Sale 12 as significant as it establishes his standard rate for Welch Street at $440 per m².

· Treston’s Sale 19 – (59 Nerang Street – The “Officeworks” sale

– Lot 2 on RP 100504, Lot 2 on RP 66160, Lot 2 on RP 114733,
Lots 1 and 3 on RP 53359, Lots 1 and 2 on RP 71903, Lot 1 on
RP 115927 and Lot 14 on RP 4766.

This is a total sale of 7082 m² containing old showrooms and industrial sheds, which have subsequently been redeveloped into two retail showrooms. The sale sold in parts in May 1993 for
$2,025,000 which after allowing for improvements and additional demolition costs was analysed at $2,066,000 ($291 per m²) and applied at $2,050,000 ($289 per m²). Mr Duthie notes that the sale was an old sale and he discounted its use as it was purpose-built for a tenant and reflects a very low yield as an investment property.

· Treston’s Sale 20 – (154A Scarborough Street – Lot 360 on WD 5839)

This is the sale of the old Southport Workers’ Club site of area 4054 m², which was assessed as a vacant site ignoring the old substantial club building. The site is suitable for redevelopment for uses defined under Precinct 2 of the Development Control Plan.

The sale sold in April 1995 for $1,200,000 which was analysed at
$1,200,000 ($296 per m²), and has been applied at $1,200,000.

· Treston’s Sale 21A – (44 Nind Street – Lots 13 and 14 on RP 4757 and Lots 3 and 4 on RP 134814)

This is a 1618 m² parcel covering property 5, and was sold in July 1995 for $700,000. After allowing for improvements Mr Treston analysed the sale at $641,320 ($396 per m²), and applied it at
$625,000 ($386 per m²). The sale is an old sale. Mr Duthie notes that the Chief Executive had not formally adopted that sale in the earlier valuations, which had assessed property 5 in 1996 at
$475,000. He wonders why Mr Treston has now chosen to use Sale 21A?

· Treston’s Sale 21B – (11 Windmill Street – Lots 21 and 22 on RP 4757)

This is an 809 m² lightly improved parcel adjoining Sale 21A, which was sold in August 1995 for $295,000. The sale was analysed at $291,500 ($360 per m²), and applied at $270,000 ($333 per m²).

Mr Duthie queries the use of that sale as it was an adjoining owner sale. Mr Duthie also notes that Sale 21B was part of a direct property exchange with Australian Funeral Parlours, who had inherited the adjoining land now defined as Lot 5 on SP 113744. The current owner of the adjoining Lot 6 on SP 113744 on the

corner of Davenport and Windmill Street is Mr Frizelle, who is a regular well-informed buyer of properties in that area.

However Mr Duthie agrees that the L-shape of Sale 21A on its own is not conducive to maximum development, and the use of Sale 21B together with Sale 21A provides a better site for redevelopment purposes. Mr Duthie notes that in using Sale 21A for previous valuations in 1995 and 1996, the Chief Executive adopted a rate of only $293 per m² as the unimproved value.

· Treston’s Sale 24 – (82-90 Marine Parade – Lot 1 on RP 810241, Lots 35, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 on RP 4701, Lot 1 on RP 59405, Lots 1 – 4 on RP 4702, Lot 3 on RP 4703 and Lot 3 on RP 50824.

This is a 7176 m² parcel on the corner of Marine Parade, Welch and Nind Streets, which sold in May 1994 for $5,875,000. The sale is used as a used car sale yard, and was analysed at $5,624,000 ($783 per m²). Because parts of the sale are subject to concessional section 17 valuations there is no overall applied unimproved rate for the area.

Both valuers agreed that the older sale is out of line and provides little comparison to any of the properties, also in view of its much larger size. Mr Duthie notes that the Chief Executive has formally chosen not to use Sale 24 in any form of valuation, and he places no weight upon that sale. On that basis I get no assistance from Sale 24, and exclude it from further consideration.

· Treston’s Sale 25 – (13-17 Tonga Place, Parkwood)

This is a sale of 7,603 m² located 8.4 km north-west of the Southport CBD. The sale sold in May 1996 for $1,510,000, and was analysed at $185 per m², and applied at $182.80 per m². Mr Treston included the sale merely to demonstrate an inferior sale, and to provide a base rate for his analysis. He concedes that it has different zoning, and is located in a newly-developing market area.

Mr Duthie completely disregards Sale 25 as having no comparison with the CBD area. On that basis I gain no assistance from the sale and exclude it from further consideration.

· Treston’s Sale 28 – (Corner 2 Ferry Road and Queen Street – Lot 14 on RP 218898)

This is a 2716 m² vacant corner parcel, 860 metres to the south of property 1 along High Street. The sale is at the intersection of two of the major arterial and collector roads in Southport, and was used to compare exposure to passing traffic at property 1.

The sale sold in April 1997 for $700,000, which after allowing for improvements was analysed at $697,500 ($256 per m²), and applied at $680,000 ($250 per m²).

The sale has passing traffic in Queen Street of 11,000 vehicles per day, and in Ferry Road of 47,500 per day. Mr Duthie accepts that Sale 28 is comparable but argues that there are much closer sales that give a better comparison. Mr Duthie also argues that as a motor vehicle showroom site Sale 28 is superior to property 1. However Mr Treston argues that Sale 28 is in a mixed industries and commercial precinct, compared to the comprehensive development zoning of property 1, which allows for more intense development.

· Treston sale 30 – (182 to 192 Marine Parade - Lot 1 on RP 61395, Lots 3 to 5 on RP 40501, Lot 3 on RP 60706 and Lot 10 on RP 904751).

This is a 4,420 m² "Resort Residential 1" vacant site at the corner of Marine Parade and Robert Street, about 1.8 km north of the CBD.

The sale sold in April 1997 for $2,800,000, which was analysed at
$2,800,000 ($633 per m² or $21,052 per bed), and applied at
$2,660,000 ($600 per m²). The sale had been formally sold in 1996 ($2,400,000), and again in March 1997 ($2,360,000). The zoning provides for medium and high residential development, with some commercial activities, to a height of 15 storeys, or 30 storeys subject to consent of Council. The maximum density is one bedroom per 33 m² of net site area.

Mr Treston sees the sale as providing a check against the valuation of property 15, Mr Duthie discounts the sale as of no comparison due to the likely future long-term development of property 15.

· Treston sale 32 – (106 to 108A Marine Parade – Lot 3 on RP 46054, Lot 1 on RP 93650 and Lot 2 on RP 227686).

This is a 3,463 m² vacant "Resort Residential 1" site located 1.3 km north of the CBD.

The sale sold in December 1995 for $1,650,000, which was analysed at $1,646,500 ($475 per m²), and applied at $1,625,000 ($468 per m²). The zoning is similar to sale 30, and the sale has subsequently been developed into a 94 one-bedroom resort at an analysed cost of $15,830 per bed. Mr Treston and Mr Duthie have similar comments as for sale 30.

(8) Changes in the Market -

To support his assertion that the market has been static over recent years, Mr Duthie provides an analysis of sales in the "Comprehensive Development" zone for the Southport CBD during the period 1993 to 1999 (Exhibit 6). The charts indicate both the number of sales, the total value of the sales, and the quantum and name of the largest sale in each year; and includes all properties of area 200 m² or greater, which sold for more than $100,000, and excluded related party sales as follows:

Year No. of Sales Value Largest Sale

1993 11 15.5 million 4.7 million

1994 14 43.6 million 7.7 million

1995 13 14 million 5.8 million

1996 8 22.9 million 12.1 million

1997 12 11 million 3.5 million

1998 12 11.1 million 3.7 million

1999 (Part) 2 3.2 million 2.2 million

To further support his assertion of developing the recent static nature of the market, Mr Duthie supplied sales of properties in the medical precinct of Southport CBD at:
·Cnr 125 Nerang Street – (Lot 5 on RP 47010). This is an 809 m² site with an existing residential dwelling, purchased in April 1999 by an adjoining owner for $400,000, which has been analysed at
$324,000 ($400 per m²); and at both 1/10/97 and 1/10/98 has been applied at an unimproved value of $465,000. Settlement of that sale has not yet occurred and has been deferred until December 1999, as the existing building is still required to be occupied by South Coast Radiology until its nearby new premises in Nerang Street are completed in October 1999.

Mr Treston questions the relevance of that sale in view of its lateness; its intended use as a future commercial premises (coffee shop); and the specific deferred payment arrangements. The sale is in Precinct 5 of the Development Control Plan and is zoned as "Residential Multi Unit", and at the date of hearing had not yet been recorded with the respondent. Mr Treston also queried the extent of added value for improvements as there had been no allowance for the removal of the existing brick building, or for adjoining owner influence.

·80 Queen Street – (Lot 1 on RP 50000). This is a 604 m² vacant corner site zoned "Special Facilities" for a medical centre. The sale sold in January 1999 for $180,000, which was analysed at
$178,000 ($295 m²), and has been applied at an unimproved value of $248,000 (1/10/97) and $210,000 (1/10/98). Mr Duthie argues

that does not support a rise in the market in the period subsequent to the relevant date.

In response as to whether the market had changed over that period Mr Treston also draws reference to sales in late 1997 in the "Special Facilities" medical precinct which he argues provides a better guide to that special land use, than either of Mr Duthie's two extra sales. Mr Paterson, however, notes that those sales to Southport Day Surgery and Pacific Private Clinics Pty Ltd (Mr Duthie's sale 22), discussed in a separate matter for Southport CBD Group 2 properties), represents a different market to the subject properties, and provides no real comparison. Mr Paterson concedes that sale 22 in fact adjoins in part Mr Duthie's extra sale at 125 Nerang Street, and has an analysed rate of $521 per m², and an applied unimproved rate of $480 per m². Mr Treston also concedes that the selling price of 125 Nerang Street at $400,000 is considerably less than the unimproved value of $465,000, as applied by the respondent. In respect of changes in the market in the relevant period, I note Mr Treston's conclusions discussed in section 7 (sale 2) of this report.

(9) Application of Sales –

A summary of the various applications of each property follows:
·Property 1 – Mr Duthie sees the subject land as inferior to both his sales 3 and 4 in terms of a net usable area of 5,320 m² at $190 per m², and the impact of the easement. He adopts an overall rate of
$182 per m², and the difference in rate per m² and the size of the sales as follows:
sale 3 – area 4,421 m² ($244 per m²); sale 4 – area 6,097 m² ($218 per m²).

Mr Treston, using his depth tables, has divided the subject area into parts fronting:

Rawlins Street             (1,417 m² @ $275/m²); Nind Street   (419 m² @ $200/m²);
High Street                  (3,373 m² @ $325/m² );
Balance land                (406 m² @ $125/m²).

Mr Treston has diminished the value of the balance land by 33% in view of its irregular apex shape towards the 5 metre Nind Street frontage, giving an average rate for property 1 of $269 per m². Mr Treston adopts a base rate of $325 per m² for the Nind Street land near High Street, but that was reduced because much of the 419 m² area is rear land at the southern end of the 5 metre wide access to Nind Street. Mr Treston's standard base rates along with the major CBD rates were discussed in section 6.2 of this report.

Mr Duthie argues that the Nind Street entrance is of little additional benefit as the owners currently do not use it for access. He also argues that the impact of the road resumption fronting High Street has been known for some time, and that would impact the valuation. Mr Treston sees his key sales as the vacant sales 19, 25 and 28, with less weight on his sale 14 because of problems of determining the added value of improvements.

·Property 2 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 1 front land ($330 per m²) as superior; and his sale 5 ($415 per m²) as superior office location. Mr Treston applies his standard base rate of $325 per m² to which he then adds 10% for corner premium, adopting $356 per m². Mr Duthie adopts a rate of $318 per m² which also assumed a 10% loading for corner influence.

·Property 3 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 7 ($346 per m²) and his sale 8 ($294 per m²) as superior locations, and sale 8 as a comparable inside lot. He has adopted a rate of $279 per m². Mr Treston has applied his base standard rate of $325 per m² and applied a shallow depth factor of 1.06 giving an average rate of $340 per m². Mr Duthie agrees that shallow depth allowances can be assumed when properties are being compared on a like-with-like basis, but sees no comparison between a 506 m² site and a 4,421 m² site (sale 3).

·Property 4 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 1 front land ($330 per m²) as superior; and his sale 7 ($346 per m²) also as superior office location. He has adopted a rate for the subject land at $281 per m². Mr Treston adopts his base standard rate at $325 per m² and reduces that figure to allow for the extra depth (0.944) giving a rate of $305 per m². Mr Treston's key sales are the vacant or lightly improved sales at 15 and 44 Nind Street and 14 Windmill Street, two of which are corner sales.

·Property 5 – Mr Duthie allows a 50% reduction for size for the larger sale 3 ($244 per m²); and also allows for the smaller size of his sale 5 ($415 per m²). After allowing for contamination of
$28,353, he concludes a rate of $343 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard rate for an 810 m² and a 404 m² lot fronting Nind Street at $400 per m², and a 404 m² lot fronting Davenport Street at $325 per m², all of which is then increased by 10% to allow for corner location. He then allows $22,440 for decontamination, giving a rate of $385 per m². Mr Treston's key sales are again his vacant or lightly improved sales 1, 2, 4, 21A and 21B, four of which are corner sites.

·Property 6 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 1 front land ($330 per m²) as superior for office development, and his larger sale 3 ($244 per m²) as inferior due to less exposure, although sale 3 is also a corner site. He concludes a rate of $478 per m² after allowing 120% for the difference in size of sale 3.

Mr Treston adopts a base standard rate of $580 per m², to which he applies a loading of 20% for corner location of a standard 405 m² lot. After allowing for site works and decontamination, he concludes a rate of $594 per m². Mr Treston's key sales are his vacant or lightly improved sales 2 and 4, one of which is the subject corner site.

·Property 7 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 1 front land ($330 per m²) as inferior, and his sale 7 ($346 per m²) as superior due to its better office location. Allowing for the differences in size he concludes a rate of $425 per m² for property 7.

Mr Treston adopts a base standard rate for an 819 m² lot at $575 per m², which provides a final rate of $568 per m² after allowing for improvements. Mr Treston's key sales are his vacant or lightly improved sales 2, 4 and 21A, two of which are corner sites.

·Property 8 – Mr Duthie sees his comparisons with his sale 1 front land and his sale 7 as consistent with property 7, and concludes a rate of $434 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard rate of $575 per m², and has similar comparisons with his property 7.

·Property 9 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 3 ($244 per m²) as comparable, but he has allowed an increase in excess of 100% for the difference in size of the larger sale 3, and also allowed for the smaller sale 5 ($415 per m²). After allowing for the irregular shape of property 9 he concludes a rate of $472 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard lot of 612 m² at $575 per m², to which he adds a shallow depth factor of 10%; and also a lot of 405 m² at $575 per m², to which he adds a shallow depth factor of 20%. His final adopted rate is $654 per m², and his key sales are vacant or lightly improved sales similar to properties 7 and 8. Mr Duthie's overall allowance for shallow depth and the shape of property 9 represents an increase of 7.3%, compared to Mr Treston's overall increase of 13.7%.

·Property 10 – Mr Duthie's key sales are his sale 1 front land ($330 per m²) and his sale 11 ($341 per m²). He has assessed the 410 m² lot fronting Nind Street at $480 per m² (comparing sale 1), and the 809 m² fronting Welch Street at $350 per m² (comparing sale 11); giving an overall rate of $394 per m², after allowing for a 15% discount for the impact of an adjoining owner influence.

Mr Treston adopts a 410 m² parcel fronting Nind Street at $580 per m² to which he adds a shallow depth allowance of 20%; plus an 809 m² site fronting Welch Street at $440 per m², giving an overall

rate of $525 per m². Mr Treston's key sales are his vacant or lightly improved sales at his sales 2 and 4.

·Property 11 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 9 ($412 per m²) as comparable; and his sale 8 ($294 per m²) as inferior, adopting a rate of $421 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard rate of $440 per m², to which he adds a shallow depth allowance of 20%, arriving at an overall rate of $503 per m². His key sale is his vacant or lightly improved sale 4, and he sees his sales 11 and 12 as both inferior.

·Property 12 – Mr Duthie draws similar comparisons to his property 11 adopting an overall rate of $375 per m². Mr Treston applies a similar comparison also to property 11, adopting an overall rate of $469 per m².

·Property 13 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 11 ($341 per m²) as comparable but smaller; as also is his sale 9 ($412 per m²) which is smaller, but Mr Duthie believes has a high price compared to his sales 8 and 10. He has adopted a rate of $257 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard unimproved rate of $440 per m², and relies on his key vacant or lightly improved sales 2 and 3 (one of which is a corner site) and his sales 11 and 12.

·Property 14 – Mr Duthie sees his sale 12 ($783 per m²) as superior; and his sale 5 ($415 per m²) as inferior due to its location, adopting an overall rate of $600 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard unimproved rate of $700 per m², to which he adds a 10% premium for corner location, giving an overall rate of $777 per m². Mr Duthie queries the use of a corner premium which he believes is more related to shops, and less for office purposes. Mr Treston key sales are his sales 1, 2 and 4, two of which are corner sales.

·Property 15 – Mr Duthie sees this property as inferior to a property at 18 Marine Parade, discussed in the Southport CBD (Group 2) matters, and analysed for an area of 1,198 m² at $700 per m². He has also made allowance for an increase of 110% due to size compared to sale 3 ($244 per m²), and adopted a rate of $520 per m².

Mr Treston has adopted a base standard rate of $580 per m² for 1,216.5 m² (Nind Street), to which he has added a shallow depth factor of 10%; and a base standard rate of $440 per m² for 1,216.5 m² (Welch Street), to which he has added a shallow depth factor of 10%. Mr Treston then adds a factor of 20% for Marine Parade exposure and corner influence, arriving at an overall rate of $678 per m².

To check his valuation Mr Treston provides an estimate based upon possible long-term use of the site for residential purposes, drawing support from sales 30 and 32. He allows for 73 beds at $18,000 per bed, to which he adds commercial potential for the ground floor (25%), giving a check rate of $678 per m². Mr Duthie rejects that comparison, arguing that sale 13 (98A Marine Parade) at $580 per m², and of a smaller size, supports his estimate, and "Comprehensive Development" zone is more flexible than "Resort Residential 1" zoning.

Mr Treston's key sales are his vacant of lightly improved sales 2 and 4, and he sees sales 11, 12 and 20 as inferior. He agrees sale 24 (the subject site) is a high sale.

·Property 16 – Mr Duthie draws similar comparisons to his property 15; and sees sale 13 ($580 per m²) as superior. Mr Duthie concludes an overall rate of $540 per m².

Mr Treston adopts a base standard unimproved rate of $575 per m² for a 657 m² lot (east part), and an 893 m² lot (west part). He then adds a 20% shallow depth factor for the 893 m² lot; and adds a further 20% corner influence factor to the 400 m² at the corner of Marine Parade and Railway Street, giving an overall rate of $661 per m². Mr Treston's key sales are his vacant or lightly improved sales 2, 3 and 4, one of which (sale 2) is a corner site, and he agrees is an inferior location.

Decision:

(1)The Nature of the Land –

I note that there is agreement in respect of the impacts of the road networks, and the likely exposure and access to traffic. In respect of the added value of improvements to the properties, there is some disagreement about the extent of fill on some properties, and the nature and extent of retaining walls. Following examination of the photographs supplied I believe the estimates may be summarised as follows:

Property	Mr Duthie		Mr Treston		Allow
Walls (m²)	Fill/Cut (m³)	Walls (m²)	Fill/Cut (m³)	Walls (m²)	Fill/Cut (m³)	Costs
1	12	2,000 F	Nil	2,800 F	12	3,500 F	$44,640
3	28	180 F	6	-	6	90 F	$2,400
4	22	190 F	6	-	6	120 F	$2,760
6	82	600 C	41	1,000 C	41	800 C	$14,620
7	44	400 C	44	400 C	44	400 C	$15,280
8	20	100 C	-	-	Method	of	Comparison -

11	-	-	20.7	278 F	20.7	278	F	$7,890
12	44	-	40	208 F	42	208	F	$11,736
13	280	2,500 C	(Allow	$9,140)	-

and 16.

There is no allowance for retaining walls or fill on properties 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15

The comparisons for properties 8 and 13 were undertaken on a developed site

basis by Mr Duthie, to which he then deducts walls and fill; and on an unimproved basis by Mr Treston, excepting that he allows an additional deduction for partial site works of $9,140 on property 13.

Mr Treston's comparison on a like-with-like basis, only allowing for fill and retaining walls where there was some difference between the sales adopted, is consistent with the approach preferred by the Courts of using vacant or lightly improved sales when determining unimproved values. (See the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, at 328).

(2) Contamination of Sites –

In respect of the decontamination of properties 5 and 6, Mr Duthie has adopted the quotations, or actual costs, undertaken to remedy each site. As such, his costs are the best evidence of the extent of work involved. The final estimates of such costs are now:

Property	Mr Duthie	Mr Treston
5	28,352.65	$22,440
6	$65,202.50	$42,202

The difference between the valuers lies in their understanding of whether it is appropriate to allow for the decommissioning of the tanks as well as the costs of decontamination. Mr Duthie argues that it would be necessary to remove the tanks prior to undertaking any decontamination of the site anyhow. However, one needs to understand that decontamination actions, as a consequence of some permanent pollution of a site, are processes to protect the health of the community under the Contaminated Land Act 1991. Whether the sites formerly used as service stations have been declared as "contaminated sites" or as "probable sites" is not significant in these matters, but it is agreed that the remedial actions would be required.
If the sites had formally been used for a purpose not associated with contamination, then there would then not be any need to undertake decontamination

actions. In those circumstances the presence of the underground tanks would merely be a cost associated with the decommissioning of the site and its further redevelopment. As such, the decommissioning costs would not be seen as part of the process of decontamination, although there would still be an improvement to the site, but with little, if any, added value. Indeed, their removal would be akin to the demolition of a building as an additional cost to any sale price in order to maximise the agreed highest and best use of the land.

Guidance can be found in the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v. Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-97) 16 QLCR 435, where a site formerly used as a service station had been declared as a "probable site" under the Contaminated Land Act 1991. The Land Appeal Court in considering whether a purchaser may have made allowance for any additional costs associated with decontaminating the site, above and beyond the normal costs of future development, said at p.445:
" We should say that, apart from statute, it does not appear to be self- evident that the mere possibility of leakage of petroleum products into land is necessarily a detriment or 'worsement' akin to what was considered in the cases cited, at least where the highest and best use under consideration is multiple unit development. Purchasers might well consider that they will be carrying out some excavation of land anyway, and paving with concrete, and that any problems will be overcome by these measures."

The need for caution in applying an allowance for decontamination was noted by the Land Appeal Court at p.466:
" In our judgment, it is appropriate to approach the matter conservatively. Not only does the onus of proof lie upon the appellant, but also it was within the appellant's power to have adduced more satisfactory evidence: a preliminary site investigation could have been carried out for $6,000. Also, the figures given by Mr Marley included costs of decommissioning which, Mr Hanger QC conceded, would have been incurred quite independently of the classification. Removal of tanks alone was estimated at $10,000-$20,000. Further, the chances were (70%) that the cost of removal lay in the range of $20,000-$35,000, and the expense was not to be incurred for some six years, until the existing lease expired."

In the current matter Mr Duthie supplies costs of preliminary investigations and reports which justify the contamination risk. However, the Caltex decision clearly separates the costs of decommissioning from those of decontamination. I also note that the decontamination was unlikely to proceed until further redevelopment

proceeded, so that the removal of the tanks could be coordinated with the decontamination so as to minimise costs to the developer. On that basis I accept Mr Treston's revised estimates of the decontamination costs.

(3) Methods of Valuation –

I note first that Mr Treston has sought to apply a more rigorous approach to the overall assessment of relativities and unimproved values in the CBD. As such, his use of "depth tables", derived from sales evidence in the locality, does not offend precedents adopted by the Courts, or the standard text. As a starting point, his use of an original "standard lot" approach based upon the old survey plans, has relied upon logic and consistency.
In his use of his "depth tables" as a tool to provide an assessment of the values, against which he then balances his professional judgment of the derived figures, Mr Treston follows guidance to be found in Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia, Third Edition (1993) Rost and Collins, p.646. In that text the authors noted comments in respect of the use of depth tables by the High Court of Australia in Dymocks Book Arcade Limited v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1937) 4 The Valuer 403, where McTierney J said at p.405:
" A perusal of the book shows that this system is designed primarily for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in carrying out a general valuation. The cross-examination of Mr Waldron and the diagrams Exhibit S and Exhibit 16 show that the system may produce startling results, at least where it is not being used as a general standard of valuation. The witness applied the Somers system rigidly in computing the value of each of the six sections. But it would be quite unsafe to assume that the result which the Legislature intended to be reached by applying its own criterion could be produced by the inflexible application of a mathematical formula constructed after the consideration and adjustment of particular data based on the experience of sales in another country."

In the current matters Mr Treston has developed a modification of those standard depth tables, based upon analysed local sales, and as such he avoids the criticism of importing a process from elsewhere. However, the direction of the High Court that the method must be used with caution, and constrained to only a standard lot approach, conditions the use of the method.
The texts go on to note that depth tables can be applied to inside lots, and may be adjusted for use also on corner sites. However, the application of the tables needs to be made on a like-with-like basis in their initial conception. Care therefore needs

to be taken to ensure that the relationships of depth to frontage for inside lots is not initially checked against corner lots. If such a check did occur then it would be inappropriate to add any further increase for corner location. In respect of Mr Treston's use of a "corner factor" of 10% or 20%, depending on location, those quantums are not generally disputed, but only the relevance of adding a further factor for corner influence, if the tables themselves have been developed from sales of corner lots.

The use of standard rates and corner influences in this matter should not, in my opinion, be seen as purely a process of precise mathematical calculations. The process used by Mr Treston was seen as a tool for the valuers to try and generate a standardised approach to each valuation. In the end Mr Treston checked each valuation determined by his practical estimation of the values, in accordance with directions to be found in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. St Helen's Farm (ACT) Pty Ltd (1980-81) 146 CLR 336, at 381. The "depth tables" are merely to assist the general weighting of professional opinion, the outcomes of which depend upon personal judgment. (See Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v. Charlesworth, Pilling & Co [1901] AC 373 at 391; and also Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v. Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (AV94-206), 11 February 1998, to be reported).
In respect of Mr Duthie's method, I note that he has sought to compare like with like, and where he could find no sales of comparable size, he applied a size factor based upon his personal judgment. In making those assumptions Mr Duthie follows guidance provided by the Land Appeal Court in King Ranch Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General 35 CLLR 255, at 259 where the Court found:

"In not attempting to do this, Mr Walker adopted a method of valuing based on knowledge and experience rather than one lacking precedent and authority."

This was further clarified in the wording of the minority decision of that case where the learned Member noted at p.262:

" In Bingham v. Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR 1 at pages 18 and 19, Sugerman J says, 'In the absence of sufficient guidance to be had from sales, the valuer may find himself in a position resembling that to which Lord Romer referred in the Raja case (1939) AC at pages 312 and 313, in which he will have no market value to guide him, and he will have to ascertain as best he may from the material before him what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser for the land.' The valuer in arriving at his opinion in these

difficult matters may have to draw upon his general knowledge and experience, including perhaps experience in other situations which, although lacking in complete comparability, may yet provide an experienced valuer with guidance and suggestions as to the general approach which may be made and as to considerations which may become relevant."

Whether those factors for size as determined by Mr Duthie are appropriate is a matter for judgment on each property. Mr Paterson argues that an inconsistent approach to differences in size may be found in properties 3, 5, 6, 9, 14 and 15 as follows:

Property	Sale	Applied Factor	Sale	Applied Factor
3 (506 m²)	7 (1,012 m²)	0.81	8 (405 m²)	0.95
5 (1,620 m²)	3 (4,421 m²)	1.41	5 (808 m²)	0.83
6 (1,262 m²)	1 (650 m²)	1.45	3 (4,421 m²)	1.96
9 (1,017 m²)	3 (4,421 m²)	1.92	5 (808 m²)	1.14
14 (811 m²)	12 (650 m²)	0.78	5 (808 m²)	1.45
15 (2,433 m²)	3 (4,421 m²)	2.13	-	-

Allowing for the general principle that comparable larger lots sell for a lower rate per m², there would appear to be some support for Mr Paterson's argument on the basis of the above difference for size alone. However, I also note Mr Treston's assumption that it is not appropriate to allow for differences in size, except for the much larger lots. While it may be the practice of the Council to encourage the amalgamation of smaller lots into larger lots, through town planning policies, that tends to differ from the normal market expectations that smaller lots are found to sell at a higher unit rate than larger lots. Without sales evidence to support his conclusions, I will place a lower weighting upon Mr Treston's comparisons for that basis.
A key issue in the sales analysis lies in the different assumptions of the valuers in respect of whether owner/occupiers or general property developers constitute different market segments in that locality. I can agree with Mr Treston that, simplistically speaking, there is only one market, and buyers must compete with each other. However, when an existing tenant has a business which is expanding, then he also may have some special value associated with that site, rather than incur the additional business costs associated with possible relocation.
It is therefore logical that he may be prepared to bid to a level higher than that of normal prudent property developers, who also seek to capitalise on any risk

potential. It is noted that of the total of 24 sales analysed, eight (sales 2, 5, 6, 7, 13 Treston's 7, Treston's 21A and 21B) were all sold to new owners who were either tenants at the time of sale, or subsequently developed the site for their personal use. Sales 2, 5, 6, 21A and 21B are all key to the assessments.

Whether there is evidence therefore to demonstrate that certain sales reflect some "special value" component, is the reason why Mr Duthie provides his additional feasibility analyses. He does not rely upon values obtained by those analyses, other than to use them to demonstrate his hypothesis in respect of owner/occupiers. However, I am directed by Mr Paterson to problems which have been found with the use of such approaches, noting in particular his conclusion that a variation of only 1% in the capitalisation rates can have a significant effect upon the outcome of any feasibility analyses (or notional developments). Indeed, such shortcomings were identified by the President of this Court in Thirty-fourth Philgram Pty Ltd v. The Crown (1992-93) 14 QLCR 13, where he found at p.28:
" I have analysed the judgments in the Merivale and Neray/Blocksidge and Badgery cases in some detail to demonstrate the attitude of the Land Court and the Land Appeal Court to the notional development method of valuation. On the authority of those cases I consider that the hypothetical or notional development method of valuation (sometimes referred to as the residual value method) is inappropriate as a primary method of valuation, although it may be useful as a check upon the valuation ascertained by a direct comparison with sales and/or, in appropriate circumstances, previous determinations by the Courts. It is essentially a method used by property developers to enable them to ascertain the highest price they can pay for a parcel of land in a development project, having regard to the circumstances of that project. "

In the context of that decision I would agree with Mr Paterson that the feasibility analyses provide no direct support for the values of the properties; but they may provide some insight into whether there are factors in the eight sales supplied which may suggest that there could be some "special value" to the owner/occupiers.

In the matter of Merivale Motel Investments Pty Ltd v. Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority (1984-85) 10 QLCR 175, the learned Member (later President) said at p.192:
"The method can only be considered a satisfactory one if it is based on the best utilisation of the property. This method, in which a number of different factors are employed, is dependent on the judgment of the individual valuer and can involve a wide margin of error. I am told in evidence that this is a method adopted by developers when they are considering the purchase of re-development sites. Courts have generally

avoided the use of this method of valuation if some simpler method is available. The method has many uncertain elements and changes in any of the variables will bring a startling difference in the answer."

p.281:

On appeal in that matter (10 QLCR 268) the Land Appeal Court found at

"Residual value (notional development) exercises of the type undertaken by the valuers in this case are well recognised as being fraught with difficulty. The end result (land value) is subject to wide variation depending upon the accuracy of the statistics provided."

In the end I find that I must apply certain caution to any conclusions that might arise from the feasibility analyses, and I place little weight upon reliance that the sales were out of line with the general property market as a result of those analyses.
In adopting certain key benchmark rates for the application of his sales, Mr Treston has demonstrated from the sales evidence the gradual changes that occur along the major streets in the CBD. It is agreed by both valuers that land values decline along Nind Street from Marine Parade to High Street; and also along Scarborough Street and Davenport Street to Hick Street; before then increasing along Scarborough Street as it approaches Australia Fair. Those conclusions support the graded former relativities established some years previously. The only concern is whether the actual quantum of the rates adopted matches the analysis of the sales used.

(4) Changes in the Market –

Before comparing the key sales, I seek guidance as to whether the property market was changing at the date of valuation, or whether it was static, as claimed by Mr Duthie. It is Mr Treston's argument that the resale of 14 to 17 Nind Street, sale 2 (23%), together a resale of 14 Windmill Street sale 5 (11.5%), and a resale of sale 28 (27%), suggest that there had been changes in the market around the date of valuation. As a consequence of those perceived increases Mr Treston has now applied unimproved values at rates above the analysed rates submitted to the Court on several properties.
In respect of the sales of properties for use for medical centre purposes (discussed separately in the Southport CBD Group 2 decision), I believe they represent a different market segment, and I will not consider those additional sales further at present. From the schedule of selected major sales supplied by Mr Duthie

(Exhibit 6), the total number of sales would appear to have remained relatively steady, as does the total value of sales if the largest sale is excluded. Statistically there is some support for Mr Duthie's conclusion, although it must be realised that the results have a low level of significance due to the very small sample size.

I note that five of the sales (sales 3, 4, 7, 12 and 13) all occurred after the date of issue of the valuations, and are therefore late sales within the general understanding of precedents in this Court. I note also that sales 4, 7, 12 and 13 are much closer to the succeeding date of valuation at 1 October 1998. While it is permissible to seek some support from those late sales in the event of a static market, in view of the paucity of the sales to establish the nature of the market after the relevant date, I place less weight on those sales.

(5) Comparison of Sales –

Firstly I accept that the preferred method of comparison of sales for the purpose of determining unimproved values is with the sales of vacant or lightly improved lands. (See Hans and Else Grahn v. The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, at 328). Mr Duthie's sales 1, 2, 5 and 6, and Mr Treston's sales 21A, 21B, 28, 30 and 32 all meet that criteria. I also accept that it is appropriate that comparable lands should bear proper relativity, so long as the valuations are soundly based. (See R and MM Barnwell v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13, at 16).
I note also that Mr Duthie has adopted two sales by mortgagees in possession (sales 8 and 10). After considering the extent of marketing and exposure applied as part of sale 8, he concludes that sale 8 should be applied. He was, however, unaware that sale 10 was a mortgagee in possession, and subsequently agrees that sale should be considered with some caution. Both of Mr Duthie's approaches are supported by the findings of the Land Appeal Court in Mayne Property Development Pty Ltd v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1996-97) 16 QLCR 709, at 717 to 719. In this analysis I will place lesser weight upon Mr Duthie's sale 10.

(i) The Added Value of Tenancies -

In considering his sale 2, Mr Duthie has also made allowance for a tenancy agreement currently running with the properties. While this is a normal part of valuation practice when assessing properties for commercial purposes, it must be seen in the context of whether such tenancies can be construed as legitimate added value to the land. In that respect I am directed by Mr Paterson to the findings of AMP Society

Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1994-95) 15 QLCR 344. In that matter the appellant sought for the deduction of a component in an annual valuation for guaranteed rental agreements, something similar to that now claimed by Mr Duthie. The appellant in that matter sought support from the findings of Toohey's Limited v. The Valuer-General [1925] AC 439, claiming that the added value of the tenancies should be treated as an improvement similar to the value of a hotel licence as found in Toohey's (see s.5.1 of the Act).
In the current matter Mr Paterson again argues that the tenancy leases cannot be considered as an "improvement" under s.6 of the Act. However, I note in AMP Society (supra) that the Land Appeal Court, in the special circumstances of that matter, where the highest and best use of the land for shopping centre purposes (now the Pacific Fair Shopping Centre) had not yet been realised to its fullest scope, said at p.349:
" We feel that the present case can be distinguished from Toohey's Case, as there the enhancement in value was clearly attributable to the buildings which had been constructed on the site. Whilst it may be argued in this case that the rental guarantee would influence the mind of the purchaser as to what sum he would pay for the land, it seems to us that it is quite another proposition to say that the value of the guarantee should be deducted from the selling price of the land. Even if that proposition was correct, what sum should be deducted, bearing in mind that the security offered by the guarantee is relative to the completed development, is for a limited period, and has value only if there is a shortfall between the actual and guaranteed rental returns."

The Land Appeal Court went on to say at p.350:
" We are of the opinion that a purchaser of the subject land in an unimproved state at the relevant date for its highest and best use and with all relevant zonings and approvals in place would not see it necessary to seek such guarantee."

In the general matter of whether lease rentals may be seen as part of the added value of the improvements upon the land, I note that the decision to include the value of a hotel licence as an improvement in Toohey's case, has led to the present wording of s.5.1 of the Act. In matters of compensation, where an owner is to be fully compensated for his total loss in the taking of the property, and where the property is subject to a lease by a tenant, the compensation owed to the owner must allow for the existence of those leases, and the owner is accordingly not entitled to the full freehold value of the land. (Rosenbaum v. The Minister (1964) 9 LGRA 154).

In that matter the tenancy agreements of two semi-detached residences on the land were valued as "out of possession" interests of the tenants. A similar finding that the tenancies had grounds for compensation for the unexpired duration of their leases, while retaining occupation of the building, was also found in Charles McDonald Pty Ltd v. Housing Commission of New South Wales (1957) 2 LGRA 160. Both of those cases relate to claims for compensation by tenants for loss of rights to exercise their ongoing lease arrangements, as a consequence of an act to prematurely terminate the leases.
Guidance of the matter of the legal nature and duration of a lease resumed is addressed in Michael v. Brisbane City Council (1970) 37 CLLR 5; and for costs involved in relocation of an ongoing lease in Neep v. Gold Coast City Council (1981-

82) 8 QLCR 234. However, all of the above four matters can be distinguished in the current matter which deals with the unimproved value of the land, as if the existing buildings which are essential to the exercising of the rights of the tenants, never existed.

If I return then to the findings of AMP Society, I note that the rental guarantee in that matter related to rents guaranteed to return to the purchaser as a consequence of the completion of the development upon a comparable sale of land at Browns Plains. In the current matter the rental allowance by Mr Duthie in sale 2 reflects a termination notice to the tenant.
If the new owner of sale 2 was to receive the full and unencumbered use of that land at the date of the sale, then it would be reasonable for the value of the unexpired lease to the tenants to be considered in respect of sale 2. It is agreed that the best use of sale 2 would be for redevelopment purposes, and the new owner would be denied access to the site for redevelopment as a consequence of any outstanding lease. The costs of terminating the lease would, in my opinion, be comparable to the demolition of an existing building, and therefore something that should be added to the sale price, rather than deducted from it.
The only other references to tenancy agreements by Mr Duthie relate to considering whether, in his opinion, the sales represent a normal commercial opportunity, and whether the sale reflects some out-of-line transactions. He makes no special allowance for tenancies in any sale other than sale 2.

(ii) Delayed Settlements –

I turn now to the matter of whether an allowance should be considered as an adjustment to the sale price as a consequence of an agreement by the parties to defer final settlement of the payment for the land. I note that Mr Duthie argues that final settlement was to occur four months after the date of the sale, and he has allowed for a deferred settlement of two months at a commercial rate of interest of 9%. Mr Paterson resists such an allowance.
I note that the matter of a deferred payment was considered by the High Court of Australia in Federal Commissioner of Land Tax v. Duncan & Ors [1915] 19 CLR 551, where Isaacs J said at p.559:
" As far as payment is concerned, it may be for cash, or it may be, what I regard as equivalent, upon credit with interest. If cash is given on the spot or if cash is not given for (say) three or six months but interest is given – that is the regular current interest – those are the same thing, because in both cases alike the vendor has the use and benefit of his money. If he were to sell on credit without interest, that would not be equivalent to cash."

In the current matter, if an arrangement for interest had been negotiated in the sale, then the sale price would have reflected the value to the vendor at that date of sale, and any interest subsequently paid as a deferred settlement would reflect a separate income from the cash price for the land. On that basis then, any interest allowed as a consequence of the deferred payment, would be over and above the sale price, and should not be deducted from the sale price in assessing the value of the land.
However, I have no evidence that a separate provision was negotiated for interest over the deferred settlement period of four months. In fact, the evidence would indicate a normal contract arrangement where a deposit is paid, and the balance paid at the end of the delayed settlement period, presumably similar to other sales considered.
In considering the matter of "reasonable terms" of a contract of sale, I note the words of Griffith CJ in Duncan & Ors v. Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (supra) where he said at p.557:
" In my opinion, the words 'such terms and conditions' in the definition of 'unimproved value' do not refer to such matters at all. The only question is the present value of the land. The vendor is free to allow any credit, to ask any interest, to make any other stipulations he pleases for his own benefit, but those matters do not affect the value of the land,

that is to say, the capital sum that could be realised by selling the land to a willing purchaser."

The matter of a deferred settlement was also addressed in The Commonwealth of Australia v. Milledge [1952-53] 90 CLR 157, where the trial Judge sought to allow an additional amount as a consequence of a decline in the purchasing power of money over a delayed settlement period. The High Court of Australia reversed that decision, and in respect of the deferred settlement provision, Dixon CJ and Kitto J said at p.163:
" The question which his Honour seems ultimately to have asked himself is, what would a reasonable person in the plaintiff's place have been prepared, not to pay on the specified date, but to agree on the specified date to pay over a period after that date, had he known how money would depreciate in the meantime. In a word, the hypothetical sale which his Honour took as his test of value seems to have been a sale upon terms of deferred payment. A valuation made according to such a test clearly cannot stand."

In considering sale 4, I note that Mr Duthie has allowed for a reduction in the sale price to reflect a deferral of the settlement date agreed by the parties. In the context of that sale the price negotiated would have reflected the needs and desires of the parties at that time. If subsequently, for whatever commercial reasons, the parties agreed to defer the settlement, presumably to the advantage of both parties, then that is a matter subsequent to the sale, and should not be used to further adjust the sale price. (See Collins and Others v. The Minister (1923) 6 LGR 84, cited in Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia by Rost and Collins, Third Edition, p.87). On that basis I reject the adjustment for settlement in sale 4.

(iii) The Impact of Adjoining Owners –

In analysing his sale 9, Mr Duthie has applied an unsupported reduction of 15% to that sale as a consequence of the sale being to an adjoining owner. It is his argument that he has consistently made such adjustments in the locality, although he supplies no sales evidence to support that figure, relying entirely upon his professional opinion. However, I am reminded that in the matter of Hurdis v. the Minister (1957) 2 LGRA 132, Hardie J said at p.140:
" It is true that in many cases a purchase by an adjoining owner of property, whether in a city, suburban, or rural area, reflects special value to the purchaser rather than market value. That, however, does not apply in all cases. Where, as here, there are no other sales available to support a party's contention that the sale to an adjoining owner reflects something more than market value it is incumbent on that party to point to some circumstances associated with the sale or with the property itself or the

position, needs and desires of the purchaser to justify the inference that the selling price was an excessive one."

While Mr Duthie argues that the sale will be amalgamated to develop a more useful property fronting Marine Parade, it is not axiomatic that the adjoining owner would have been prepared to exceed the market price for the land. In the absence of evidence to support that contention, I make no allowance for adjoining owner influence on sale 4.

(iv) The Use of a second Method of Valuation –

In seeking to apply a second method in his assessment of property 15, Mr Treston has followed guidance given in Minister of State for the Navy v. Rae (1945) 70 CLR 339, where Dixon J said at p.344:
" In reaching a conclusion as to compensation for the taking of a piece of property such as that now in question, it is necessary, or at all events wise, to pursue as many means of estimation as are open, to compare them, and then, as an exercise of judgment, to fix what, upon considerations of this process suggests, appears to be a fair compensation."

While Mr Treston concludes that the highest and best use for property 15 is for retail, offices and residential purposes (section 3); which is consistent with the planning intentions of Precinct 2 near Marine Parade (section 5); his assumption of a 25% loading for commercial potential for ground 4 (section 9) is not supported by sales evidence. Without that further loading of 25% the applied rate for property 15 would be $542 per m²; which is consistent with my adopted rate of $520 per m². On that basis it is safer to reject Mr Treston's use of sales 30 and 32 to support his concluded rates.

(v) Comparisons Adopted –

If I then make allowances for the matters so far discussed, I conclude the following rates for the sales which, in my opinion, are key to these matters:

Sale	Rate per m²	Nature of the Sale
1 (front)	$330	Lightly improved
2 (common)	$647	Lightly improved
3 (common)	$248	Late and improved
5 (common)	$420	Lightly improved
6 (common)	$480	Lightly improved
9 (common)	$535	Improved

12 (Treston)	$446	Old and improved
21A (Treston)	$396	Old and vacant
21B (Treston)	$360	Old and adjoining Owner
28 (Treston)	$256

My analyses of these sales are as follows:

·Sale 1 – front ($330 per m²) – both valuers concur that this reflects an area which has a good representation of car yards, and is closer to Australia Fair.

·Sale 2 - ($647) per m²) – I have allowed for improvements totalling
$4,400 (hard stand $5,400 and building $12,500 and then allowed the additional cost of terminating the tenancy $13,500), giving an analysed rate of $647 per m², which compares with the applied rate of $580 per m² (90%). The question remains however whether the sale is out of line with the market.

·Sale 3 – ($248 per m²) – In view of the detailed opinions of both valuers I have concluded an added value of $302,000 for improvements (including interest), giving an analysed value of $1,098,000 ($248 per m²). This is compared with the applied unimproved value of $1,125,000 ($255 per m²
- 114%).

·Sale 5 – ($420 per m²) – I have rejected the added value of the gates, poles and lights, and adopted Mr Duthie's revised estimate at $420 per m².

·Sale 6 – ($480 per m²) – In view of the close agreement with Mr Duthie ($484 per m²) and Mr Treston ($478 per m²), I have adopted $480 per m².

·Sale 9 – ($535 per m²) – I have allowed $50,000 for the buildings plus
$3,000 for other improvements, and rejected the adjoining owner influence; giving an analysed value of $217,000 ($535 per m²).

(vi) Application of Sales –

In seeking application of those sales I will first consider Mr Treston's method of using a standard base rate. It is arguable that a standard base rate of $325 per m² could be supported at the intersection of High and Nind Streets by the key sales. Sale 3 ($248 per m²) is seen as superior but smaller. Sale 28 ($256 per m²) is seen as comparable but smaller and further away; and Mr Treston sees his sale 19 ($291 per m² - 7,082 m²) as comparable but larger, although sale 19 was a purpose-built sale. However, a standard base rate of $300 per m² could also be supported by the same sales. Mr Duthie has adopted a net usable rate for property 1 of $200 per m², and Mr

Treston $269 per m². If I adopt a standard base rate at that location of $300 per m², then Mr Treston's calculation would be proportionately $248 per m² for the net usable area of property 1.

If I then move to the eastern end of Nind Street, I find that Mr Treston has adopted a standard base rate of $580 per m² based upon his sale 4 (15 Nind Street), now analysed at $647 per m², and applied at $580 per m², (90%). Such a conservative application in the current uncertainties of the market are supported by Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v. Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia Limited (1947) 74 CLR 358, at 373-374, per Dixon J. The only thing to possibly distinguish the adoption of sale 4 lies in Mr Duthie's argument that the sale was out of line, and should be rejected. (See Collins & Ors v. The Minister (supra).)
The history of sale 4 discloses that the purchaser (Mr Ning) in 1994 had previously tried unsuccessfully to purchase the site for $430,000; and that the land subsequently sold to another person at that time for $435,000. At that time the difference in the price offered, and that finally accepted by the former owner, suggests that Mr Ning was a very discerning and careful property developer. However, his desire to purchase the land some three years later in 1997 for $535,000 could either reflect an increase in the general property market, or a change in Mr Ning's desire for the land.
The supporting evidence of a change in the market between 1995 and 1998 relates to the resale at 15 Windmill Street (11.7%). The increase paid over a similar period at sale 4 represents 23%, and lends support to Mr Duthie's claim that Mr Ning had another pressing need to acquire that property in 1997, and may have been an over-anxious buyer.
There is, of course, the matter of a possible change in the market being reflected by the resale of sale 28 at 2 Ferry Road; which increased by 27% from

$550,000 (1992) to $700,000 (1998). However, it is noted that sale 28 is more remote from the Nind Street locality, with possible different local dynamics, and that the former sale occurred in 1992, prior to the large increase in activity in the market in 1994 (Exhibit 6). Without further sales evidence to support that increase in sale 28, I find little comfort from the resale of that property in 1998.

The other evidence of a general market trend for properties in that locality does not support a 23% increase. On that basis, I believe sale 4 is suspect, and should be rejected. However, in making that conclusion I am not influenced by Mr Duthie's

feasibility analysis which, because of the uncertainties about appropriate rates to apply, gives me little comfort.

Having now rejected sale 4, I am faced with the problem of seeking other comparisons upon which to achieve a standard base rate at the eastern end of Nind Street. The only sale to assist me is sale 13 (98A Marine Parade) which, although an improved sale, and a very late sale in March 1999, reveals an analysed value of $580 per m². If Mr Duthie's conclusion that the market was static since the relevant date has some substance, then sale 13 provides some indication of the standard rate at that locality. If a corresponding conservative application (90%) is applied, then I obtain a standard base rate of $522 per m² (say $520 per m²). For the purpose of this exercise I will adopt $520 per m² for the eastern end of Nind Street. If I then consider my adopted and analysed rates at sale 5 ($420 per m²), and sale 6 ($480 per m²), I believe appropriate applied base rates at those locations would be sale 5 ($400 per m²) and sale 6 ($450 per m²).
Having established rates along Nind Street, I now turn to Windmill and Davenport Streets, and note that there is nothing to discredit Mr Treston's conclusion that a base standard lot at the corner of Davenport and Windmill Streets reflects a value of $300 per m², which is more than supported by the applied rate of $371 per m² for sale 5. Likewise, Mr Treston's conclusion of a standard base rate of $440 per m² at the corner of Scarborough and Welch Streets is supported by sale 12 ($446 per m²). I will also adopt those rates, as well as Mr Treston's conclusion of Rawlins Street at

$275 per m². Mr Duthie's comparisons do not dissuade me to other conclusions.

(vii) Determination of Values –

Based upon the adopted rates I now assess the properties as follows:
· Property 1 – 5,591 m² @ $248/m² = $1,386,568 Less impact of easements 290m² @ $124/m² = $35,960 Less walls and fill = $44,640
Less shape 406 m² @ $125/m² = $50,750

Total $1,255,218
Say $1,255,000

($225 per m²)

·             Property 2 – 912 m² @ $300/m²             =     $273,600 Plus corner location 10%
Total  $300,960
Say  $300,000

($329 per m²)

·    Property 3 - 506 m² @ $300/m² = $151,800

Plus shallow depth (1.06) = $160,908

Less walls and fill = $2,400

Total

$158,508

Say $158,000

($312 per m²)

·    Property 4 - 949 m² @ $300/m²

=

$284,700

Less depth allowance (0.944) = $268,757

Less walls and fill = $2,760

Total $265,997

Say $266,000

($280 per m²)

·    Property 5 - 1,620 m² @ $400/m²

=

$648,000

Less contamination = $22,440

Total

$625,560

Say $625,000

($385 per m²)

· Property 6 - 1,262 m² @ $480/m² = $605,760

Less walls and fill = $14,620

Less contamination = $42,202

Total

$548,938

Say
$550,000

($435 per m²)

I make no allowance for corner location on property 5 as four of the sales used to determine that base rate were corner sites. To provide for a further allowance in the adoption of that base rate would appear to be inappropriate.

As the sale of the subject land (sale 2) was part of the assessment of the standard base rate, I make no further allowance for corner location.
· Property 7 - 819 m² @ $520/m² = $425,880 Less walls and fill = $15,280

Total $410,600
Say $410,000

($500 per m²)

· Property 8 - 809 m² @ $520/m² = $420,680
Say $420,000

($519 per m²)

· Property 9 - 1,017 m² @ $520/m² = $528,840 plus shallow depth (allow 25 metres = 1.15)

Total $608,166
Say $605,000

($595 per m²)

·    Property 10 - 410 m² @ $520/m²                   =     $213,200
Plus shallow depth (1.20)  = $255,840
809 m² @ $440/m²  =     $355,960
Less depth allowance (0.84)  = $299,006

Total $554,846
Say $555,000

($455 per m²)

· Property 11 – 278 m² @ $440/m² = $122,320 Plus shallow depth allowance (1.2) = $146,284 Less walls and fill = $7,890

Total $138,394
Say $140,000

($503 per m²)

· Property 12 – 405 m² @ $440/m² = $178,200 Plus shallow depth (1.2) = $213,840
Less walls and fill = $11,736

Total $202,104

Mr Treston has adopted $190,000 and I will accept that figure ($469 per m²).

· Property 13 – 1,219 m² @ $440/m² = $536,360 Less part site works = $9,140

Total $527,220
Say $525,000

($430 per m²)

· Property 14 – 811 m² @ $700/m² = $567,700 Say

$570,000

($703 per m²)

· Property 15 – 1,216.5 m² @ $520/m² = $632,580

Plus shallow depth (1.1) 1,216.5 m² @ $440/m²
=

$535,260
= $695,838

I make no further allowance for corner location as the three sales used to set the rate for property 14 (Mr Treston's sales 1, 2 and 4) were all corner sites.

Plus shallow depth (1.1) = $588,786

Total $1,284,624
Say $1,285,000

($528 per m²)

I make no further allowance for exposure to Marine Parade as the sale which assisted in establishing the base rate of $520 per m² was also exposed to Marine Parade and was a corner sale.
· Property 16 – 657 m² @ $520/m² = $341,640 893 m² @ $520/m² = $464,360
Plus allowance for shallow depth (1.2) = $557,232

Total $898,872
Say $900,000

($580 per m²)

15.

I make no allowance for corner influence for similar reasons to property

Conclusions

Having considered the whole of the evidence I am persuaded that the appellants have partly proved their case. The determinations of the Chief Executive are set aside and the unimproved values are determined as follows:

Appeal	Unimproved Value	Appeal	Unimproved Value
(1) AV98-765	$1,255,000	(9) AV98-755	$605,000
(2) AV98-759	$300,000	(10) AV98-816	$555,000
(3) AV98-761	$158,000	(11) AV98-815	$140,000
(4) AV98-762	$266,000	(13) AV98-814	$525,000
(6) AV98-818	$550,000	(14) AV98-757	$570,000
(7) AV98-758	$410,000	(15) AV98-817	$1,285,000
(8) AV98-756	$420,000	(16) AV98-823	$900,000

In respect of property 5 and property 12 I find that the appellants have not proved their cases, and the unimproved values as determined by the Chief Executive in the sums of $625,000 (AV98-760) and $190,000 (AV98-763) are confirmed.

NG DIVETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT

Year	No. of Sales	Value	Largest Sale
1993	11	15.5 million	4.7 million
1994	14	43.6 million	7.7 million
1995	13	14 million	5.8 million
1996	8	22.9 million	12.1 million
1997	12	11 million	3.5 million
1998	12	11.1 million	3.7 million
1999 (Part)	2	3.2 million	2.2 million

· Property 3 - 506 m² @ $300/m²	=	$151,800
Plus shallow depth (1.06)	=	$160,908
Less walls and fill	=	$2,400
Total	$158,508
Say	$158,000
($312 per m²)
· Property 4 - 949 m² @ $300/m²	=	$284,700
Less depth allowance (0.944)	=	$268,757
Less walls and fill	=	$2,760
Total	$265,997
Say	$266,000
($280 per m²)
· Property 5 - 1,620 m² @ $400/m²	=	$648,000
Less contamination	=	$22,440
Total	$625,560
Say	$625,000
($385 per m²)

[1999] QLC 220

10 September 1999