PULICH and VALUER-GENERAL
[2021] WASAT 62
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION: PULICH and VALUER-GENERAL [2021] WASAT 62
MEMBER: MS KY LOH, MEMBER
HEARD: 11 FEBRUARY 2021
DELIVERED : 6 MAY 2021
FILE NO/S: DR 171 of 2020
BETWEEN: ALDO PULICH
First Applicant
NILAR PULICH
Second Applicant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent
Catchwords:
Valuation of land - 'Unimproved value' - Highest and best use - Whether any value to be attributed to existing improvement on property with potential for further subdivision and development
Legislation:
City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24
State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes, Volume 1
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 27(3)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1), s 18, s 32(1), s 32(3), s 32(9), s 33(1), s 33(2)
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| First Applicant | : | In Person |
| Second Applicant | : | In Person |
| Respondent | : | Mr D Dumas (as representative) |
Solicitors:
| First Applicant | : | N/A |
| Second Applicant | : | N/A |
| Respondent | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2002] WASC 174; (2002) 125 LGERA 180
Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (No 2) (1973) 6 SASR 541
Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General (NSW) [2006] NSWLEC 400; (2006) 148 LGERA 38
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer [1981] 1 NSWLR 547
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 212 CLR 111
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
The owners of two properties in Maylands, Mr and Mrs Pulich, contest the decision of the Valuer-General on 18 June 2020 to disallow their objection to the valuation of the unimproved value of their properties.
The subject properties have the same lot dimensions and size, and were each valued, on an unimproved basis, at $600,000 as at 1 August 2018.
The Valuer-General relies on the comparable sales method of valuation, and has assessed the highest and best use of the subject properties as having the development potential for three-lot grouped dwellings.
The owners did not call their own expert valuer, and have instead sought to challenge the expert opinion of the qualified licensed valuer called by the Valuer-General, Ms Emily Wenman.
For reasons set out below, I am satisfied that there is a reasoned and sound basis for Ms Wenman's valuation assessment, which has not been seriously challenged by the owners. I will affirm the ValuerGeneral's decision and dismiss the application.
Issue for determination
The primary issue for determination is whether the unimproved value of each of the subject properties as at 1 August 2018 adopted by the Valuer-General is fair, just, equitable or correct.
In considering the primary issue, the following secondary issues arise:
(1)What is the highest and best use of the subject properties?
(2)What comparable sales should be taken into account?
(3)How should adjustments be made for improvements in calculating unimproved value?
Factual Background
Characteristics of the subject properties
The subject properties are located at 39 and 59 Kelvin Street, Maylands, and falls within the local planning district of the City of Bayswater in the Perth metropolitan area.
The subject properties have the same lot dimensions and size, each with an 18.1 metre street frontage to Kelvin Street and have a land area of 911m2.
39 Kelvin Street has a single-level dwelling, whilst 59 Kelvin Street has two single-level dwellings, with one unit positioned at the front and the other positioned at the rear and accessed via a battleaxe driveway.
Under the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, the subject properties are zoned 'Medium and High Density Residential' with a coding of R30 under State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R-Codes).
Review application
On 22 November 2019, the owners lodged their objections to the valuation of the unimproved value of the subject properties upon which their land tax assessments were based.
On 18 June 2020, the Valuer-General disallowed their objections.
On 24 July 2020, the owners requested the Valuer-General refer the matter to the Tribunal.
Legislative framework
Tribunal jurisdiction
The owners seek a review under s 33(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (Valuation Act) of the Valuer-General's decision to disallow their objection to the valuation of the unimproved value of the subject properties.
This application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction as a matter that expressly involves a review of a decision: s 17 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).
The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review: s 27(2) of the SAT Act.
The review is not confined to matters that were before the City but may involve the consideration of new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made: s 27(1) of the SAT Act. Nor is the review limited to the reasons for decision or grounds for review set out in the application: s 27(3) of the SAT Act.
Valuation Act
Under s 18 of the Valuation Act, the Valuer-General shall, for the purpose of a general valuation, relevantly determine the unimproved value of rateable land as required by a rating or taxing authority for the purpose of assessing any rate or tax.
A person liable to pay any rate or tax assessed in respect of land who is dissatisfied with a valuation of such land may object to the valuation: s 32(1) of the Valuation Act.
An objection can be made on the ground that the valuation is not fair or is unjust, inequitable or incorrect, whether by itself or in comparison with other valuations in force under the Valuation Act: s 32(3) of the Valuation Act.
The Valuer-General may allow or disallow the objection, wholly or in part: s 32(9) of the Valuation Act.
A person dissatisfied with the Valuer-General's decision on an objection can require the Valuer-General to refer the valuation to the Tribunal for a review, which must be referred promptly by the ValuerGeneral: s 33(1) and 33(2) of the Valuation Act.
'Unimproved value' is relevantly defined under s 4(1) of the Valuation Act as, in relation to any land situate within a townsite, the site value.
The definition of 'townsite' under s 4(1) of the Valuation Act covers all land within the metropolitan area.
'Site value' is in turn relevantly defined under s 4(1) of the Valuation Act as the capital amount that an estate of fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realize upon sale assuming that any improvements to the land had not been made.
'Improvements' is relevantly defined under s 4(1) of the Valuation Act as meaning, in relation to land, the value of all works actually effected to land, whether above or below the surface, and includes fixtures.
Valuation principles
Market value - Spencer test
The concept of capital amount embodied in the definition of 'site value' is analogous to the test of market value as encapsulated in the seminal case of Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 (at 432, 441) (Spencer) - that is, the price arrived at by a willing but not anxious buyer negotiating with a willing but not anxious seller, both perfectly acquainted with the land and cognisant of all circumstances which might affect its value.
The statutory land valuation exercise has been accepted as reflecting, at least implicitly if not explicitly, the ordinary principle of ascertaining the value of land as set out in the Spencer test: Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General(NSW) [2006] NSWLEC 400; (2006) 148 LGERA 38 (Commonwealth Custodial Services) at [13].
Highest and best use
Under the Spencer test, market value assumes that the hypothetical purchaser is purchasing the land 'for the most advantageous purpose for which it is adapted' (at 441), otherwise known as the land's 'highest and best use': see McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 at [155] and Commonwealth Custodial Services at [15].
Comparable sales method
The traditional valuation method to valuing land in its notional unimproved state is the comparable sales method, which seeks out relatively contemporaneous sales of comparable properties between parties at arm's length, unaffected by special circumstances, and using those sales as a yard stick for the valuation of the relevant land: Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 212 CLR 111 at [16] (Maurici).
As no two parcels of land are identical in all respects, a valuer must consider whether there are sufficient similarities to the circumstances related to the comparable sale and the notional sale of the subject land to warrant relating one to the other. Adjustments must be made to account for matters such as topography, location, size, shape, slope, view, land use (actual and potential), scope for and difficulties of development, services and amenities: Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (No 2) (1973) 6 SASR 541 at 550 551.
Comparable sales made after valuation date
Whilst the valuation of land must be assessed by reference to the knowledge of the hypothetical purchaser and vendor at the date of valuation, comparable sales after the date of taking can be taken into account in determining the value of land: see Melwood Units Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426 at 436, Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2002] WASC 174; (2002) 125 LGERA 180 at [79] and Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer [1981] 1 NSWLR 547 at 576.
Valuation experts
In determining market value of land, courts (and tribunals) are not themselves valuation agencies, and need to rely on the evidence of professionally qualified valuers: see Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 at [183].
Valuation evidence
The Valuer-General relies on the expert evidence of Ms Wenham, a licensed property valuer who prepared an expert report dated 29 January 2021.
Ms Wenham holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Curtin University, majoring in Property Valuations, in December 2013.
From 2014 to 2017, she worked as a graduate at a private valuation firm, Heron Todd White, preparing and undertaking residential and commercial valuations for mortgage security purposes.
Following two years of work experience, Ms Wenham obtained her certified practising valuer's licence through the Australian Property Institute (API), and has been a member of API since 2015.
Since January 2018, she has worked at Landgate conducting valuations for statutory purposes, assessing the unimproved values and gross rental values for revaluation programs and ad-hoc interim assessments.
Whilst licensed to undertake valuations in any area, she has most commonly conducted, in the last 12 to 18 months, Landgate valuations in the City of Bayswater. She is currently in the process of assessing revaluations of unimproved values of properties in the City of Bayswater.
Highest and best use
Ms Wenham explains that within the properties zoned residential in the City of Bayswater, there are different underlying codings under the RCodes which allow for different density. She considers that the majority of residential properties in the City of Bayswater are large enough to allow for further development, either as grouped dwellings or multiple dwellings.
In very simplistic terms, the distinction between grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings is that the former are essentially lots created side-by-side (such as townhouses and villas), whereas the latter are lots created one above the other (such as apartments).
The R-Codes stipulate specific development criteria on what can be achieved on a development site based on the R-Codes coding. Ms Wenham typically sees properties with coding of R40 and above as moving from grouped dwellings to multiple dwellings developments, although it would be up to a purchaser to decide between these two forms of development based on risk and return, including the significant costs involved in multiple dwellings development.
For each of the subject properties, Ms Wenham considers that subdivision and development into three lots for grouped dwellings represents the highest and best use.
Given that assessment, she has identified comparable sales that are suitable to be developed for grouped dwellings so that it could be related back to the subject properties for comparison.
Valuation methodology – comparable sales method
Ms Wenham has adopted the direct comparison approach, also known as the comparable sales method, and has identified sales comparable to the subject properties by reference to land area, zoning and R-code, development potential, and location.
Whilst the most comparable sales would be of vacant land, Ms Wenham stated that there were not a lot of sales of inner city vacant lots with development potential.
As a proxy to vacant land sales, she stated that the next best category of sales were of land with improvements which were demolished within a short time frame following acquisition for the purpose of subdivision or development (which she calls 'demolition sales').
Ms Wenham has included in her basket of comparable sales properties with the same or similar zoning and R-code that all have development potential to be subdivided into grouped dwellings.
Adjustments for improvements
As to the comparable properties which were improved at the point of sale, in order to bring those sale prices back to an unimproved basis, she has ascribed to the improvements a depreciated value.
Ms Wenham has not treated her comparable improved properties as single improved lots without further development potential. Instead, she considers that their sale prices reflect the higher potential for each single lot to be further subdivided and developed.
Logically, it is expected that the value attributable to a house on an undevelopable lot will differ from that attributable to a house on a lot capable of being developed for further housing, in circumstances where the house is less likely to be retained in the long term under the second scenario than the first.
Ms Wenham has attributed to the improvements a depreciated value adopting an assumption which is favourable to a landowner - that is, that there may be some value in retaining the improvements prior to subdivision or development in the form of holding income.
She accepts however that a hypothetical purchaser may attribute no value to the improvements because the purchaser may not account for the retention of the improvements as part of plans to subdivide the properties. Indeed, where no holding income is expected of improvements which are in a poor state, they may be viewed by a purchaser as a burden on the properties due to the cost of removing the improvements for the purpose of subdividing or developing the properties.
Overall, Ms Wenham believes that her approach of adopting a depreciated value, whilst representing a more conservative method in assessing unimproved value, is nonetheless acceptable for the purposes of the statutory valuation exercise.
The owners criticise Ms Wenham's approach as it fails to account for the fact that the houses on the subject properties provide shelter, generate income and are the subject of rates and taxes. Such criticism is misconstrued because it assumes an underlying highest and best use of the subject properties as a single improved lot with no further development potential, which would, based on Ms Wenham's opinion, be an underestimation of their development potential.
As established by Ms Wenham, the highest and best use of the subject properties - upon which the unimproved value is to be based - is development into grouped dwellings. As this potential for the land does not contemplate the long-term retention of the improvements, her approach of ascribing a depreciated value to the improvements is appropriate.
As a professional valuer, Ms Wenham has sufficient expertise in the field of land valuation to determine the most appropriate method by which to attribute value to improvements to properties with a 'highest and best use' that does not include retention of such improvements. I am thus satisfied that her approach is an acceptable basis for valuing the unimproved value of land, and indeed is an approach which is favourable to the owners.
Comparable sales analysis
Ms Wenham relies on the comparable sales of the following properties in her valuation assessment:
(a)102 Caledonian Avenue, Maylands;
(b)83 Kelvin Street, Maylands;
(c)22 Mount Prospect Crescent, Maylands;
(d)9 Susan Street, Maylands;
(e)51 Hillside Crescent, Maylands;
(f)19 Ferguson Street, Maylands;
(g)36 Garratt Street, Bayswater;
(h)14 Cabramatta Street, Bayswater.
To arrive at an underlying land value of each sales transaction, she deducted the depreciated value of any improvements from the sale price, and calculated land value in both absolute terms and relative terms to the lot size and lot yield.
The following table is a summary of her analysis of the underlying land value of the comparable sales:
| Address | Land Area (m2) | Zoning | Sale Date | Sale Price ($) | Improvements($) | Residual Land Value ($) | Rate/m2($) | Sub-divided lots | Av Lot Size (m2) | Rate/ Lot ($) | |
| 1 | 102 Caledonian Ave, Maylands | 607 | R50 | 2/9/18 | 550,000 | 20,000 | 530,000 | 873 | 3 | 202 | 176,667 |
| 2 | 83 Kelvin St, Maylands | 918 | R30 | 23/7/19 | 690,500 | 50,000 | 640,500 | 698 | 3 | 306 | 213,500 |
| 3 | 22 Mt Prospect Cr, Maylands | 1093 | R40 | 13/3/18 | 705,000 | 40,000 | 665,000 | 608 | 4 | 273 | 166,250 |
| 4 | 9 Susan St, Maylands | 1012 | R30 | 11/10/17 | 780,000 | 50,000 | 730,000 | 721 | 3 | 337 | 243,333 |
| 5 | 51 Hillside Cr, Maylands | 971 | R30 | 22/9/18 | 855,000 | 100,000 | 755,000 | 778 | 3 | 324 | 251,667 |
| 6 | 19 Ferguson St, Maylands | 1012 | R40 | 22/12/17 | 895,000 | 100,000 | 795,000 | 786 | 4 | 253 | 198,750 |
| 7 | 36 Garratt Rd, Bayswater | 1012 | R25 | 10/12/17 | 620,000 | N/A | 620,000 | 613 | 2 | 506 | 310,000 |
| 8 | 14 Cabramatta St, Bayswater | 1090 | R25 | 15/10/18 | 690,000 | N/A | 690,000 | 633 | 3 | 363 | 230,000 |
Ms Wenham then assessed the level of comparability of each property to the subject properties, and, depending on the distinguishing features of each property to the subject properties, recommended an upward or downward adjustment to the assessed land value for the subject properties (both in absolute terms and by rate per square metres or per subdivided lot).
Ms Wenham concludes, based on her analysis of and adjustments to the comparable sales, that the unimproved value of the subject properties lies within the range of $200,000 - $215,000 per grouped dwelling lot, or $675 - $700 per square metre. This equates to an unimproved value within the range of $600,000 - $645,000 (using the rate per subdivided lot) or $614,925 - $637,700 (using the rate per square metre).
Against these two ranges, she considers that the unimproved value adopted by the Valuer-General - which is at the lowest end of both ranges - is supported by the market evidence, and therefore should remain in force.
Owners' case
Owners' challenge to valuation evidence
The owners do not rely on an expert valuation opinion to challenge that of Ms Wenham. Rather, they challenge her approach of valuing improvements by their depreciated value, and also her assessment of the comparability of each site to the subject properties.
As set out at [50] - [58], there is no basis for their challenge to her approach to valuing improvements, and I reject the owners' argument as misconceived. Further, with neither owner being an expert in land valuation, I am entitled, having been satisfied that there is a logical and reasoned basis to her methodology, to rely on the opinion of Ms Wenham in defence of her approach.
As to their second objection, for very similar reasons to those set out in [66], I accept that Ms Wenham is the most appropriate (and indeed the only expert) witness to give evidence of the comparability of sales. I find that the owners' challenges have been comprehensively put to Ms Wenham to which she has provided a considered response and have rejected on reasonable grounds.
In summary, the following sets out the owners' challenges to Ms Wenham's assessment of comparability of her sales and her responses:
(a)102 Caledonian Avenue - the owners say this is a superior lot to the subject properties as it has two street frontages, is closer to services and amenity, and all subdivided lots have their own driveway. Ms Wenham accepts that this property has a superior zoning (General Industrial zone) but being located on a busy road and being opposite to McDonalds and other industrial-zoned properties makes this an inferior location to the subject properties. Further, this property is a smaller lot and the average lot sizes are smaller than those achievable on the subject properties, thus the assessed rate per lot would have to be adjusted upwards for comparability purposes;
(b)83 Kelvin Street - the owners say this is a superior lot to the subject properties as it is on an elevated position and only metres away from Stone Street and Swan View Terrace on which million dollar properties are located. They also challenge the reliability of this sale which occurred 12 months after the date of valuation. Ms Wenham considers that, as the market levels were broadly stable in the 12 months after the relevant date of valuation, the sale can still be relied upon as indicative of market values as at the relevant valuation date. Ms Wenham considers that 83 Kelvin Street is still located on the same street as the subject properties, and does not think the slightly closer proximity to Stone Street or Swan View Terrace completely discounts its comparability to the subject properties;
(c)22 Mount Prospect Crescent - whilst the parties agree that this property is superior in terms of subdivision potential, they disagree on the extent of subdivision potential. The owners say that it can be subdivided into nine lots, in a similar manner to adjoining properties at 20 Mount Prospect Crescent (nine units), 24 Mount Prospect Crescent (six units) and 14 Mount Prospect Crescent (nine units). Ms Wenham distinguished those developments as multiple dwelling developments, in contrast to 22 Mount Prospect, which she has assessed at its highest and best use a four-lot grouped dwelling development in line with its development approval on 12 November 2018. The owners also say that this property is a superior location having elevated hill views and is less prone to flooding. Ms Wenham considers that the sloping topography represents a detriment to development by way of significant costs involved in extra retaining works;
(d)9 Susan Street - the owners say this is not a comparable sale as it was sold at quite a high price. Ms Wenham concedes the sale occurred in a slightly superior market but has included it in her basket of comparable sales as the property is situated in a broadly comparable location and has similar zoning and subdivision potential to the subject properties;
(e)19 Ferguson Street - the parties agree that this is a superior lot in terms of zoning, and is currently being developed for an eight-unit development. Ms Wenham considers this a multiple dwelling development as the minimum average site area per grouped dwelling required for R40 lots under the RCodes does not allow eight grouped dwellings to be achieved on this lot. Ms Wenham relies on this sale on the basis of its grouped-dwelling development potential at the time of sale, although accepts that her analysis is not applicable if the sale was analysed on the basis of its multiple-dwelling development potential;
(f)51 Hillcrest Crescent - the owners say that this property is not comparable to the subject properties in any way as it has superior views and is located closer to the Swan River and Swan View Terrace. Whilst Ms Wenham agrees that it is a superior location, she disagrees that the subject properties are so far inferior as to completely discount this sale; indeed, 59 Kelvin Street is across from a school and has views over the school oval. She also considers 51 Hillcrest Crescent comparable to the subject properties as it has similar zoning and subdivision potential;
(g)36 Garratt Road and 14 Cabramatta Street - the parties agree that these lots are inferior in terms of zoning. The owners further dispute that these sales are comparable as they are in Bayswater and the subdivided lot sizes are bigger. Whilst agreeing that these properties are further away from the subject properties in the adjoining suburb of Bayswater, Ms Wenham primarily relies upon these sales as sales of vacant lots which have subsequently been subdivided (36 Garratt Road) or been developed for grouped dwelling (14 Cabramatta Street). She concedes that due to the variance in subdivided lot sizes, the assessed land value and rate per square metre is more relevant to her analysis.
Owner's evidence of comparable sale
The owners rely principally on the sale of 324 - 328 Guildford Road, Bayswater, which is a 1465m2 lot sold as vacant land on 17 August 2018 for $750,000, reflecting a rate of $512 per square metre. Ms Wenham considers this property to be in a far inferior location to the subject properties as Guildford Road is a main arterial road carrying high levels of passing traffic. It is also on a moderately sloping topography which makes it inferior to the subject properties. Ms Wenham's investigation reveals the property has been approved to be subdivided into four lots, which reveals a larger average lot size than for the subject properties (at 366m2). Ms Wenham does not consider this sale to be as relevant as those in her basket of comparable sales.
Interestingly, whilst the owners contend that one of the reasons that 14 Cabramatta Street was not comparable was its larger subdivided lot size of 363m2, 324 - 328 Guildford Road clearly falls foul of this very same objection. At the hearing, the owners could not provide any reason for why the larger subdivided lot size was not an impediment to comparability for 324 - 328 Guildford Road as it was for 14 Cabramatta Street.
Ray White appraisal
The owners also rely on a letter of appraisal from Mr Gary Warne of Ray White (Carters) dated 31 October 2019, which stated that, based on recent sales in the area and the firm's feel of the current market, the firm believed that 39 Kelvin Street should sell in the $570,000 $610,000 price range.
The owners believe that this appraisal incorporates a value for both the land and house, and as such demonstrates that the ValuerGeneral's assessment of unimproved value of $600,000 has failed to ascribe any value to the house on 39 Kelvin Street.
Curiously, despite objecting to Ms Wenham's reliance of the sale of 83 Kelvin Street on the basis that it occurred 12 months after the valuation date, the owners submitted that Mr Warne's appraisal prepared 14 months after the valuation date should be accepted on the basis that 'markets have not moved'. Again, as with the observations in [70], it is indicative of the approach taken by the owners in these proceedings of almost blindly challenging the opinions of Ms Wenham at the risk of adopting inconsistent positions in their own case, and illustrates their lack of objectivity in challenging Ms Wenham's evidence.
A difficulty with relying on Mr Warne's appraisal is that he has not been called to give evidence, and so neither the Valuer-General nor the Tribunal has been able to examine his expertise and the basis or underlying assumptions of his appraisal.
Even if this difficulty could be overlooked, there is a potential fallacy in the owners' logic, which assumes that the appraisal has attributed any value to the house on 39 Kelvin Street. Given Ms Wenham's opinion that the highest and best use of the land is for development into threelot grouped dwellings, the price range set out in Mr Warne's appraisal appears entirely consistent with that development potential (assuming the market conditions have not changed in the 14 months, which seems to be indicated by Ms Wenham's evidence at [68(b)]). Indeed, Ms Wenham's assessment of unimproved value at $600,000 falls squarely within Mr Warne's appraisal range, which could equally suggest that they have both adopted the same assumption of highest and best use, in which scenario the house at 39 Kelvin Street does not feature.
Issue - is the assessed unimproved value fair, just, equitable or correct?
(1)What is the highest and best use of the subject properties?
(2)What comparable sales should be taken into account?
(3)How should adjustments be made for improvements in calculating unimproved value?
For reasons set out above, I accept Ms Wenham's opinion that the highest and best use of each of the subject properties is development into three-lot grouped dwellings.
I am satisfied that her valuation methodology, including her adjustments for improvements, as well as her choice and analysis of comparable sales, are soundly justified.
I am not persuaded that the owners have seriously challenged the basis nor logic of her opinions, and accept Ms Wenham's ultimate conclusions as to the range of unimproved values as applicable to the subject properties.
As the unimproved value adopted for each of the subject properties of $600,000 falls at the lowest end of Ms Wenham's range of unimproved value, I find that the unimproved value adopted by the Valuer-General is fair, just, equitable and correct.
Conclusion
For reasons set out above, I affirm the Valuer-General's decision to disallow the owners' objection to his assessment of unimproved value, and will dismiss the owners' application.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review of the Respondent's decision dated 18 June 2020 to disallow the Applicants' objection is dismissed.
2.The decision of the Respondent dated 18 June 2020 to disallow the Applicants' objection is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS K Y Loh, MEMBER
6 MAY 2021
0
8
0