Tonge v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
[2004] QLC 84
•28 September 2004
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Tonge v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy [2004] QLC 0084 PARTIES: John G and Marie T Tonge
(applicants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
(respondent)FILE NO:
AV2003/0502
DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 28 September 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Toowoomba MEMBER Dr NG Divett ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 85046 is determined in the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000). CATCHWORDS: Statutory valuations – Relativity – Impact of traffic noise – Change in relativities approved APPEARANCES: Mr Tonge for the appellants
Mr Rabaa of Crown Law for the respondent
Background:
This matter relates to land at the corner of East Street and Cottesloe Street, Toowoomba, located about 2.5 kilometres east of the Toowoomba Central Business District. The subject land has an area of 658 square metres, and is described as Lot 1 on RP 85046, and has street frontage to East and Cottesloe Streets, both of which are bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. All normal urban utility services are available. The subject land is zoned Residential C under the town planning scheme of the City of Toowoomba of 10 June 1989, effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 2002. The preferred dominant use under the Strategic Plan is Special Escarpment. The key issues are the nature of the land, impact of traffic noise, relativity, changes in the valuation and comparison of sales.
In early 2003 the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $67,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that figure on 1 July 2003. The appellants have now appealed claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $25,000.
John Greenhall Tonge appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr CP Rabaa, Counsel of Crown Law appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Peter John Janke, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation.
Nature of the Land -
The subject land is gentle to moderately sloping from west to east, with very restricted views. There is a park opposite the subject land, but there are no distant range views. The land is presently improved with a low set timber dwelling, and has been valued under s.17 of the Act as a single residence site which is seen as its highest and best use. While conveniently located in the range escarpment area, often preferred in the residential market, the small pocket between Cottesloe Street, East Street and the Warrego Highway suffers from major traffic noise associated with the Warrego Highway.
History of the Valuation –
Mr Janke provides the following advice in respect of the overall history of recent valuations near the subject land. He advises that the previous revaluation to the current matter was at 1 October 1998, as market analyses by the Australian Valuation Service in 1999, 2000 and 2001, revealed that there had been no significant movement during that period. He advises further that in the latter half of 2002 a 20% market increased was identified in the locality of the subject land. He notes that the Prince Henry Heights part of the escarpment area to the north, had in fact increased by about 60% to 80%. Mr Janke argues that generally across the residential areas of Toowoomba, there had been an increase of only 10% during the same period. Mr Tonge argues that his advise was that Margaret Street, Toowoomba had meanwhile only increased by 5% in the same period, in spite of heavy trucks being diverted out of Margaret Street. Mr Janke was not responsible for that area, but he did not disagree with Mr Tonge.
Mr Janke further explains that the subject land falls within a small submarket area of the overall range escarpment lands defined as Sub Market Area 8 (SMA 8). Mr Janke advises that SMA 8 covers all of the established range escarpment lands extending overall for about 12 kilometres both north and south of the Warrego Highway. He argues that historically market evidence indicates that there have been consistent market changes in the SMA 8 areas. Mr Janke confirms that all of the SMA 8 area had been increased by 20% at the current valuation in 2002.
Mr Janke also agrees that following the 20% increase in valuation at the relevant date, there were a number of objections from residents in the area in East Street near the subject land. He agrees that most of the complaints revolved around the major noise intrusions from traffic on the Warrego Highway. He had personally visited those objectors, and confirms that those properties to the north of the subject land, particularly around the bend on East Street, and over a small rise in East Street, were considerably less impacted by noise than at the subject land. Mr Janke does not disagree that noise is a major problem in that area. He advises that he had made a further reduction in the valuations to at least one property owner following those objections. He recollects that property had been reduced from about $100,000 to about $60,000 to $70,000, similar to the subject land area.
Relativity –
In explaining the matter of relativity between properties in the East Street area, Mr Janke advises that there are approximately 36 homes in that small submarket area. He advises further that during the previous revaluation in 1998 he had seen the need to undertake a manual adjustment of the previous relativities in that area. Following that manual adjustment he continues to feel that the particular disabilities of traffic noise have been adequately addressed. Accordingly, when he completed the 2002 revaluation, Mr Janke applied a 20% increase, which was reflected in the sales evidence, to all of the 36 properties in that small area.
Mr Tonge argues that increasing noise patterns since 1998 have now changed those relativities, as increased noise now has a more detrimental impact closer to the Warrego Highway. Mr Janke confirms that generally properties on the eastern side of East Street have distant views, while properties on the western side vary from no views to selected views. He has allowed for that in the relativities. However, Mr Janke concedes that, while accepting the general noise problems in that area in 1998, his manual adjustment of relativities had been more directed to the sloping nature of the parcels, and their presence or otherwise of distant views.
Impact of traffic noise –
Mr Tonge provides evidence from official traffic studies of the Ipswich to Toowoomba traffic patterns provided to him by the Main Roads Department (Exhibit 5). He draws specific attention to those traffic sensors documents which he argues demonstrate some significant growth patterns for the Warrego Highway in the Toowoomba range area. Mr Tonge notes specifically the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) flows collected during 2002 which demonstrate that at the top of the range area, near the subject land, there was a 5.5% annual growth in overall traffic movement in 2002. Mr Tonge notes that 11.3% of that traffic count (total 17642 AADT) reflected heavy duty vehicles, the majority of which cause significant noise problems from either labouring low gear engines, or downhill air braking. Average daily figures reflected 17,071 to 17,801 vehicle movements.
Mr Tonge notes further that the growth pattern had increased significantly from about 2.5% over the last 10 years to 5% during 2002. That he argues, reflects the growth in road transport movements through Toowoomba, many of which are “B-doubles” and other heavy duty trucks, which collectively reflect about 2,000 heavy duty vehicles daily, or more than one every minute. Mr Janke does not question those figures, but argues that he has allowed for the general noise levels in his revised relativities. He also agrees that the heavy duty vehicles are the major source of noise on the range road. Mr Janke also concedes that while he made provision for noise intrusions in his valuation, he did not go on to the subject land until 31 May 2004, while preparing for this hearing. He also concedes that the subject land would have been equal to the greatest level of noise in that small submarket area.
Comparison of sales –
Mr Tonge seeks support for his estimate of the unimproved value in several recent sales of improved properties immediately adjoining the subject land. He notes for example the following sales (Exhibit 4):
SaleDate Area Price Unimproved Value
33 East Street 10/2001 754 sq.m. $120,500 $66,000
(Lot 3)
35 East Street 10/2001 1,151 sq.m. $165,000 $66,000
(Lot 4)
East Street11/2003 766 sq.m. $160,000 $57,000
(Lot 5)
Mr Tonge notes that the sale of 33 East Street involved a brick dwelling with a swimming pool; and each of the other two properties were heavily improved with substantial houses. He argues that those sales demonstrate the unrealistic unimproved value of the subject land, where costly improvements are virtually written down to absurd levels. Mr Tonge notes that the above three sales demonstrate the depressed nature of the East Street area. Mr Tonge further notes that the parcel at Lot 2 (Cottesloe Street) of area 751 square metres sold in October 2001 for $147,000. He advised that that parcel had sold previously within the last three or four years, reflecting the problems encountered with noise in that area.
Mr Tonge also advises that he purchased the subject land at 31 East Street at public auction in September 1999 for $100,000. He argues that those improved sales provide a more realistic comparison with the subject land, due to the very selected area in East Street, which has the specific major noise problems. He argues that the principles involved in the High Court decision of Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue and Anor [2002] 212 CLR 111, also have relevance in the subject matter, due to the lack of any directly “similar” sales evidence near the East Street area of the subject land. He also notes that three of his sales occurred during the period between 1998 revaluation and 1 October 2002.
Mr Janke rejects those improved sales for two reasons. First they reflect a market level which his research shows had not moved since 1998, but before the increases in late 2002. Second, he notes they were all sales of heavily improved lands, with all the consequential problems and uncertainties in determining the added value of those improvements. He argues that his sales of vacant lands provide better comparisons, in spite of the different noise intrusions in those other areas.
Mr Janke advises that he has analysed 29 vacant land sales in the escarpment areas, thus rejecting any “scarcity” principle. He argues that the three selected sales are more comparable to the subject land, than say five sales in a new subdivision area to the north near Prince Henry Heights, where new vacant lands are being developed. He notes that often the older established residential areas tend to be seen as more attractive because of their established environments. To check his analysis of the vacant land sales, Mr Janke had also analysed two improved sales with newly built dwellings where actual 100% of construction costs could be applied, rather than seek to assess an appropriate depreciation rate for the dwellings. He argues that those analysed improved sales supported his concluded rise in the market level.
To support his valuation, Mr Janke provides the following sales:
· Sale 1 (10 East Street – Lot 727 on AG 34691). This is a 1.588 hectare Rural zone parcel located about 0.6 kilometres north of the subject land. The land is very steeply sloping escarpment with good range views to the east, but only a very restricted steeply sloping building site in the south-west corner. The subject land has superior topography, but the sale is in a superior location with superior views. Overall the sale is superior to the subject land. The sale sold in May 2002 for $130,000, and was analysed at $130,000.
[18]
· Sale 2 (Kinnoull Terrace – Lot 2 on RP 92972). This is a 1,012 square metre vacant parcel zoned Residential C and located about 1 kilometre south of the subject land. The sale is steeply sloping escarpment with good views to the east. The subject land is smaller in area, but has superior topography to the sale. However the sale is seen as superior due to its superior locality and views. The sale sold in March 2002 for $150,000, and was analysed at $146,500.
[19]
· Sale 3 (Dawnie Street – Lot 2 on RP 76029). This is a 1,196 square metre Residential C improved parcel located about 170 metres west of the subject land. The sale is moderately sloping escarpment land with very limited views. The sale has similar topography to the subject land and has a superior locality and is larger. Overall the sale is seen as superior to the subject land. The sale sold in February 2002 for $150,000, and was analysed at $139,500 after allowing $7,500 for removal of the existing dwelling.
Mr Janke advises that Sale 1 (10 East Street) was sold by private negotiation between the former owner (Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane) and the Toowoomba City Council, following independent valuation reports. The land was purchased for additions to the park land of Redwood Park. Mr Janke concedes that the noise levels at Sale 1 are not comparable to those of the subject land, but argues that Sale 1 is in one of the most prestigious streets in Toowoomba, and has eastern views. He sees the highest and best use of Sale 1 as a single residence, possibly as a pole house.
In respect of his Sale 2 (Kinnoull Terrace), Mr Janke notes that he sees the nature of the subject land as superior to Sale 2 because of the steeper slopes of the latter. He advises that when he refers to the land as being “similar” to the subject land he refers to the type and topography of the land. Mr Janke concedes that the traffic noise at Sale 2 is only of background level, and nothing compared to the subject land. Mr Tonge was not familiar with Sale 2.
In respect of his analysis of his Sale 3 (Dawnie Street) Mr Janke argues that he has discussed that sale with the purchaser (Knox) who purchased the land for redevelopment purposes. His advice to Mr Janke was that the old 1965 dwelling was seen as having a residual value for removal of $7,500, which Mr Janke has adopted in his analysis of that sale. Eventually the dwelling sold for only $2,500 for removal.
Mr Janke concedes that all his three sales do not have any comparable noise disabilities to the subject land, and for that reason are not the best comparisons. However he notes that there are few areas that do have comparable noise intrusions, as you do not have to go far from the highway to get relief from the traffic noise, hence it is difficult to find directly similar sales evidence. He agrees that his opinion of noise impacts was based upon his 1998 assessments, but argues that he has no proof to demonstrate that noise levels have significantly increased, hence he has made no further allowance for increased traffic between 1998 and 2002. He agrees it was “horrendous” in 1998, and it remains “horrendous” in 2002.
Mr Janke could provide no argument against the conclusion that, while increased traffic numbers might not result in increased noise levels, there is no dispute that an annual increase of 5.5% would result in an increase in the repetitiveness of the problem. However he notes that a 20% increase to the already low unimproved values in 1998, results in a smaller figure than for the higher valued lands, hence any increase in noise would tend to be partly counterbalanced in the outcomes achieved.
Decision:
Before proceeding to the evidence, I note that Mr Tonge has some problems with the reasons given to him by the Chief Executive in refusing his objection. He notes those reasons relied upon comparisons with “other similar properties”. Mr Tonge argues that the sales relied upon by Mr Janke are not “similar” and are in fact all “superior” to the subject land. Now while the semantics of the language used by the Chief Executive may appear to provide inconsistency to Mr Tonge, the meaning of “similar” properties should be seen in the context of a valuation procedure.
I note for instance that the word “similar” is taken to mean having a mutual resemblance, or to be of the same nature, or to be shaped alike. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th edition 1982). The meaning adopted by Mr Janke relates to his evidence to the nature or topography of the land. He admits that the noise intrusions are in no way similar at the sales to the subject land. Now Mr Tonge argues that to be truly similar the best sales should be of lands where the noise levels are comparable. Mr Janke agrees on that point, but argues that such sales did not occur, and he must do the best he can with the available sales evidence. (Biggin v Permanite (1951) 1 KB 422, at 438).
If I look then at whether Mr Janke’s sales may be accepted as comparable sales, I note guidance in Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (SA) (1973) 32 LGRA 170, where Wells J said at 179:
“It is general valuation practice for sales characterized as comparable sales to be used as bases for the valuation of lands said to be similar. But allowances must always be made before such sales can be so used. No two parcels of land are identical in all respects: the sale price of any given piece of land is not necessarily the price at which it ought to be sold, or the same thing as its true value. Before using any allegedly comparable sales, therefore, the valuer must consider whether, having regarding to the circumstances (using that word in its broadest sense) appertaining to the parcel of land in question, and to the transaction of sale, there are sufficient similarities to the circumstances appertaining to the subject land and to the notional sale presupposed by the test formulated in Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia and in later cases to warrant a court’s reasoning from the sale price paid under the allegedly comparable sale, with or without other evidence, to a value for the subject land. … there is no hard and fast rule by the application of which a valuer may, whatever the circumstances, draw the line that clearly separates the sales that are comparable from those that are not. It is, in my view, all a matter of degree: some adjustment is always necessary; too much adjustment will render it unsafe to use a sale, subject to such a degree of adjustment, for the purpose of the reasoning process in the comparable sales method. Just where the line is to be drawn is, it seems to me, the very sort of question that is fit for the expert valuer to determine; the assessment of the risks of adjustment is peculiarly within his sphere of skill.”
In weighing the level of reliance I can place upon Mr Janke’s opinions, while the judgment of an experienced valuer is a legitimate guide to this professional opinion of an area, it is always important to ensure that such judgment is supported by evidence in the market place. In that respect I note the text in “Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia, Rost and Collins (3rd edition) 1984, which read at p.22:
“A registered or licensed valuer is regarded as a person who possesses special training. He is entitled to express opinions as to value or other matters appertaining to his vocation, but these cannot be more valid than the information and reasoning upon which they are founded. In general, opinion evidence is not admissible unless it is given by a witness called as an expert. Court judgments have emphasised that the weight of an expert’s opinion concerning the value of land depends upon the foundation upon which it rests.”
That was also followed in the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Santos Limited v Valuer-General (1988-89) 12 QLCR 231, which followed the principle that a value based upon sales was “to be preferred to a valuation based on opinions”. (p.235/6).
It is always therefore important to contrast the personal views and aspirations of the skilled person in land matters, with the views of the so called “hypothetical purchaser” in the market place. In the end it is the hypothetical vendor and purchaser who establishes the value of land (see Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [1907] 5 CLR 418, where Griffith CJ (p.432) and Isaacs J (441) set the principles which have ever since determined how a bona fide sale is to be assessed). In the end the value of a parcel, and the relative value of the locality, must be supported by the evidence of bona fide sales in the free market place.
On that guidance I accept Mr Janke’s sales evidence, but I note the uncertainty that might be evident in respect of any changing noise intrusions evident near the subject land.
Relativity –
In considering the matter of relativity I note that in respect of valuations under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act), relativity is seen as an important factor for consideration. That was emphasised in WJ and AM McGuigan and Ors v Valuer General (1984-85) 10 QLCR 32, where it said at 38:
“It is bona fide sales conforming to the test for the Spencer case that set the level of values for respective land categories and types. Relativity is established in the market place not by previously established relativities, which, in their turn, would reflect the sale market of an earlier relevant date. As already discussed, relativity between individual parcels within the various land categories or types, is important. If it cannot be established by sales of properties similar or comparable in all relevant aspects a previous relativity may provide a guide.”
However the adoption of previous relativities needs to be balanced with caution as noted by the Land Appeal Court in R and MM Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13, where the Land Appeal Court said at 16:
“We are conscious that it is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, if the valuations are soundly based. It is, however, untenable to adopt a value for one parcel on relativity with another which has no sound basis.”
I note also in WM and TJ Fischer v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44, where the Land Appeal Court said at 46:
“Whilst maintenance of correct relativity is also of considerable importance for rating or revenue type valuations, we cannot prefer in the circumstances of this case, the use of the principle of relativity to the exclusion of the sales evidence.”
However I note that relativities can change over time as circumstances alter, as noted in Barnwell (supra), where the Land Appeal Court found at 17:
“It has been well recognised over the years that previously established relativity in unimproved values can and does change from valuation to valuation. If there was no justification for change in relativity, the valuer’s task would be very simple in that all it would be required to establish value would be accomplished by the use of an adjusting formula. This, of course, is undesirable.”
Changes in relativities were also noted in JD Lindenmayer v Valuer-General (1974) 1 QLCR 273, the President noted at 276:
“I am, of course, not bound by any past relativity whether it be established by the Land Court or otherwise. It is well recognised that relativity between blocks in an unimproved sense may change from assessment period to assessment period.”
The President went on to note at 276:
“Subject to any difference applying as the result of the relevant statutory provisions, I would not likely depart from a relativity established by this Court in any of its respective jurisdiction after hearing evidence, particularly expert evidence, from both parties. But it is first essential to establish the alleged relativity as a fact and to weigh the relevant aspects of that relativity and the manner in which it was established. It is, of course, possible that if fresh evidence is introduced at a subsequent hearing, such evidence may, dependent on its cogency, warrant departure from a previously established relativity irrespective of whether or not such relativity emerged from a contested case involving considerations of expert evidence.”
The impact of changes affecting relativity was also noted in Gibson Investments Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 223, where the Land Appeal Court said at 230:
“Likewise, lands of similar quality and use in the vicinity of the boundary of adjoining shires, should bear reasonable relativity each to both inter- and intra-shires. However, this is feasible only if the relevant dates of valuation are close in point of time and there have been no intervening circumstances affecting the market place.”
In the current matter the evidence is that Mr Janke had personally made a thorough manual reassessment of the relativities in 1998, and has continued those relativities in the current matter. It is also noted that the market indicated little change in the level between 1998 and mid-2002. On that basis the general stable market would indicate that the previous relativities may be applicable. However Mr Janke concedes that the most pervasive influence on values in that East Street area is the “horrendous” traffic noise from the nearby Warrego Highway. It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude that any increase in that traffic noise would change the relativities of those 36 parcels.”
The impact of noise –
If I turn first to Mr Janke’s readjustment of relativities in 1998, I note that while noise was agreed to be an overall problem in that area, the revised relativities mainly focussed upon the slope of parcels and the presence or not of distant views. On that basis I believe that the differing impacts of noise would vary across the small catchment area of the East Street of SMA8. Now noise is a physical factor impacting the environment, the intensity of which depends upon the frequency of generation, and varies inversely according to the square of the distance from the source. There is no argument that the engine noise of heavy trucks under load, climbing the range road, or the repeated “braking” of heavy loads descending the range road, are unpleasant and detrimental. Generally those factors were allowed for in 1998. The question now is by how much is that problem now increased, and what impact upon values would that create?
The facts are that the incidence of those noise levels has increased by about 5% during 2002, and that would support the conclusion that the noise intrusions are now greater than they were in 1998, by a cumulative factor of about 10%. Those impacts would vary near the subject land according to the location of the highway. It is agreed that the subject land is impacted perhaps more than other parcels more removed from the highway. On that basis applying a 20% increase to the whole of that small submarket area of 36 properties, would, in my opinion, appear unfair to the more impacted subject land.
Now Mr Janke confirms that all of the general escarpment lands were subjected to a 20% increase in the unimproved values at the relevant date. But most of those escarpment parcels were well removed from the “horrendous” noise of the trucks, and experienced more generally background noise from traffic. As noise is the key criteria impacting the subject land, I believe something less than 20% should have been applied in that small submarket area in East Street.
I note that generally residential areas increased by 10%, while Margaret Street appeared to increase by 5%. Now I accept that the subject land started from a low base of only about $57,000 in 1998. That would appear to indicate an added value of the improvements upon the subject land, during that flat period of the market to mid 2002, at about $43,000. While I have no detailed evidence of any analysis of Mr Tonge’s sales of the adjoining properties at 33 East Street (Lot 3) and 35 East Street (Lot 4), those sales of improved properties suggest added values of improvements at $65,500 (33 East Street) and $110,000 (35 East Street) at the dates of sale.
I note that 35 East Street is a much larger parcel, but is closer to the highway. I also note that the sale of Lot 5 in East Street occurred well after the relevant date and provides no assistance. I also know nothing about the improvements upon 35 East Street. However I believe the brick building and swimming pool upon 33 East Street could account for the additional $22,500 on that parcel. However such uncertainties are the very reason that sales of vacant lands are preferred to any analyses of improved sales. That was noted in PH Clough v Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, where the Land Appeal Court said at 76:
“It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements.
Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement.”
Comparison of sales –
I turn then to Mr Tonge’s concern that because of the “scarcity” of sales of land with the same level of intrusive noise that, in line with Maurici, Mr Janke has not sought similar sales for comparison purposes. However I accept Mr Janke’s advice that the availability of some 29 sales of vacant lands within the escarpment area precludes any reasonable argument that there was a scarcity of sales, and I reject that conclusion. In any case Mr Janke has used comparison checks of improved sales in that escarpment area, to support his vacant sale analyses.
If I look then at Mr Janke’s sales, I find the following comparisons:
SaleArea Analysed Value Comparison
1 (10 East Street) 1.588 ha. $130,000 Superior
2(Kinnoull Terrace) 1012 sq.m $146,500 Superior
3(Dawnie Street) 1196 sq.m $139,500 Superior
On direct comparisons there is nothing to demonstrate that Mr Janke has made an error or followed a wrong principle. However the comparisons are considerably superior to the subject land, and provide no indication of a bottom level of value for the subject land; while demonstrating the adopted 20% increase applied by comparing the analysed value of those sales to the previous applied unimproved values of the sales. I note that all three sales are much larger than the subject land, all have extensive views and all suffer from much lesser impacts from the traffic noise. Therefore the adopted sales support the 20% within the general area of SMA8 on the escarpment lands, but not the selected small area near East Street.
Summary:
The key to this issue lies in the relative impact of traffic noise upon the previous relativity. I believe the overall market in Toowoomba has risen at 1 October 2002, but I see that increase considerably minimised by the increasing traffic noise. If I allow 5% increase, similar to the adjoining areas along Margaret Street, I believe that was likely to allow for that increase noise problem. On that basis an unimproved value of $57,000 plus 5% or say $60,000 would seem appropriate.
Conclusion:
Having considered the whole of the evidence I am persuaded that the appellants have partly proved their case. The appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 1 on RP 85046 is determined in the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000).
NG DIVETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0