Tenstat Pty Limited v Valuer General Woolworths Limited v Valuer General

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2012-12-28

JUDGMENT 1This is an appeal by Tensat Pty Limited (the First Applicant) (Tenstat) and Woolworths Limited (the Second Applicant) (Woolworths), under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act), against the land value assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent) in respect of the property known as 2-39Dursley Road, Yennora (the subject property).

Background 2The First Applicant was represented by Mr Hemmings, Barrister, instructed by Mr Hones, Solicitor of Hones La Hood. 3The Second Applicant was represented by Mr Tomasetti and Ms Hemmings, Barristers, instructed by Ms Camenzuli and Mr Webster, Solicitors of Corrs Chambers Westgarth. 4The Respondent was represented by Mr Maston, Barrister, instructed by Ms K Harrison, Solicitor of the Crown Solicitor. 5The matters were the subject of a conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 on 1 November 2011 but were not resolved. 6The Court granted leave that the two matters be heard together and the parties agreed that evidence in one case was evidence in the other. 7The land value of the subject property at 1st July 2010 (the Base Date) was assessed by the First Applicant at $36,000,000, by the Second Applicant at $25,000,000 and by the Respondent at $27,500,000. 8The appeal was the subject of an on-site inspection on 6 March 2012, followed by a hearing in Court on 7, 8, 13 March and 2, 3, 4 May, 2012. 9Section 40(2) of the Act states: "On an appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant's case."

The subject property 10The subject property is located in Yennora, a mid-western suburb being approximately 25 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD in an area of industrial development and approximately 5 kilometres from the M4 motorway which provides access to the greater Sydney motorway network. 11The subject property is located on the corner of Dursley Road and Fairfield Road, with a third frontage to Dennistoun Avenue. 12The subject property is improved by a substantial warehouse and distribution building with office accommodation and car parking, comprising the Woolworths National Distribution Centre. 13The parties did not appear to agree on the highest and best use for the subject property but made regular reference to the use for warehousing and distribution. 14Having a site area of 13.76 hectares or 137,606.2sqm, the subject property has been benched and is a regularly shaped block with a small appended portion of land ("handle area") comprising an area of 6,262sqm situated beyond the "watercourse" and "severed land" referred to below. 15The subject property is traversed by flowing water ("watercourse") within a drainage channel in the south eastern corner of the site comprising an area of 1,225sqm which is bridged to access an area of "severed land" beyond comprising an area of 9,177sqm. 16Accordingly, therefore, the subject property comprises: a principal site 120,942.2sqm b "watercourse" 1,225sqm c "severed land" 9,177sqm d "handle area" 6,262sqm e total area 137,606.2sqm 17The subject property was zoned 4(a) Industrial General under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 1991. 18The subject property comprises Lots 3 and 4 in Deposited Plan No. 791494.

The issues 19In addition to the substantive issue of land value, the Court was also taken to four issues for consideration, being the appropriate treatment of the "watercourse" for the purposes of valuation, the potential use of the "severed land" and the "handle area", the availability of rail access and the relevance of regard to rental evidence in the valuation process. 20Concerning the first issue, being the appropriate treatment of the "watercourse" for the purposes of valuation, the construction of a drainage canal through which the flowing water passed was contended to have prevented the flowing water from potentially meandering and potentially eroding the balance of the subject property. 21Section 6A(1) of the Act requires the disregard of improvements other than land improvements for the purposes of valuation, with land improvements defined in Section 4(1) of the Act to include the restoration and improvement of land (Section 4(1)(d)) and the reclamation of land by draining (Section 4(1)(e)). 22Having regard to the evidence presented, I consider the construction of the drainage canal to be a land improvement within the definitions in Section 4(1) of the Act with the effect that regard should be had to the drainage canal for the purposes of valuation. 23However, having regard to the evidence presented, I concur that the drainage canal does not have a valuation effect. 24For completeness, I note that there was also a discussion between the parties concerning the status of the rail spur embankment for the purposes of the Act, but that the parties agreed this did not have a valuation effect. 25Concerning the second issue, being the potential use of the "severed land" and the "handle area", the expert planning evidence by Mr Rowan and Mr Layman differed in detail concerning, inter alia, access, riparian sensitivity, flood risk and potential use but was common in indicating that a hypothetical purchaser may face considerable uncertainty and therefore risk regarding the permitted use, extent of use and development potential of such constrained land. 26In the valuation evidence presented, Mr Lunney considered a scenario with a 75% discount to the overall rate applied to the subject property for such land (resulting in a rate of $45psm) and Mr Maundrell adopted a rate of $60psm without apparent explanation of the rationale for the quantum of the adjustment. 27The Court was not provided with evidence of the specific valuation effect of such uncertainty and risk regarding the permitted use, extent of use and development potential of such land which comprises approximately 11% of the site area. 28Having regard to the evidence presented, I consider that any potential valuation effect of such uncertainty and risk regarding the permitted use, extent of use and development potential of such land may be reflected generally within the application of an overall rate psm land value. 29Concerning the third issue, being the availability of rail access, while it is possible that the subject property may be connected to the railway system such connection was not in active use nor necessarily permitted by the relevant parties as at the Base Date. 30While it may be contended that the benefit of rail access may enhance the value of the subject property, the Court was not provided with evidence of the specific valuation effect. 31Having regard to the evidence presented, I consider that any value benefit of potential rail access may be reflected generally within the application of an overall rate psm land value. 32Concerning the fourth issue, being the relevance of regard to rental evidence in the valuation process, Mr Dempsey gave evidence that there is a correlation between the rent that can be achieved from a new building in a location and the land value assuming the same cost of development for the improvements. 33Mr Dempsey further provided rental evidence from several leasing transactions in Yennora, Eastern Creek and Erskine Park for improvements of unspecified construction and upon a wide range of differing lease bases including, inter alia, the terms for duration, rent review, outgoings and incentive. 34In the absence of every matter, including building construction, lease basis and other aspects, being identical between leasing transactions, I do not accept that there is a direct correlation between building rental and land value.

VALUATION BY comparable sales evidence 6. 7. 35It is well established that, if comparable sales are available, the direct comparison of sales evidence approach is the conventional method of valuation (Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSW LEC 1087 at 41(Trilby); Redeam Pty Ltd v South Australian Land Commission (1977) 40 LGRA 151 at 156; Riverbank Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1974) 48 AJLR 483 at 484; Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWLEC 196 at 196 (Marroun)). 36The process of undertaking a valuation using comparable evidence comprises several steps, including the: a accumulation; b analysis; c adjustment; and d application of potentially genuinely comparable sales (Trust Company Limited v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 [2012] NSWLEC73 (Trust Company); Marroun, 197). 37A Court depends upon the established expertise of valuer witnesses called on both sides of the case(Marroun, 197). 38As Sugerman J said in Bingham v Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR (NSW) 1, at 18-19: "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." 39The accumulation of potentially genuinely comparable sales seeks to identify and establish a pool of relevant comparable sales from which information may be deduced concerning the value of the subject property (Trust Company, 110 and 111; Marroun, 198). 40Generally the competing parties produce lists which the Court must sift to identify some which are "truly comparable", or a "reasonably representative" sample and "relevant and sufficient in volume" (Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 212 CLR 111, at 121). 41Where the comparable sales differ in substantial ways from the subject property, a process of reasoning is required to establish their utility or otherwise (Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals (1981) 48 LGRA 409, at 414). 42In Brewarrana v Commissioner of Highways (No 2) 6 SASR (Brewarrana) at page 551, Wells J observed: "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." 43Further, Wells J went on to observe that: "The evidence in this case suggests strongly to my mind that, at the initial stages, a valuer will almost certainly look at all known sales in potentially relevant areas, if for no other reason than to discern patterns of prices and changes in price levels over important periods." 44In Trust Company, Pain J identified a failure to set out a clear stepwise process enabling scrutiny of the facts and assumptions relied upon by the valuer in reaching his conclusions (including identification of transactions of potentially low comparability) (paragraph 115) as leading to that part of the valuation report not being given any weight (paragraph 119). 45The analysis of potentially genuinely comparable sales provides a common basis of measurement by seeking to convert all potentially comparable sales to a common basis of expression such as a unitary rate (rate per square metre, rate per hectare, etc), improved or unimproved (through allowance for the absence or existence of improvements, etc) and so forth. 46In Trust Company, Pain J identified a failure to set out a clear stepwise process enabling scrutiny of the facts and assumptions relied upon by the valuer in reaching his conclusions (including an absence of explicit reasoning in analysis of comparable sales) (paragraph 115) as leading to that part of the valuation report not being given any weight (paragraph 119). 47The adjustment of potentially genuinely comparable sales acknowledges the fact that no two properties are ever identical and seeks to convert those potentially comparable sales to a hypothetical expression of value as a unitary rate in the context of the subject property through the reflection of differences (such as size, location, use, date, etc) between the respective potentially comparable sales and the subject property (Trust Company, 112; Marroun, 202). 48Because properties are never identical, explicit and/or implicit adjustment for differences is obviously necessary but caution is required through making as few adjustments as possible, in a consistent manner, to ensure the reliability of the comparable sale when related to the subject property, with too much adjustment potentially rendering the comparable sale unsafe to use (Trilby [2009] at 36, Brewarrana). 49Therefore, as a matter of general valuation principle, fewer adjustments may be preferred to more adjustments and smaller adjustments may be preferred to larger adjustments in rendering comparable sales safe for use. 50In Brewarrana at page 551, Wells J observed: "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." 51Caution in adjustment is required as too much adjustment renders the use of comparables unsafe (Trilby [2009], 36). 52Adjustment is a matter of degree, which must be carefully considered in each case (Marroun, 202). 53Caution is, therefore, required where large explicit and/or implicit adjustments are required, with particular caution required for large implicit adjustments (Trilby [2009], 36). 54Further, reflecting the significant roles of skill, experience and personal assessment in the adjustment process, the scope for differences in the quantum and direction of adjustment between valuers can be considerable (per Biscoe J in Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 225 (Holcim)). 55Accepted valuation practice permits both explicit and implicit adjustment for differences, such as in location, area and time, to enable valuers to have evidentiary comparable values which, following adjustment, account for the various differences with the subject property. Such adjustment is generally based on a reasoning process drawing on the skill and experience of the valuer and undertaken to derive an opinion of value through a deductive process (Trilby [2009], 35;Holcim; Marroun, 204). 56Explicit adjustment was preferred by Bly C in Jessica at 6: Also, in my opinion, if a valuer does not have a final land value in mind, the detailed percentage adjustment approach could be utilised and revealed in an attempt to provide transparency. Otherwise the valuer's less transparent approach would be to identify a range of factors that distinguish in one way or another, the comparable sale from the subject property and, based on the valuers own judgment simply assert the land value. 57This view was echoed by Pepper J in Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited v Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 4 at [45]: To this it may be added that it is necessary to make explicit adjustments for differences so that the adjustment process is sufficiently logical. An implicit process comprising a single adjustment, rather than separately itemised and reasoned adjustments, risks rejection for want of transparency. 58A transparent process of explicit adjustment leading to an explicable assessment of value is preferred to an opaque process of implicit adjustment leading to an assertion of value (Jessica, 6; Marroun, 206). 59In Trust Company, Pain J identified a failure to set out a clear stepwise process enabling scrutiny of the facts and assumptions relied upon by the valuer in reaching his conclusions (including an absence of explicit reasoning in adjustment of comparable sales) (paragraph 115) as leading to that part of the valuation report not being given any weight (paragraph 119). 60Pain J identified: "A clearly articulated logical reasoning process which affords transparency and demonstrates an appropriate level of support for each of the key assumptions made" as lacking in a valuers report to which Her Honour did not then attribute any weight (Trust Company, 122 and 124). 61Such adjustment process should work forwards from the comparable sales to derive an opinion of value, rather than working backwards to justify an opinion of value previously formed (per Jagot J in Graham Trilby Pty Limited v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 217 at paragraph 25). 62The application of those potentially genuinely comparable sales to the subject property seeks to determine the value of the subject property through a consideration of the relevance (such as being limited, indirect or direct) of the unitary rate derived from those adjusted comparable sales relative to the subject (Trust Company, 114; Marroun, 208). 63While all comparable sales evidence may be considered relevant and so cannot be disregarded, the level of relevance of different comparable sales to the subject property may vary leading to the valuer attributing differing weight to different comparable sales (Marroun, 208). 64In Brewarrana at page 551, Wells J observed: "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." 65In Trust Company, Pain J identified a failure to set out a clear stepwise process enabling scrutiny of the facts and assumptions relied upon by the valuer in reaching his conclusions (paragraph 115) as leading to that part of the valuation report not being given any weight (paragraph 119).

The Valuation Evidence 66Mr Dempsey, Registered Valuer, tendered as evidence a Report dated 3rd February 2012 on the subject property and gave expert evidence on behalf of the First Applicant, Tenstat, assessing the Land Value at the Base Date at $36,000.000. 67Mr Lunney, Registered Valuer, tendered as evidence a Statement of Evidence dated 7th February 2012concerning the subject property and gave expert evidence on behalf of the Second Applicant, Woolworths, assessing the Land Value as at the valuation Base Date to be $25,000,000 (or to be $22,500,000 if the drainage channel is not a Land Improvement). 68Mr Maundrell, Registered Valuer, tendered as evidence a Report dated 6th February 2012 on the subject property and gave expert evidence on behalf of the Respondent, assessing the Land Value at the Base Date to be $27,500,000. 69Each valuer also contributed to a Joint Report of 16th February 2012. 70Each valuer undertook a valuation by comparable sales evidence, with Mr Dempsey also having regard to rentals which I have considered previously.

Accumulation of potentially comparable sales 71There were no common comparable sales identified by all three valuers. 72Mr Dempsey identified four, Mr Lunney identified six and Mr Maundrell identified seven potentially comparable sales, referred to in the table below.

Analysis of potentially comparable sales 73All three valuers analysed their potentially comparable sales to derive a common basis of expression as a unitary rate, being $ psm land value, as follows: Address Mr Dempsey Mr Lunney Mr Maundrell 71 Byron Road, Guildford (Toll) $287psm N/A N/A 2-34 Pine Road, Yennora (Leda - Alcoa Site Area 2) N/A $165psm $193psm 38 Pine Road, Yennora (Schenker -Alcoa Site Area 1) $275psm* $275psm* N/A 24 Muir Road, Chullora (VW) $370psm N/A $289psm 38 Bernera Road, Prestons N/A N/A $278psm 402 Hoxton Park Road, Prestons N/A N/A $249psm 1 Capicure Drive, Eastern Creek (Hewlett Packard) $275psm $269psm N/A 1-23 Templar Road, Erskine Park (Dexus) N/A $197psm $197psm 25-51 Lenore Lane, Erskine Park N/A $209psm $202psm 250-266 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park (Subaru) N/A $215psm $230psm

Joint Report of 16th February 2012, paragraph 6 74Such analysis was explicit with specified allowance for, inter alia, improvements, demolition, benching, levelling and related earthworks, transmission line easement and lease pre-commitment. 75Such analysis was not, however, consistent, with significant differences for: a 2-34 Pine Road, Yennora (Leda - Alcoa Site Area 2) which Mr Lunney analysed to $165psm and Mr Maundrell $193psm, reflecting Mr Lunney's allowance for improvements; b 24 Muir Road, Chullora (VW) which Mr Dempsey analysed to $370psm and Mr Maundrell $289psm, reflecting Mr Dempsey's exclusion of GST and allowance for levelling and related earthworks and Mr Maundrell's allowance for a lease pre-commitment; and c 250-266 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park (Subaru) which Mr Lunney analysed to $215psm and Mr Maundrell $230psm, reflecting a differing allowance for improvements.

Adjustment of potentially comparable sales 76All three valuers made some adjustment to their potentially comparable sales to derive a hypothetical expression of value as a unitary rate, being $psm land value, in the context of the subject property, as follows: Address Mr Dempsey Mr Lunney Mr Maundrell 71 Byron Road, Guildford (Toll) $287psm N/A N/A 2-34 Pine Road, Yennora (Leda - Alcoa Site Area 2) N/A $181psm $190psm 38 Pine Road, Yennora (Schenker -Alcoa Site Area 1) $277psm $172psm N/A 24 Muir Road, Chullora (VW) $296psm N/A $289psm 38 Bernera Road, Prestons N/A N/A $278psm 402 Hoxton Park Road, Prestons N/A N/A $249psm 1 Capicure Drive, Eastern Creek (Hewlett Packard) $275psm $175psm N/A 1-23 Templar Road, Erskine Park (Dexus) N/A $167psm $197psm 25-51 Lenore Lane, Erskine Park N/A $167psm $202psm 250-266 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park (Subaru) N/A $183psm $230psm

77Mr Dempsey identifies possible adjustment of comparable sales evidence for area, shape, date of sale, location and zoning relative to the subject property but then makes no adjustment other than for 24 Muir Road, Chullora which is adjusted from $370psm to $296 psm for "Location and Zoning" but without further explanation of the rationale therefor. 78Mr Lunney makes adjustment of comparable sales evidence for size, location, date of sale, sale terms, exposure, contamination and easements by explicit percentage adjustments for each relative to the subject property in a clear, logical and transparent manner. 79Mr Maundrell appears to have made no adjustment of comparable sales evidence for relativity to the subject property, excepting 2-34 Pine Road, Yennora (Leda - Alcoa Site Area 2) which is analysed to $193psm (page 23) and adjusted to $190psm (page 32) though the basis for adjustment is unexplained, in his report, but did refer to composite percentage adjustments in oral evidence and in the joint valuers report though such adjustments appeared to lack consistency and transparency.

Application of potentially comparable sales 80After asserting a Land Value of $260psm for the subject property rounded to $36,000,000, Mr Dempsey provides only a very limited explanation of the process by which the four potentially comparable sales were applied to the subject property. 81Mr Lunney provides a brief commentary on each comparable sale relative to the subject property prior to assessing the land value of the subject property to be $180psm rounded to $25,000,000. 82Mr Maundrell provides a brief explanation of those comparable sales considered inferior or not comparable to the subject property with a clear valuation rationale prior to assessing the land value of the subject property to be $220psm with $60psm (the basis for which is unexplained) asserted for the "handle area" and "severed land", summed and rounded to $27,500,000.

Consideration of the comparable sales evidence 83While the zonings differed between the comparable sales submitted, the parties did not tender evidence regarding the impact of such differences on land value. 84Having regard to area, date of sale, location and motorway proximity, shape and number of street access points observed during the view and to the evidence tendered, including the report dated 8th December 2011 by Ms Nuthall, I consider that the comparable sales may be related to the subject property as follows. 8571 Byron Road, Guildford (Toll) is comparable in shape, location and motorway proximity. However, the property has dual street access, was sold after the Base Date and has an area of only 2.085 hectares. Further, the sale was to an adjoining owner, the influence of which on sale price was unclear. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 862-34 Pine Road, Yennora (Leda - Alcoa Site Area 2) is comparable in location and motorway proximity. However, the property has a smaller area, is an irregular shape and has only single street access. Further, Mr Edge, the marketing agent for the vendor, gave evidence that the property was marketed in late 2009 and an in-principle basis of conditional transaction was negotiated between April 2010 and September 2010, however the property had not been sold prior to the Base Date. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 8738 Pine Road, Yennora (Schenker -Alcoa Site Area 1) is comparable in shape, location and motorway proximity. However, the property has dual street access, was sold approximately three years before the Base Date and has a significantly smaller area. While having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be a relevant comparable sale. 8824 Muir Road, Chullora (VW) is closer to the city with superior motorway proximity. However, the property was sold after the Base Date, has an irregular shape with only single street access and a significantly smaller area. Further, it was unclear, from the evidence presented, what the influence was on the conditional sale price of the vacant land of the benefit of a binding agreement to lease for a development with high office content. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 8938 Bernera Road, Prestons is comparable in shape. However, the property has a superior location and motorway proximity, but was subject to sale by a put and call option approximately three and a half years before the Base Date, has only single street access and has a very significantly smaller area. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 90402 Hoxton Park Road, Prestons is comparable in shape. However, the property has a superior location and motorway proximity, but was sold after the Base Date, has dual street access and has a very significantly smaller area. While having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be a relevant comparable sale. 911 Capicure Drive, Eastern Creek (Hewlett Packard) is comparable in shape and area. However, the property has a superior location and motorway proximity, but was sold after the Base Date and has only single street access. Further, it was unclear from the evidence presented what the influence was on the sale price of the structuring of the transaction as a land component and an infrastructure component. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 921-23 Templar Road, Erskine Park (Dexus) is comparable in shape and was sold approximating the Base Date. However, as at the Base Date being before the issue of proposed acquisition notices for the Erskine Park Link Road, the property had an inferior location and motorway proximity, dual street access and was of a significantly smaller area. While having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be a relevant comparable sale. 9325-51 Lenore Lane, Erskine Park is comparable in shape. However, as at the Base Date being before the issue of proposed acquisition notices for the Erskine Park Link Road, the property had an inferior location and motorway proximity, had dual street access and was sold approximately one-and-a-half years before the Base Date but had an only slightly smaller area. While having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be a relevant comparable sale. 94250-266 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park (Subaru) is comparable in shape, location and motorway proximity. However, while the property was sold approximately half a year before the Base Date, it has a significantly smaller area and has dual street access. Having regard to the differences between this sale and the subject property, I consider this sale to be of limited relevance. 95Accordingly, I do not consider any of the comparable sales to be directly relevant comparable sales. 96Further, I consider the comparable sales at 71 Byron Road, Guildford, 2-34 Pine Road, Yennora, 24 Muir Road, Chullora, 38 Bernera Road, Prestons, 1 Capicure Drive, Eastern Creek and 250-266 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park to be of limited relevance. 97However, I consider the comparable sales at 38 Pine Road, Yennora, 402 Hoxton Park Road, Prestons and 1-23 Templar Road and 25-51 Lenore Lane, Erskine Park to be relevant comparable sales. 98Having regard to the relevant comparable sales and having very carefully considered the evidence tendered concerning adjustment for the relativity of each comparable sale to the subject property for area, date of sale, location and motorway proximity, shape and number of street access points as described above, I consider that a rate of $180psm may be supported for application to the land value of the subject property as at the Base Date.

Findings 99I note that under Section 40(2) of the Act, the Applicant has the onus of proof. 100Mr Dempsey gave evidence on behalf of the First Applicant, Tenstat, assessing the Land Value at the Base Date at $36,000.000. 101While Mr Dempsey accumulated and analysed potential comparable sales, he did not adjust relevant comparable sales evidence for differences in area, shape, date of sale, location and zoning relative to the subject property in a clear and transparent manner, despite significant such differences being apparent. 102Further, Mr Dempsey did not then apply the analysed and adjusted comparable sales evidence to the subject property in a clear, logical and transparent manner. 103Therefore, I do not accept Mr Dempsey's assertion that the Land Value of the subject property is $260psm as at the Base Date which rounds to $36,000,000. 104Mr Lunney gave evidence on behalf of the Second Applicant, Woolworths, assessing the land value as at the valuation Base Date to be $180psm rounded to $25,000,000. 105Mr Lunney accumulated and analysed potential comparable sales and made explicit percentage adjustments for size, location, date of sale, sale terms, exposure, contamination and easements for each relative to the subject property. 106I accept the principle, though not necessarily the quantum, of Mr Lunney's adjustments which were logical, clear and transparent. 107Mr Lunney then applied the analysed and adjusted comparable sales evidence to the subject property in a relatively transparent manner. 108Therefore, I accept Mr Lunney's assessment that the land value of the subject property as at the valuation Base Date is $180psm which rounds to $25,000,000. 109Mr Maundrell gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent, assessing the Land Value at the Base Date at $27,500,000 based on $220psm, with $60psm asserted for the "handle area" and "severed land". 110While Mr Maundrell accumulated and analysed potential comparable sales, he did not appear to adjust such comparable sales evidence for relativity to the subject property in his report despite significant apparent differences. 111Therefore, I do not accept Mr Maundrell's assessment of the Land Value at the Base Date at $27,500,000 based on $220psm, with $60psm asserted for the "handle area" and "severed land". 112Having regard to the evidence and information presented, I consider that an analysis of the relevant comparable sales and an adjustment of the analysed rates for application to the subject property support an assessment of value of $180psm for the subject property at the Base Date which may be rounded to $25,000,000. 113Having regard to the evidence presented and the land value assessment of $25,000,000, I consider that the First Applicant, Tenstat, has sufficiently proved the First Applicant's case as required by Section 40(2) of the Act that the objection should have been allowed but has not sufficiently proved the First Applicant's case that the land value as at the Base Date is $36,000,000. 114Having regard to the evidence presented, I consider that the Second Applicant, Woolworths, has sufficiently proved the Second Applicant's case as required by Section 40(2) of the Act.

Orders 115The orders of the Court are that: (1)The appeal by the First Applicant, Tenstat, is dismissed. (2)The appeal by the Second Applicant, Woolworths, is upheld. (3)The land value for the property known as 2-39Dursley Road, Yennora as at the base date of 1st July 2010 is $25,000,000. (4)No Order is made as to costs. Dr David Parker Acting Commissioner of the Court DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 January 2013

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (7)

Cited By (9)