Cooke v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1998] QLC 120 (1998) 19 QLCR 258

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 8 OCTOBER 1998 Re: Determination of Unimproved Value - City of Brisbane - Division of Hamilton. (Ref AV97-274). Nelson M and Annette M Cooke v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N This appeal is against the determination by the respondent Chief Executive of an unimproved value of $900,000 for a 2428 square metre parcel of land situated at 83 Enderley Road (Cnr Alexandra Road), Clayfield, and which is more particularly described as Lots 1 to 4 and Lots 9 and 10 on RP 34371, Parish of Toombul, County of Stanley. The land is zoned “Residential A” within the Town Planning Scheme for the City of Brisbane. The relevant date for the determination of the unimproved value is 1 October 1996, and the appellants contend within the notice of appeal for an unimproved value of $600,000. The respondent’s valuation was made under the provisions of section 17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as land used for the purposes of a single dwelling house. Erected on the land is an Australian Heritage Listed home known as “Breffney”. The grounds of appeal, to which the appellants are limited in accordance with section 56(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, read: “ The valuation increase was excessive and is not born out by comparable sales when correctly analysed. The property is unattractive to a buyer intending to demolish the existing house and build a new. Commonwealth Heritage Listing applies. ” Nelson Marshall Cooke, who is a Barrister-at-Law, conducted the case for the appellants, of which he is one. Mr Cooke furnished evidence in the matter and also called Sweden Jade Harley, who is a practising Registered Valuer (No 2173). The case for the respondent Chief Executive was presented by Registered Departmental Valuer James Thomas Houghton who also provided the Court with valuation evidence. [1998] QLC 120 -- 1 of 14 -- 2 But before commenting upon such evidence as I consider relevant to my finding in the matter, I should say that my decision has been delayed to await the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in Re: GV and DE Roberts v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (Court Ref. V96-791) which was handed down in Cairns on 12 August 1998. This was so since the Land Appeal Court had for its consideration an appeal against a decision of the learned President of this Court that the Listing of an historical residential dwelling known as “Warringa” and situated at 26 Cleveland Terrace, Melton Hill, in the City of Townsville on the Heritage Register, under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 did not affect the unimproved value of the Roberts’ land since the Heritage Act Listing did not prevent single unit residential use of the land, and this was the basis upon which the land was valued by the Chief Executive. The grounds of appeal to the Land Appeal Court in Roberts, inter alia, read: “ 2. That the Learned Member erred at law when he failed to take into account or properly take into account the following matters: (a) the restrictions imposed upon the use and/or development of the subject land under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992; (b) the potential uses and/or developments of the comparative lands for single unit residential purposes which were possible by reason of the fact that such lands were not subject to the said restrictions under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992; (c) the fact that the market for sale of the subject land was limited to persons prepared to accept the restrictions imposed upon the land by the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 and to persons who wished to own and/or reside in the residential improvements presently erected on the subject land; (d) the diminution in value of the subject land as compared to the comparative lands which would result from the matters referred in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) hereof; (e) (not relevant); (f) (not relevant); (g) (not relevant); (h) (not relevant); (i) proper and usual valuation principles in order to determine the appropriate effect of the restrictions under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 on the value of the subject land and its relative value to the comparative lands; -- 2 of 14 -- 3 (j) the fact that evidence of a ready demand for `old Queenslander homes’ is irrelevant to and/or not determinative of the market and/or demand for the particular house structure erected on the subject land together with its statutory restrictions on changes and/or repairs and/or alterations and/or demolition and/or redevelopment; (k) that the highest and best use of the subject land was single unit residential use free of the restrictions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 which were imposed on the subject land and that such Act prevented and/or adversely restricted such highest and best use of the subject land; (l) that the comparative lands were capable of being developed for their highest and best use of single unit residential purposes without the statutory restrictions which existed in respect of the subject land; (m) that the subject land could not be developed to its full potential for its highest and best use as single unit residential land and does not have any potential for further development for such highest and best use and its unimproved value must reflect that statutory restriction; (n) that the presence on the subject land of its residential improvements and its listing under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 meant that the subject land was not available for unrestricted use for single unit residential purposes and it could not be valued by comparing it with vacant land suitable for such unrestricted use; (o) that the adjoining Lyons land which is merely classified by the National Trust of Australia was not subject to the restrictions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 or any other statutory restrictions on its development or use apart from its residential 3 zoning under the Town Planning Scheme and that accordingly it is not directly comparable to the subject land and/or its value is enhanced in comparison to the subject land; (p) that the residential 3 zoning of the surrounding lands with their actual developments or potential developments has a significant adverse effect upon the amenity of the subject land for single unit residential purposes. It was the respondent Chief Executive’s case in Roberts that, while he was in agreement that the subject land is impacted by the Heritage Listing, he claims that the effect of Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, requiring that the subject land be valued as a single residence site with any higher use of the land ignored, establishes its highest and best use. But because of the residential nature of the Heritage Listing, and in the absence of any direct sales evidence to demonstrate some detriment in the valuation as a consequence of such listing, the Respondent Chief Executive argued in Roberts that the Heritage Act had no effect upon the unimproved value of the subject land. For the appellant, Roberts, it was argued that, -- 3 of 14 -- 4 because of the Heritage Listing, the owner of the subject land does not have the same freedom for the use of the land that is inherent in a property free of any such heritage requirement. In allowing the Robert’s appeal, the Land Appeal Court had this to say: “ Such a statutory restriction is likely to vary from site to site, and may either have a positive or negative impact on the value of a Heritage listed property. However, what must be recognised is that such a statutory restriction does exist, and prima facie must impact on the resultant value of the property (underlining is mine). The consequence of the heritage listing is therefore a separate consideration to the effect of section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act which applies to all single residential sites. ” But on my reading of the Roberts’ judgment, it was apparent that the Land Appeal Court was bereft of satisfactory market evidence to quantify what would be an appropriate allowance to make in valuation terms for what it found to be the negative effect on the valuation of the land. But the final passage in the “Appropriate Allowance for Detriment” segment of the judgment reads: “ Borrowing the words of Devlin J in Biggin v. Purmanite (supra) this is a case where `the court must do the best it can’ and we have decided that, based on an unencumbered valuation of $180,000, an encumbered value of $160,000, rounded from a discount of 10% reflects our appreciation of the probable effect of loss of freedom of choice in the use and quiet enjoyment of the land content of `Warringa’. ” Now without a doubt, the ground of appeal in the instant case, and one which received by far the most attention in the case, was that “the property is unattractive to a buyer intending to demolish the existing house and build a new. Commonwealth Heritage Listing applies.” That this is appropriate cannot be in dispute, since the Land Appeal Court (in Re: WM and TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44) and this Court has often commented that references to valuation increases in cases of this nature do not constitute a worthwhile ground of appeal, that what has to be determined is the unimproved value of a specific parcel of land as at a declared relevant date, and that the best basis of valuation when the task at hand is to determine unimproved value is the use of analysed sales evidence of vacant or lightly improved properties at or about that date. But in any event, examination of the sales evidence produced by the valuers in the case, and of a submission by the appellants that the analyses of sales of improved properties where the dwelling houses were removed and/or demolished after the sale date to reflect market evidence of unimproved land value did not constitute a valid basis of valuation, is not necessary since the appellants, through their valuer Ms Harley, agree that the unimproved value of $900,000 as determined by the Chief -- 4 of 14 -- 5 Executive is a fair and reasonable unimproved market value for the land if the property was not listed by the Australian Heritage Commission on the Register of the National Estate. But I should briefly comment that Mr Houghton’s methodology in the analyses of his Sales Nos 1 and 3 (as contained within his tendered valuation report - Exhibit 17), in which he made allowance for the removal costs of dwelling houses to reflect unimproved value, has judicial support in the judgment of the High Court in Re: Fenton Nominees Pty Ltd v. The Valuer- General (1982) 47 LGRA 95. So the outcome of this appeal depends, in view of the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in Roberts, upon my appreciation of the relevant evidence and submissions in support of, or the rebuttal of, the ground of appeal concerning the effect of the Australian Heritage Listing on the value of the subject land. But before considering the relevant evidence and submissions, I might say that had I been presented with the same evidence and submissions in Roberts as was the learned President of this Court, I would have had no difficulty coming to a similar conclusion as did he. But the hierarchy of the judicial system and courts has to be respected, and as a Member of this Court sitting alone, I am bound in law to follow the finding of the Land Appeal Court that the State Heritage Listing of the Roberts’ property does deleteriously affect the unimproved value of the Roberts’ land in comparison with its value derived from market transactions free from the blighting, as it were, by the Heritage Listing. Now, there is a distinction to be made in this case concerning the Heritage Listing of the property. Mr Cooke informed the Court that on 3 November 1994, the appellants were advised by the Australian Heritage Commission that “Breffney and Gardens” was to be entered in the interim list of the Register of the National Estate on 6 December 1994. “Breffney” is regarded by the Australian Heritage Commission to be an excellent example of the Spanish Mission Style which was so popular in Brisbane and demonstrates the full range of characteristics associated with this style of architecture. “Breffney” was designed by architects Hall and Prentice. The Commission advised that the listing of the property in the Register was recognition of its Heritage value and further that the listing of a place in the Register is not a land management decision as an owner will retain all of his/her present rights and is not required to change the way in which he/she manages or disposes of the property, nor is he/she required to provide public access to the property. Now although the Australian Heritage Commission allows a minimum period of three (3) months from the date of the Gazettal of the Listing for the lodgment of objections, Mr Cooke informed the Court that he did not formally object to the Listing. Mr Cooke stressed that it is “Breffney and -- 5 of 14 -- 6 Gardens” which is listed in the Register, and suggests that the listing includes the house, the gardens, the grounds and the tennis court fence which, Mr Cooke says, seems to have attracted some attention. Mr Cooke feels that the factors of influence leading to the Listing were the attractiveness of the house’s setting with the tennis court, fences and the use of exotic flora (especially palms) on its prominent site which increases the significance of the house. Mr Cooke advised the Court that “Breffney” was built in 1929 and that all of the plaster works in the house, the panelling, most of the light fittings, and the bathroom fittings are all original from that period. Mr Cooke tended in evidence a copy of a comprehensive and detailed report prepared at his request by John Stephens of John Stephens Building Services (part of Exhibit 2) which identifies a number of ongoing areas of maintenance required to preserve the character and standard of the “Breffney” asset. Mr Cooke has estimated the cost, based on his experience during a 20 year period of the appellants’ ownership of “Breffney”, of maintaining the property to a standard consistent with its Australian Heritage Listing. These costs are: Cleaning Walls, skirting boards, light fittings, picture rails, mirrors, oil maple panelling, tile grouting, screens, windows, curtain rods, staircase railings $8,000 quarterly $32,000 Ceiling cavity under tiled roof $ 1,000 Garden Hedge $250 quarterly $ 1,000 Hibiscus, shrubs, tree lopping, palm fronds, rubbish removal $500 per quarter $ 2,000 Lawn and path maintenance $45 per fortnight $ 1,170 Pool maintenance $150 per month $ 1,800 General maintenance and repair Plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roof tiles, tile capping, lead flashing, timber pergolas, window frames, rope pulleys, lattice, watering system, dummy tiles, repairs to plaster walls (cracks), tennis court timber, greasing -- 6 of 14 -- 7 garage door wheels, termite inspection $10,000 Painting Annual Metal grilles and gates, security grilles, balcony railings, external doors, window sills, bathroom ceilings, touch ups $20,000 External Outside walls including garage and folly, boundary walls $30,000 every 10 years $ 8,000 Internal Ceilings, walls, kitchen cupboards $60,000 every 3 years $20,000 Total $96,960 Mr Cooke stresses further that the actual size of the “Breffney” house and its age increases the cost of annual maintenance over and above the cost of maintaining a modern house of similar size, especially as modern houses are not built to the same generous proportions. Now Mr Cooke concedes that the Australian Heritage Listing is not as onerous as a Listing would be under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. But he claims that the fact that “Breffney and Gardens” is identified on the Register would preclude any possibility of the present “Breffney” dwelling house being demolished, and agrees that a Queensland Listing detracts from a property’s market value because of bureaucratic restrictions on renovations, repairs and routine maintenance, such as painting, tree-lopping, etc. But Mr Cooke acknowledges that the Australian National Register Listing does not constitute a land use restriction as severe as does the Queensland Heritage Listing. But he stresses once a property is listed on the Australian Heritage Register, the house is known to be a house of some significance and if the owners applied to the Brisbane City Council to carry out any renovations, Council would know about the Listing and in particular, if the owners wanted to demolish the house, Mr Cooke thinks the chance of obtaining demolition approval from Council would be nil, even though the property is not listed on the State Register or specifically identified on the Council records as being a house of historical or cultural significance. -- 7 of 14 -- 8 After reading a copy of the Brisbane City Council Character Protection Controls (Exhibit 11), I am satisfied that any application for the demolition of “Breffney” or for any significant structural alteration of the character of “Breffney” by way of redevelopment, would not obtain the consent of Council in view of its Listing on the Australian Heritage Register and on the Planning Policy of Council concerning the Protection of Heritage and Character Buildings (Exhibit 12). Registered Valuer, Ms Harley, has valued the subject land using two methods of valuation. Her primary method is what she titles “a maintenance provision method” and it simply reads: Unimproved value (DNR) - (Heritage Listing not taken into account) $900,000 Less Maintenance provision $590,000 Unimproved value (all factors taken into account) $310,000 The second and secondary method is what Ms Harley calls the “Ballow Chambers Method”. It reads: Market Value $1,700,000 less value of house $1,176,000 $1,565,000 less ground improvements $ 147,000 Unimproved value $ 377,000 Now there is clearly a mathematical error in this secondary valuation. Line 3 should read $524,000. But the end result, adjusted as it was during the course of the presentation of Ms Harley’s evidence by the inclusion of a value for a garage in the value of ground improvements in the sum of $12,000 means that her valuation of the land using the Ballow Chambers method still equates $377,000. Now before commenting further on either of Ms Harley’s valuations, I should say that the title for her second valuation method is derived from the judgment of the Land Appeal Court in Re: Ballow Chambers Limited v. The Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 422. -- 8 of 14 -- 9 Ms Harley is of the opinion that the listing of “Breffney and Gardens” on the Australian Heritage Register acts detrimentally in terms of the unimproved value of the subject land. She told us that a prudent purchaser of the subject property, observing that the property was listed on the Australian Heritage Register would assume that, sooner or later, it would have a State Heritage Listing. But in any event Ms Harley stresses that because of the Australian Heritage Listing the owners cannot demolish “Breffney” anyway, and she said that this is one of the major onerous provisions associated with the Listing. Now turning to Ms Harley’s primary method of valuation, I should say that in order to make an allowance for maintenance provision against the agreed unfettered unimproved value of $900,000, she has adopted the annual maintenance costs provided to her by Mr Cooke as outlined earlier in this decision. She has done so because she believes he has made a reasonable and realistic estimate to the best of his ability and to the best of his knowledge. But she has adjusted the total annual maintenance provision as assessed by Mr Cooke ($96,960) to a figure of $59,000 on the basis that it is only the additional maintenance costs over and above those for a modern similar-sized building which are to be included in her valuation exercise. Ms Harley has assessed the annual maintenance provision costs for a new rendered brick home of similar proportions to the “Breffney” property to be: Cleaning $ 8,000 Garden $ 5,970 Maintenance and repairs $17,640 External maintenance $ 8,000 Insurance $ 373 Total costs $39,983 This calculation leads Ms Harley to her estimate of additional maintenance provision cost for the “Breffney” property over the hypothetical new rendered brick home to be $59,000. Now the allowance made for the additional annual maintenance cost in her primary valuation exercise ($590,000) is the result of her capitalising her estimate of the additional maintenance cost of $59,000 using an interest rate of 10% per annum which, she suggests, is the available net return available to property investors in the industrial market in a fairly good -- 9 of 14 -- 10 position with a reasonable lease term and with a State-wide tenant or a reasonable local tenant. The secondary method of valuation used by Ms Harley depends for its accuracy upon a number of factors. The first is the estimated value of the subject property as a Heritage Listed property ($1,700,000), the second is the value of “Breffney” house ($1,176,000) and thirdly the added value of the ground improvements ($147,000). Now the principle basis for Ms Harley’s valuation of the property as a whole is a comparison she makes with the sale price of $1,230,000 on 6 December 1997, for a State Heritage Listed property situated at 18 Tarranalma Street, Clayfield, containing an area of 2226 square metres. Ms Harley says the building on this property has a lot of large living area towards the front, and a two-level wing of bedrooms or other rooms which could be used as bedrooms everywhere. Ms Harley says that Tarranalma Street is an inferior position to “Breffney” as it is on the wrong side of Sandgate Road, and she believes the sale price of Tarranalma Street supports her valuation of $1,700,000 for the subject listed property. Ms Harley also referred to a sale at 91 Crescent Road, Hamilton, containing an area of 913 square metres on 24 December 1997 for $585,000 with a 6-bedroom double level Heritage Listed home with fire places, two dining rooms, two sitting rooms and river views. In support of her contention about the depreciating effect of Heritage Listing on property values, Ms Harley compared the sale of 91 Crescent Road, Hamilton, with the sale of 11 Sefton Road, Clayfield, containing 404 square metres shortly after and on 5 January 1998 for $592,000 upon which there is an unlisted 4-bedroom modern rendered brick home with no views. Ms Harley’s valuation of the “Breffney” house involves an unusual method. Notwithstanding its age (erected in 1929), Ms Harley considers its added value equates the cost of replacement of a replica house with the same floor area of 590 square metres at a cost of $2,400 per square metre. This is a replacement cost advised to her by the aforementioned John Stephens of John Stephens Building Services who has inspected the house thoroughly as indicated by his tendered building inspection report (part of Exhibit 2). Now Ms Harley has not taken a similar approach to her valuation of the ground improvements. She has been influenced by the replacement cost estimate made by Mr Cooke (Exhibit 10) totalling $225,000, and is of the opinion that the added value of these ground improvements is 60% of replacement cost - or $135,000. But since preparing her original report, and as aforementioned, she became aware that Mr Cooke omitted from his list of -- 10 of 14 -- 11 replacement costs of the ground improvements that of a garage which Ms Harley now includes at a new cost of $20,000 with an added value of $12,000, making the added value of all ground improvements $147,000. It is from these calculations that Ms Harley derives an unimproved value of $377,000 for the subject land using the Ballow Chambers method. Registered Departmental Valuer Mr Houghton describes the nature of the subject land as rising gently from Alexandra Road level to the rear and being generally level with Enderley Road. He says that views to the east from the site are apparent. Mr Houghton has had regard to the analyses of three sales of “Residential A” zoned sites as a basis for his valuation of the land in the sum of $900,000. Details are included within his valuation report (Exhibit 17). As the appellants are not contesting that this valuation is a fair unimproved market value for the subject land unaffected by its Heritage Listing, then no further discussion about the application of Mr Houghton’s sales evidence is necessary. In response to the appellants’ claim that the value of the subject land is deleteriously affected by the Heritage Listing, Mr Houghton tendered in evidence a copy of a letter from the Queensland Department of Environment under the hand of G. Wellard - Director - Cultural Heritage (dated 11 March 1996 - Exhibit 18) forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources. This letter was in response to the Department’s request for information regarding the effect of Heritage Legislation on residential properties. The contents of this letter have been examined, but to give weight to the suggestions contained therein here would add nothing to the deliberations to be made in this case following the Land Appeal Court judgment in Roberts, also a Queensland Heritage Listed property. But it is perhaps significant to note that the author of the letter said at that time (11 March 1996) that no systematic work had been undertaken regarding the economic effects of Heritage Legislation. Mr Houghton informed the Court that his Department has a policy in relation to the valuation of residential land subject to listing on a Heritage Register. He says it takes into account the Valuation of Land Act, the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, and the Land Appeal Court decision in Ballow Chambers. I note that included within the policy direction is that “the valuation of residential land, where valued under section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, may be unaffected by Heritage Listing while the balance may be determined by deducting the added value of improvements from the price of listed properties to arrive as a basis”. Now I might comment that I have some difficulty with an interpretation of this direction note, but in any event this policy was also placed before the Land Appeal Court in Roberts. -- 11 of 14 -- 12 Mr Houghton indicated to the Court that his Department is of the view that the Heritage Listing of the subject property on the Australian Heritage Register makes no difference to the valuation to be placed upon the subject land as at the date of valuation. Rather, Mr Houghton sees the Character Protection Controls offered by the Brisbane City Council as not being a detriment to an area, but rather he says that an enhancement to the area protecting the quality that people have already paid for to reside in an area such as where the subject land is situated. I can readily appreciate Mr Houghton’s stance in this respct, but Mr Houghton’s views on this matter have been overtaken by the subsequent decision of the Land Appeal Court in Roberts. Now despite the attempts by Mr Houghton in his cross-examination of Mr Cooke and Ms Harley to discredit the allowances made for the added value of the “Breffney” improvements and the annual maintenance costs, I am simply left with no other evidence upon which I could rely to assess the diminution value factor for the “Breffney” property other than that provided by the appellants. But I am not satisfied that any diminution in the value of the “Breffney” property due to its Heritage Listing is confined to the land value alone. It is to be absorbed into the value of the property listed - i.e. “Breffney House and Gardens”. After all, it is the listing of “Breffney House and Gardens” which has caused the diminution in value of the property, and the resultant value diminution is to be absorbed by the whole asset. I am fortified in coming to this view by the words used by the Land Appeal Court in its decision in Roberts as quoted in page 4 of the decision. I adopt for the purpose of this decision the evidence of Ms Harley that the value of the “Breffney House and Gardens” is deleteriously affected at valuation date by the capitalised sum of $590,000, but the problem is to apportion such value diminution to the value of the land in accordance with my finding above.. I adopt the added value given to the land by the “Breffney House” as a Listed Property in the sum of $1,176,000, and the added value of the ground improvements in the sum of $147,000. On the basis of the property not being listed on the Australian Heritage Register it is agreed that the unimproved value of the subject land is $900,000. On this evidence it is open for me to come to a finding that the market value of the “Breffney” property at the relevant date for valuation, assuming there to have been no listing, to be: Value of land $ 900,000 Value of “Breffney House” $1,176,000 Value of “Breffney” ground improvements $ 147,000 -- 12 of 14 -- 13 TOTAL VALUE OF BREFFNEY PROPERTY UNAFFECTED BY HERITAGE LISTING $2,223,000 Now I appreciate this finding is significantly above Ms Harley’s valuation of “Breffney” as a Listed Property, but it may come as no surprise to Mr Cooke who said in evidence that he regarded Ms Harley’s valuation of $1,700,000 for “Breffney” as “probably being on the lower limit”. The next and final exercise I should undertake is to apportion the capitalised loss of $590,000 in the value of the property between my finding as to the value of “Breffney” as a whole on an unlisted basis, and the agreed unimproved value. It is simply done mathematically as follows: $900,000 (unimproved value) x $590,000 (capitalised loss in the value of the property)  $2,223,000 (the unlisted value of the property as a whole). This calculates to a sum of $238,866 - or 26.5% of the unlisted unimproved value. It is to be noted that this diminution unimproved value factor (26.5%) considerably exceeds the finding of the Land Appeal Court in Roberts (10%) but, unlike the Land Appeal Court in Roberts, I consider I have sufficiently substantive evidence upon which to base my finding notwithstanding the submission by Mr Houghton (with which I agree) that to adopt the calculations produced on behalf of the appellants would be “fraught with danger”. But before proceeding to my formal determination, I should comment that Ms Harley’s unimproved value of $310,000 derived from her primary method of valuation is manifestly too low given the quality of the site, its area and its prestige location, notwithstanding that it is an Australian Heritage Listed site. I propose to use as a basis for my determination an unimproved value diminution factor of 25% deduction from an unlisted unimproved value of $900,000. This calculates to an unimproved value of $675,000, which sum I round off in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources’ computer assisted valuations rounding off scale to $670,000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive is set aside, and the unimproved value of Lots 1 to 4 and 9 and 10 on RP 34371, Parish of -- 13 of 14 -- 14 Toombul, is determined in the sum of Six hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($670,000). CH CARTER MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 14 of 14 --