Campbell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1998] QLC 79

LAND COURT BRISBANE 10 JULY 1998 Re: Appeal against an annual valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - Valuation Roll No: 11196 Local Government: GCCC-Albert (AV97-227) Allan J Campbell v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources D E C I S I O N Background: This matter relates to a property at Christensen Road, Stapylton, and described as Lot 2 on RP 113275, Parish of Albert. The land has an area of 1.567 ha and is located in an industrial locality, approximately 5.2 km south-east of the Beenleigh Central Business District. Electricity, water, sewerage and telephone services are available, and the land has a narrow battleaxe frontage to a short single-lane bitumen sealed road with gravel shoulders which runs of Christensen Road. Christensen Road itself is a full-width industrial two-lane bitumen sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling. The land is zoned as "Rural" under the Gold Coast City Council Planning Scheme of 24 February 1995 and effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 1996. The key issues are the comparison of sales, the nature of the land, the impact of road improvements, the use of a sign and costs of development. The land is irregularly shaped, below road level, is well drained and is undeveloped and covered with thick scrub. The land has only a narrow access strip to Christensen Road, and falls gently from north-east to south-west towards the existing Pacific Highway. The land falls away in its southern corner. However, there is no access to the highway which has limited access provisions in that area. The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, on 10 March 1997 issued a valuation of the subject at $330,000. Following an objection, the Chief Executive confirmed that valuation on 7 July 1997. The appellant has now appealed that figure claiming the valuation should more properly be $250,000. [1998] QLC 79 -- 1 of 14 -- Mr R Schultz appeared and gave evidence for the appellant. Mr P Grennan appeared and gave evidence for the respondent, calling also evidence from Mr AB Van Hees, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation. The Evidence (1) The Nature of the Land Mr Schultz argues that while he generally agrees with the respondent's description of the physical nature of the land, he believes that the current exposure of the subject to the existing Pacific Highway has been overestimated by the respondent. He concedes that presently the subject has approximately 190 metres of exposure to the highway, and that there has been an advertising sign upon the land for many years. However, he argues that new roadworks upon the highway will soon remove any exposure of the subject, a fact already resulting in a loss of any interest by advertisers in the existing sign. Mr Schultz also argues that as a consequence of its limited road access, the subject currently has little attractiveness to potential developers for industrial purposes. However, he agrees that the subject is located in the "Core Industrial Area" of the Albert Shire Council's Planning Scheme 1995 (Strategic Plan Map 7). Mr Van Hees argues that Strategic Plan requires a 10-metre wide buffer zone along the entire frontage to the highway for visual enhancement purposes, thus restricting any development in that zone. (2) The Impact of Roadworks A key issue impacting the subject is the current realignment of the Pacific Highway to the west of the current alignment. This realignment will virtually shift the passing traffic approximately 210 metres further away from the subject, and behind a parcel of land (Lot 392 on RP 812031) which is to remain undeveloped with dense forest, thus providing a visual barrier between the highway and the subject. Plans of the roadworks by the Department of Main Roads (dated 31 January 1997) were submitted, which demonstrates the loss of exposure by the subject. Mr Schultz argues that the relocation of the highway has been the subject of public discussion for some years, and prudent purchasers in the area are very conscious of the realigning of the roadworks. As a consequence of that high public perception, he had obtained copies of the Department of Main Roads' plans as soon as he became aware of their existence, in about February to March 1997. Mr Van Hees had also been informed by the Department of Main Roads in August 1997 that the plans for the roadworks were still of an interim nature. However, he confirmed that advice to him at that time was that the plans had been available for public scrutiny some months prior to August 1997. On balance there is nothing to indicate that public knowledge -- 2 of 14 -- 3 of the plans of relocation were not available until after the date of issue of the valuation (10 March 1997). It was also evident that Mr Van Hees and Mr Schultz were given different plans by the Department of Main Roads at their inquiries, thus leading to slight differences of understanding of the new roadworks. (3) Relativity Mr Schultz noted relativity with improved values as follows:  Parcel 1 - (66 Burnside Road, Ormeau - Lot 37 on RP 142704). This is a 4.136 ha corner lot with an industrial workshop shed, zoned as "Future Urban", and is located about 1 km south of the subject. Part of this land is low-lying swamp, and the parcel has no exposure to the highway. Parcel 1 has a unit rate of $5.07 per m².  Parcel 2 - (101 Burnside Road, Stapylton - Lot 4 on RP 134407). This is a 4.055 ha "Future Urban" lot which is vacant, with even slopes, and is uncleared. It has no highway exposure and its unit rate is $2.09 per m².  Parcel 3 - (93 Burnside Road, Stapylton - Lot 3 on RP 134407). This is a 4.051 ha "Future Urban" site adjoining Parcel 3, is vacant, uncleared and has no highway exposure. The parcel has a unit rate of $2.09 per m².  Parcel 4 - (83 Burnside Road, Stapylton - Lot 2 on RP 134407). This is a 4.051 ha lot similar and adjacent to Parcel 3. It rises gently to the rear, has an existing large industrial building (10,000 m²) for swimming-pool construction and has no highway exposure. It has a unit rate of $4.44 per m².  Parcel 5 - 63 Burnside Road, Stapylton - Lot 4 on RP 839725). This is a 14.697 ha site, zoned "Industry", rising gently to the rear, and with no highway exposure. There are industrial sheds erected. It has a unit rate of $5.71 per m².  Parcel 6 - (Elliott Drive, Stapylton - Lot 1 on RP 207378). This is a 3.696 ha site, zoned "Industry", on a service road, and with exposure to the highway. The parcel has a unit rate of $16 per m².  Parcel 7 - (Elliott Drive, Stapylton - Lot 2 on RP 207378). This is a 3.654 ha similar site, also with exposure to the highway, and with a unit rate of $16 per m².  Parcel 8 - (Elliott Drive, Stapylton - Lot 11 on RP 805734). This is a 3.36 ha similar site, with exposure to the highway, and with a unit rate of $16 per m². Mr Schultz argues that the developed sites without exposure to the highway (Parcels 1, 4 and 5) all vary between $4.44 per m² and $5.71 per m². The vacant sites without exposure have a unit rate of $2.09 per m². By comparison, the sites with exposure to the highway and access to a service road (Parcels 6, 7 and 8) have a unit rate of $16 per m². Mr -- 3 of 14 -- 4 Grennan argues that Parcels 1 to 5 were originally subdivided as old "Rural C" parcels, and were originally intended for uses including horse stables and dog kennels on the southern side of Burnside Road. Subsequently, changes to the Strategic Plan now designate both sides of Burnside Road for "Industry". There was agreement between the parties in respect of the supply of water to Parcels 1 to 8, but there was divergence in respect of the availability of sewerage to Parcels 6, 7 and 8. Mr Grennan argued that Council records had no knowledge of sewerage services to the lots in Elliott Drive, while Mr Schultz had personal knowledge that sewerage existed in Elliott Drive, although he had no knowledge whether it was connected to Parcels 6, 7 or 8. Mr Schultz argues that Council has finally agreed that its records may not be correct in respect of sewerage services in the Elliott Drive area. (4) Comparison of Sales Mr Schultz provided the following sales of vacant lands:  Sale 1 - (115 Pearson Road, Yatala - Lot 3 on RP 108562). This is a 6.79 ha "Future Urban (Industrial)" regularly shaped parcel, adjacent to an old Government development south of the subject and west of the highway. There is no sewerage available, although it was likely to be available 200 metres away in the industrial estate. The sale fronts an unmade gravel road. The sale is seen as larger but more remote, and is superior overall. The sale sold in November 1997 for $310,000 which, after analysing for improvements, was applied at $300,000 $4.41 per m²).  Sale 2 - (25 Prairie Road, Ormeau - Lot 31 on RP l42704). This is a 4.60 ha "Special Facilities (Industrial)" rectangular parcel, which is improved with a small garden steel shed. It is larger and more remote, and is seen as inferior. It runs into a swamp. The road is bitumen, but there are no footpaths or kerb and guttering. The sale sold in March 1996 for $185,000 which, after allowing for improvements, was analysed and applied at $165,000 ($3.58 per m²).  Sale 3 (374 Stapylton/Jacob's Well Road, Stapylton - Lot 2 on RP 146418). This is a 4.041 ha "Future Urban (Industrial)" parcel, which is very low in elevation, and has no services. It was on the market for some 10 years but eventually sold in April 1997 for $180,000, which was analysed and applied at $155,000 ($3.83 per m²). The sale is more remote, is larger, and is seen as inferior.  Sale 4 - (3 Kaycee Place, Yatala - Lot 211 on RP 905254). This is a 5,645 m² "Future Urban (Industrial)" parcel, that was purchased by a sole occupant adjoining owner. The sale is irregularly shaped, with a small road frontage (about 12 metres) to a small road (Kaycee Place) off the Old Pacific Highway. -- 4 of 14 -- 5 Kaycee Place has a double carriageway. The sale is smaller, but is seen as superior to the subject due to its better exposure to the Old Pacific Highway. The sale sold in June 1995 for $126,000 (as part of two lots), giving a unit rate for the sale of $22.32 per m². Mr Van Hees offered comparison of sales of vacant developed industrial land as follows:  Sale 1 - (29 Christensen Road, Stapylton - Lots 29 and 30 on RP 807576). This a 3,000 m² "Light Industry" parcel located about 5 km south-east of the Beenleigh Central District, and opposite the subject in Christensen Road. All services and amenities are available, and the sale is rectangular in shape, below street level, well drained, cleared, and with a slight fall southwards to the rear boundary. The sale has easements (R and P) along its rear boundary fronting the old Christensen Road (now Lot 1 on Plan CP 898896), thus restricting access to the south. The sale is seen as superior on a unit rate basis due to its size, superior access and zoning. The sale sold in August 1995 for $240,000 which, after allowing for clearing, was analysed at $238,500 ($79 per m²), and applied at $220,000 ($73 per m²).  Sale 2 - (9 Christensen Road, Stapylton - Lot 41 on RP 233974). This is a 2,591 m² "Light Industry" parcel located about 800 metres north-west of the subject. The sale has good access to Christensen Road, which is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling, and all services are available. The sale is regular in shape, is below road level, well drained and cleared, with a slight cross fall to the rear western corner. There is also an access restriction easement (Easement C) at the rear of the sale, in addition to a 10-metre wide buffer area as Lot 36 adjoining the Pacific Highway. The sale is seen as superior on a unit rate basis due to its size, access and zoning. The sale sold in October 1996 for $210,000 which, after allowing for clearing, was analysed at $208,500 ($80 per m²), and applied at $190,000 ($73 per m²).  Sale 3 - (Binary Street, Yatala - Lot 1 on RP 900193). This is a 3,636 m² "General Industry" parcel located about 2.5 km south of the subject. There is good access to Binary Street which is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling, and all services are available. However, there is no exposure to the highway. The sale is irregularly shaped and is below street level, well drained, with a slight fall to the rear boundary. The sale is seen as superior on a unit rate basis due to its size, access and zoning. The sale sold in June 1996 for $200,000 which, after allowing for clearing, was analysed at $198,500 ($54 per m²), and applied at $184,000 ($51 per m²).  Sale 4 - (Octal Street, Yatala - Lot 455 on Plan CP 905235). This is a 9,832 m² "Multiple" zoned parcel located about 2.6 km south of the subject. All services are available and access is to Octal Street which is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling. The sale is rectangular in shape, -- 5 of 14 -- 6 above street level, well drained, and requiring some earthworks. The sale does not have exposure to the highway, but is seen as superior on a unit rate basis due to access, shape, size and zoning. There is an easement (Easement A) along the southern boundary of the sale. The sale sold in February 1997 for $491,600 which, after allowing for improvements, was analysed at $478,600 ($49 per m²), and applied at $425,000 ($43 per m²). In comparing Mr Schultz's Sale 4 in June 1995, Mr Grennan noted that unimproved values in the area, which were based upon comparisons of sales since 1995, reveal that the market for industrial land has risen during that period. He noted, for instance, that the unimproved value of the subject in 1995 was only $170,000 (Exhibit 7). Mr Schultz also provided evidence of an offer of $200,000 for the subject in 1997, which was not accepted by the appellant, although Mr Schultz felt it did represent the state of the market at that time. (5) Cost of Development In seeking to determine the unimproved value of the subject as in globo land Mr Van Hees allowed for the 10-metre buffer zone along the Pacific Highway frontage to be retained as open space (1,940 m²), thus providing a net usable area for industrial development purposes of 1.373 ha. He then determined the unimproved value using the "top down method" as: Light industrial value (13,730 m² @ $37.50/m²) = $514,875 Less costs of rezoning, headworks charges, road, water and sewerage, plus fees and contingencies = $178,815 $336,060 Adopt $330,000 (or $24/ m²) While there was general agreement upon the likely development costs for the rezoning, roadworks and water connection associated with any development of the subject, there was some difference in respect of providing sewerage services. There was also agreement that the relatively large increase in Council headworks charges over the last 10 years from $22,000 per ha to $77,000 or $92,000 per ha, had been a major influence in causing delays in many developments in the area. Because of a paucity of relevant sales of in globo lands in the area, Mr Van Hees had compared sales of vacant developed lands, and then allowed for the costs of development to achieve an in globo unimproved value. -- 6 of 14 -- 7 In the matter of providing sewerage, it was noted that the topography of the subject falls from Christensen Road to the south. Evidence was also given of a pressure rising sewer main along Christensen Road from south to north connecting into the treatment plant at Yatala. If sewerage from the subject was to connect to that rising main, it would involve a local pumping station upon the site. The possibility of holding tanks and a local packaging plant as an interim measure was also discussed, but advice was given that Council was currently not agreeing to such proposals. The Council proposed sewerage plan (Exhibit 8) also showed a future sewerage pumping station at Sandy Creek to the south of the subject. From the position of that station it would appear to lie to the west of the new Pacific Highway, thus providing some problems in order to ensure gravity drainage of any sewerage from the subject. The likelihood of construction of the Sandy Creek Pumping Station was seen as something between five and 10 years away. Bearing in mind the current uncertainties of its location and date of construction, in the current matter I believe the most appropriate approach to providing sewerage, if it was to occur in the near future, would be from a local pumping station. There was agreement that such a station could cost between $20,000 and $80,000, depending upon the design volume of the sewerage. Mr Van Hees had provided $6,000 as an interim cost for sewerage, and also allowed for a further 10% of the total cost of redevelopment for unspecified variations. Mr Grennan also counselled against allowing twice for the costs of the sewerage as headworks charges included an amount of $31,450 for sewerage headworks. Mr Schultz disagreed with such a conclusion, noting from experience in negotiating with Councils on behalf of developers that, in his opinion, the costs of a sewerage pumping station would be required to be borne by the developer. Headworks charges, he argues, are designed to provide for future infrastructure development of an area. Mr Grennan challenges that view noting that headworks charges can be used to provide pumping stations for pockets of land that cannot be reticulated by gravity feed. Both parties agree that such matters are often the subject of robust negotiations between Council and developers, but Mr Schultz maintains that generally matters such as local pumping stations are the responsibility of the developer. Mr Grennan notes that bonding arrangements are available to developers in avoiding upfront costs in such matters. Mr Schultz notes that because of the railway line and highway to the south of the subject, there is a restricted catchment area for any pumping station, which would also influence whether Council would be prepared to contribute to the pumping station. -- 7 of 14 -- 8 (6) The Use of a Sign While the subject has had the benefit of a large advertising sign exposed to traffic along the Pacific Highway, that benefit is now subject to uncertainty in view of the new alignment of the highway. The sign is currently unused, and the former advertiser (a communications company) has terminated their lease. Public knowledge of the extent and location of the roadworks was discussed previously. The strategic location of signs along the highway is subject to approval by Department of Main Roads. In assessing his comparison of the subject, Mr Van Hees allowed that the subject is used for signage purposes, although it was not clarified about the extent of added value that the sign brought to the land. He argues that a sign of that nature could return an income of between $15,000 and $20,000 per annum. The appellant provided no evidence of the previous quantum of the lease but suggested a figure of approximately $5,000 per annum. Mr Van Hees expressed some optimism that another advertiser may be prepared to use the sign during the construction period of the new road alignment. Apparently once the roadworks are completed, he would consider reducing any added value for the sign. When Mr Van Hees inspected the site in August 1996 the sign was in use. Decision (1) The New Roadworks I turn first to the impact of the proposed new roadworks for the realignment of the Pacific Highway. I note that there was considerable public interest and debate about the realigning of the highway, and a prudent purchaser would have been able to obtain reasonable knowledge of those works prior to the date of issue of the valuation on 10 March 1997. As a consequence of that realignment I agree that the subject will lose any direct visual exposure to passing traffic, and the continued use of a major advertising sign upon the subject will be severely reduced. The cancellation of the former lease would suggest that the marketplace is already reconsidering other options. However, the realignment of the highway could have other positive effects upon the subject. I note, for instance, that access to the subject is currently very restricted by both a small frontage to Christensen Road, and the buffer strip along the old Pacific Highway. Because of the nature of the highway, the current policy of restricting access to the highway to a limited number of interchange access points is likely to continue. Such a strategy requires the establishment of a network of collector service roads to channel the local traffic -- 8 of 14 -- 9 to those key access points. The Department of Main Roads' map (Mr Schultz's Annexure A) shows that the present southbound Pacific Highway will become a service road. While there is no certainty that the buffer strip restricting access to the subject would be removed, there would appear to be no logical reason for its retention by the Council, once the old Pacific Highway becomes a service road. Mr Grennan has drawn attention to the former s.3(16)(c) of the Local Government Act 1936-1975, which provided restrictions upon a local authority in respect of unlawful conditions being placed upon owners of land in respect of truncations at corners or buildings set back from alignments, other than for reasons provided elsewhere in the by-laws. While those specific restrictions are no longer current, the general powers of a local government to make local laws and local law policies such as relate to the effective management of the area of jurisdiction, are now found in the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 8. Those provisions provide the legislative power for the local government to control the use of land, but that must be undertaken in accordance with the objects of the Act to provide for an effective, efficient and accountable system (s.3(a)). The need for accountability, in my view, relates not only to the public in general, but also to the individual citizen. The right of a land owner to have access to a local service road, in the absence of other planning evidence to the contrary, would appear to indicate that access to the subject may be enhanced once the Pacific Highway is realigned. In considering the value of the subject for in globo purposes, the likely development depends heavily upon whether the access to the future service road exists. Without that additional access the subject has restricted potential for development. The costs of providing sewerage to the subject must also be considered in respect of the increased access to any service road. (2) The Comparison of Sales I note the following direct comparisons of vacant undeveloped sites provided by the appellant: Sale Rate per m² Area Comparison 1 $4.41 6.79 ha Superior 2 $3.58 4.60 ha Inferior 3 $3.83 4.041 ha Inferior 4 $22.32 5,645 m² Superior By comparison the respondent has relied upon sales of vacant developed sites for his "top down" approach: -- 9 of 14 -- 10 Sale Rate per m² Area Comparison 1 $73 3,000 m² Superior 2 $73 2,591 m² Superior 3 $51 3,636 m² Superior 4 $43 9,832 m Superior I note also the appellant's evidence of an unexecuted offer to purchase the subject at $200,000. In respect of that offer I note that an "offer to purchase" may represent merely what a potential buyer would wish to pay for a parcel. It cannot be assumed that such an offer meets the criteria established in Spencer v. The Commonwealth of Australia (1907) 5 QLCR 418 at p.432, of a prudent and willing vendor and purchaser. In Australian Courts only binding contracts to sell and purchase have been accepted as evidence of value. The High Court of Australia considered the matter of a written offer to sell a property in McDonald v. Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax, NSW (1915) 20 CLR 231, and found at p.239: "When the matter has reached the point of a concluded contract, there has been a definite concrete fact established, which not only evidences value, but to some extent helps to create or modify it. Where an owner has actually parted with his land for a fixed sum and a buyer has parted with his money for the land, a clear event has arisen, which, based on the ordinary instincts and impulses of human nature, indicates a consensus of opinion between two adverse parties in the community respecting the value of similar land." A similar contractual agreement would also be required in respect of an "offer to buy". On the evidence of those guidelines I reject the offer to the appellant as evidence of value of the subject. If I consider then the sales of the respondent's vacant developed lots, I note that all four sales are superior to the subject. Mr Van Hees has relied upon his experience and knowledge of values in the area and elsewhere to determine a starting point for his "top down" approach of $37.50 per m². That principle was followed in King Ranch Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1968) 35 CLLR 255, where the Land Appeal Court said at p.259: "In not attempting to do this, Mr Walker adopted a method of valuing based on knowledge and experience rather than one lacking precedent and authority: The Land Appeal Court went on to note at p.262: "The valuer in arriving at his opinion in these difficult matters may have to draw upon his general knowledge and experience, including perhaps -- 10 of 14 -- 11 experience and 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." Those matters followed a similar reasoning to that found in Bingham v. Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR 1, where Sugarman J found at p.18: "In the absence of sufficient guidance to be had from sales, the valuer may find himself in the position resembling that to which Lord Romer referred in the Raja's case (1939) AC at pp. 312 and 313, in which he "will have no market value to guide him, and he will have to ascertain as best he may from the materials before him what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser for the land." However, Mr Grennan concedes that the respondent's four sales all have sewerage available, and as such, some further allowance could be made to the subject for that purpose. I note also that the appellant's Sale 4 (3 Kaycee Place) occurred in 1995, during a period when values in the area had been stable. There have been significant increases in the valuations of the subject since that time, which places some caution upon Sale 4 at a unit rate of $22.32 per m². (3) The Costs of Development I note in the matter of headworks charges that both parties agree that such charges are external to the subject, and are an additional cost to be added to the unimproved value of the in globo land in order to bring the surrounding services infrastructure into existence. In this regard I note the findings of the Land Appeal Court in PH Clough v. The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70, at p.75: "We think it beyond doubt that what has to be valued is the subject parcel of land viewed as if the improvements thereon, visible or invisible, never existed but that otherwise the parcel was situated in the community (and environment) with the amenities and facilities that had grown up around it as at date of valuation." That was also followed in State Government Insurance Office v. The Valuer-General (1980-81) 7 QLCR 171, at 180; and again in Riverside Drive Estate Pty Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1988-89) 12 QLCR 165, at p.169: "Having considered the submissions on the matter, and giving Section 11D(1) of the Act its plain and natural meaning, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate for the Valuer-General to add to the in globo value of the land the contributions made by the owner of the subdivided land for headworks charges and approvals. They certainly add to the value of the land and can be distinguished from works carried out by the owner of the land which -- 11 of 14 -- 12 cause enhancement in the value of the subdivided land, which has to be disregarded." In considering then the matter of providing sewerage to a developed subject for comparison purposes, there would appear to be only three feasible strategies: (i) the applicant to provide a small pumping station; (ii) the council to provide the pumping station; and (iii) to wait until the infrastructure is constructed down to the Spring Creek Station during the next decade. If I adopt an average area of 1,500 m² per new lot, the appellant would develop a maximum yield of seven to eight parcels. For a discharge capacity of that size the most likely scenario would be either for the appellant to wait until the sewerage infrastructure has been developed, or to seek some contribution from the Council in order to overcome what will inevitably become a small pocket for special sewerage treatment. On balance, I believe the appellant is likely to convince the Council to contribute to the costs of a small pumping station. In considering the likely costs of such a pumping station, there is evidence that it could vary from $20,000 to $80,000. From evidence in other matters in the Gold Coast City area, a pumping station to service 30 units, with subsequent upgrades, costs of the order of $57,000. I will adopt therefore a figure of $50,000, and allow for a 50% contribution by the Council, requiring $25,000 by the appellant. That figure is not inconsistent with the interim amount of $6,000 provided for by Mr Van Hees, together with some contingencies. A comparison of the cost of development of the in globo land then involves: Value as developed sites @ $37.50/m² $514,875 Less: Rezoning $2,400 Headwork Charges $105,927 Roads $2,000 Water $6,000 Sewerage $25,000 Fees and Advertising $5,000 Time and Contingencies $51,488 $197,815 $317,060 (or $23.09/m²) If I compare that unit rate to the unit rate for the appellant's Sale 4 in 1995, I believe, after allowing for increases in the value of Sale 4 to 1 October 1996, the relativity is appropriate. -- 12 of 14 -- 13 In respect of the 10-metre buffer area fronting the Pacific Highway, I make no allowance for the additional area, as I feel that Council would require some contribution for releasing the restriction upon access. The matter of the potential service road, after construction of the new highway, is still unresolved and has not been allowed for. The relativities between the appellant's parcels (1 to 8) and the subject are not relevant in view of the perceived potential of the subject for development as industrial sites. In seeking comparison with the appellant's Sales 1 to 3, I note that those analysed sales provide no support for the appellant's estimate of the unimproved value at $250,000. It is therefore more appropriate to compare the subject on a "top down" approach. In seeking to value the site on an in globo basis using this approach, the respondent has not attempted to assume any hypothetical subdivision, in view of the various uncertainties affecting access and services. Rather, he has sought to value the subject as future industrial land with some potential for subdivision. In so doing Mr Van Hees has followed the principle adopted by Else-Mitchell J in Luton v. The Valuer-General (1971) 23 LGRA 180. In that matter the Valuer-General's values had sought to apply a quite complex analysis of the various soil types, and to apply a different value to each area of such type. The Court preferred an in globo approach, noting at p.187: "I am disposed, as I have already indicated, to regard it as imputing too high a degree of sophistication to the hypothetical purchaser of unimproved land in the situation of most of the areas which fall to be valued in these appeals. Rather I think should the several sales be applied on an in globo basis at a round figure per acre wherever that course is reasonably possible." The matter of using an in globo approach rather than a more detailed hypothetical subdivision approach was also discussed in JC Hattersley v. The Council of the City of Gold Coast (1976) 3 QLCR 112, where the learned Member found at p.123: "I am of the opinion that in this case the development is so remote and the imponderables and uncertainties are of such magnitude that the hypothetical subdivision method cannot be expected to yield a result falling within the normal limits of accuracy and that therefore I must look to the in globo values put forward by the valuers to ascertain the value of the subject land at the date of acquisition." If I also allow for the larger areas of the respondent's Parcels 6, 7 and 8, I find the determined rate of $23 per m² is not inconsistent, for a site with advertising potential from exposure to the highway. As the subject is currently being seen in the marketplace as soon to lose that exposure, I make no allowance for any potential for advertising by a large sign. Summary -- 13 of 14 -- 14 As required under s.33 of the Valuation of Land Act the onus is upon the appellant to prove that the valuation by the Chief Executive is defective in some way (Brisbane City Council v. The Valuer-General (1977-78) HC 140 CLR 41 at p.56). In the current matter I believe that the Chief Executive has provided insufficiently for the likely cost of providing sewerage to the site as part of his "top down" method of valuation. Conclusion Having considered the whole of the evidence, I am persuaded that the appellant has partially proved his case. The appeal is upheld, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 113275 is determined at Three Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($315,000). NG DIVETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 14 of 14 --