ANZ Executors and Trustee Co Ltd v The Valuer-General [1992] QLC 307

Re: An appeal against a determination of the Valuer-General Shire of Douglas - AV90-347 ANZ Executors and Trustee Co Ltd V. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Cairns) DECISION - LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 17th December 1992 This appeal is against the Valuer-General's determination, as at 31st March 1989, of the unimproved value of land described as Lot 103 on Plan SR500 Special Lease 09/47104 and Part Reserve R171 (Lease J from Douglas Shire Council), Parish of Salisbury, containing a total area of 7625 square metres. The land is situated in a water-front location at Wharf Street, Port Douglas, about 200m south of Macrossan Street which is the main business street of the commercial area and about 100m north of the Marina Mirage Shopping Centre. The valuation appealed against is in the amount of $1,100,000. As will be seen, the Valuer-General's valuation tendered to the Court was in the amount of $995,000. The original Appellants were J A & P M Halstead, who estimated the unimproved value to be $720,000. Consequent upon a transfer of the leases, the new lessee as named above, has elected to carry on the appeal. Evidence was led to a rounded valuation of $457,000. [1992] QLC 307 -- 1 of 21 -- 2 At the outset, it was the submission of Mr W G Kirby, Solicitor for the Appellant, that the provisions of Section 11 (1) (v) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) applied to Special Lease 09/47104, but not to Lease J, and for that reason the two parcels should be treated separately in terms of the methodology of valuation. Mr R Vize, Counsel for the Valuer-General agreed with the submission as to the status of the leases in terms of the Act, but submitted that, under the Act, it was quite proper for the lands to be amalgamated and treated as one Lot. There is no suggestion from the Appellant that two separate valuations should issue, but, because there are seen to be impediments, of a legal nature, applying to the status of Lease J, that land should be valued on a different basis. That was the approach taken by the Appellant's valuer, Mr R G Brown, a Registered Valuer in private practice. He had established that Lot 103 (SL 09/47104) contained an area of 6857 square metres while Lease J contained 768 square metres. Lot 103 is a rhomboid shaped parcel with street frontage of 60.36 metres and average depth of about 113 metres, the rear or western boundary approximating the original low water mark of Dickson Inlet. Lease J immediately adjoins, being a strip about 6.3 metres wide along the full southern boundary of Lot 103. The land is zoned "Port Facilities", in which zone as of right uses are limited to "Public utilities" and "Waterfront industries". Column IV (Consent uses) are much wider and are as follows: -- 2 of 21 -- 3 Advertising signs Bulk stores Caretaker's residences General stores Heavy industries Light industries Liquid fuel depots Off-street car parks Professional offices Public buildings Recreation centres (where such centre requires access to water as an essential part of its operations) Refreshment services Service industries Service stations Shops Showrooms Special uses Stockyards Trade storage buildings Transport terminals Warehouses Special Lease 09/47104 has been issued for use for the purposes of "Industrial (Slip Way, Boat Building and Boat Repairs) and Business (Mooring Berths)". Section 11 (1)(v)(b) of the Act requires that the unimproved value of a special lease (issued under Division 1 of Part VIII of the Land Act 1962, which this lease was) shall be determined having regard to and making proper allowance for any restriction or limitation to which that lease is subject. Lease J is a lease of Part of Reserve R171 for Local Government (Port and Harbour) purposes under Section 343 of the Land Act 1962, "solely for the operation of a slipway for marine repairs and for any lawful purpose associated with marine repairs permitted by the Town Plan .... " -- 3 of 21 -- 4 Mr Brown describes Lot 103 as being about 40% filled and utilised as a mooring basin and slipway with workshop building and car parking. The dry land area has been filled to approximately 2.5 metres above mean high water mark. The property is described as having a 9 to 10 boat mooring capacity and a timber decked wharf on its southern boundary adjacent to Lease J. Mr Brown says that, in its unimproved state, there would have been an area of about 1000 square metres above mean high water mark, subject to king tide inundation, with the balance falling to the west to a shallow mangrove mudflat adjacent to Dickson Inlet. While the site is about 40% filled, Mr Brown saw the highest and best use, as unimproved and restricted in usage by the purpose for which the lease was granted, being development to about one third filled dry land and the balance excavated as water area. This would allow modern style marina/wharf construction of finger style mooring facilities from a smaller solid filled base than presently exists. His report contains the following passages: "Given the restricted nature of the permitted uses under the conditions of the lease, that being Industrial (Slip Way, Boat Building and Boat Repairs) and Business (Mooring Berths) purposes, we feel that the site has a limited need for dry land comprising only dry slipway area and a workshop site. These permitted uses are narrow in nature and combined with the location of the site create difficulties for the lessee to operate a worthwhile enterprise. For examples, sand blasting has been prohibited by the Council, which creates severe limitations in constructing and repairing steel boats. -- 4 of 21 -- 5 The zoning of the site allows, by consent from Council, a higher utility than that available under the Special Lease. There is available, with consent from Council, the industrial usages and limited local business style uses which would allow the site to carry on a more intensive form of enterprise. This potential for a future high usage of the site is denied through the restrictive nature of the conditions of the Special Lease." Mr Brown calculated that the highest and best use of Lot 103 from its unimproved condition would involve 4380 cubic metres of filling and 4800 cubic metres of excavation. In arriving at his valuation of Lot 103, Mr Brown had investigated the sales of two sites as follows: (A) Lot 34 Warner Street, 1012 square metres, sold 14.6.88 for $325,000 with an old shed. The sale was analysed to show an unimproved value of $280 per square metre. This land resold on 23.4 .89 for $310,000 showing an analysed unimproved value of $264 per square metre. (B) Lot 2, Cnr Warner & Grant Streets, 1404 square metres, sold 26.10.87 for $310,000, analysed to show an unimproved value of $220 per square metre. In his comparisons with the subject land, Mr Brown's report and his verbal evidence included comments on the zoning of sale A being "Local Business", its ability to be immediately developed and its smaller size. During cross examination it was established that, in fact, sale A was zoned "Light Industry" whereas it was sale B which was zoned "Local Business". The stated zonings should have been reversed. -- 5 of 21 -- 6 Mr Brown also referred to the sale of the subject parcel itself in early 1988, which he said was of no assistance due to extraordinary contract conditions relating to a partial exchange of property, delayed settlements, and freeholding applications. He also referred to the booming market "and the imprudent nature and expectations of the purchaser" at that point in time. Mr Brown had come to the conclusion that the dry land area of potential development on the Special Lease, should carry value of $180 per square metre. He said "I've looked at a 30% margin or difference between the sale properties and the rate I've applied to the dry land in a developed state on the subject parcel". His considerations included a perceived zoning superiority of the sales in comparison with the restricted use potential of the Special Lease, the smaller area of the sale sites and his perception of a slightly superior location attaching to the sales albeit without water aspect. After taking note of Land Court decisions as to the relative worth of wet land compared to dry land, and then with consideration to the proportion of wet land to dry land as he envisaged the highest and best restricted development (i.e. % wet to % dry) he decided that the wet land should be valued at 25% of the value applied to the dry land. Mr Brown also took comfort from the decision in a 1987 arbitration matter relative to rents to be paid for leasehold lands above and below the high water mark of Dickson Inlet (Thomas Charters Pty Ltd and Ors and Council of the Shire of Douglas). In that matter when faced with the proposition by the lessees on the one hand that the wet land had no value, then by the Council on the other hand that it had a flat rate level of value, the arbitrator had settled for the latter proposition. As it happened, the wet land values which were adopted appear to -- 6 of 21 -- 7 have ranged between 17% and 29% of the associated dry land values. Mr Brown's valuation of Lot 103 was set out as follows: (A) Lot 103 Land Full y Developed 2260 sq .m. Dry land @ $180/sq.m. 4597 sq.m. Wet land @ $ 45/sq.m. Less Development Costs 4380 cu.m. of Fill @ $12/cu.m. 4800 cu.m. of Excavation@ $7 /cu.m. 60 metres of Revetment Wall @ $550/m Total Plus Interest - 6 months @ 13% Less Development Interest 6 Months @ 13% $52,560 $33,600 $ 33,000 $119,160 $ 7,750 $126,910 $406,800 $ 206 ,800 $ 613 .600 $ 126 ,910 $486 , 690 $ 29 ,700 $456 . 990 Mr Brown had been guided by the actual costs he had obtained for the filling of a mangrove site in the locality, after adjustment for inflationary trends. The excavation and revetment wall costs, as estimated, had been obtained from engineers who had been involved in similar work in the area. LEASE J Lease J is described by Mr Brown as comprising an open water site with rock revetment wall to the southern boundary and an area of filled dry land at its eastern extremity. It is Mr Brown's understanding that Lease J resulted from a tidying-up process subsequent to previous surveying inaccuracies. The revetment wall had been, as far as he was aware, constructed by the Crown. -- 7 of 21 -- • 8 Mr Brown had received legal advice to the effect that the Douglas Shire Council held the land as part of a much larger area, as trustee, for use for public purposes. He had been advised that the Council had no power to lease the land for other than public purposes use unless such a lease had been validated by the approval of the Governor in Council. He had been informed that no such validation had taken place, with regard to Lease J. On the basis that the lease was unlawful, and the land unable to be used for the purposes as contained in the lease document, he had taken the view that the value of the land demised in Lease J was restricted to a nominal figure. A valuation of $500 which was intended to represent such nominal figure, was adopted accordingly. The previous lessee and original Appellant in this matter, Mr J.A. Halstead was called to give evidence relating to the history of the leased land. In 1978, he said, he had purchased the Special Lease as an operating slipway - the business being mainly related to the repair of fishing vessels. Sand blasting was a major part of the operation. In 1982, Mr Halstead was advised by a representative of the Council that the sandblasting must cease. When that part of the operation was finally discontinued, the business declined substantially. Boat mooring facilities were then provided in an effort to obtain income. When the modern Marina Mirage complex was constructed nearby, the boat mooring aspect of the subject business was again affected. Mr Halstead had contemplated constructing a boat-building shed for the construction of fibreglass hulls in 1987, but the advice he received from the Council was against such a proposal due to the proximity of the Marina -- 8 of 21 -- 9 Mirage complex. He said at the relevant date of valuation, the business was operating at a loss and had continued to do so since. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Mr P F Goodman-Jones Registered Valuer employed by the Department of Lands. In the absence of the original valuer, Mr Goodman-Jones had taken over the responsibility for the valuation of the land at the relevant date. It is his evidence that he had approached the task afresh. He agreed that in terms of Section 11 (1) (v) of the Act, the valuation of the Special Lease land (Lot 103), required consideration of the purpose for which the lease was granted. He saw the purpose of the lease as being a restriction in terms of the highest and best use of the land as zoned. He had accepted that Lease J had been lawfully granted under Section 343 of the Land Act 1962. That lease did not meet the criteria in Section 11 (1) (v) of the Act which allowed the restrictions on the use of that land to be taken into account. However, with the two parcels adjoining and in common "ownership" in terms of the Act, they were included in the one valuation. Mr Goodman-Jones conducted the valuation on the basis that the land formed an aggregated parcel, all of which suffered the limitation of use. He saw an advantage to the "owner" in this approach. With no reliable sales evidence within the "Port Facilities" zone, Mr Goodman-Jones obtained his valuation basis from sales of the same land as did Mr Brown. While he saw the "Port Facilities" zone as superior to both the "Local Business" and "Light Industry" zones, he had formed the opinion that the uses -- 9 of 21 -- • 10 permitted by the purpose of the lease went closest to conforming with the "Light Industry" zone. He therefore relied primarily on the re-sale of the "Light Industry" zoned land in Mr Brown's sale A. This showed an analysed unimproved value of $263. 70 per square metre on 23.4.89 for a site area of 1012 square metres. A valuation of $24 7 per square metre had been applied to that sale land as at 31.3.89. He also referred to a later sale of the "Local Business" zoned site referred to in Mr Brown's {26.10.87) sale B. On 24.9.88 this 1404 square metre site had been sold for $425,000 which had been analysed to show an unimproved land content of $260 per square metre plus corner influence. As I understand Mr Goodman-Jones evidence, he would value the subject dry land, if zoned "Light Industry" and of the same size as the light industry sale site, at $300 per square metre. The increase in level of value was due to his perception of superior water front location. Then with the significantly larger size of the subject dry land, he saw a light industry equivalent valuation of $250 per square metre as being realistic. Basic to Mr Goodman-Jones valuation is that he sees the restricted use value of the Port Facilities zoned Special Lease as equating a light industry type use. It had been calculated that there was an area on both the Special Lease and Lease J of 3,043 square metres of filled dry land. It was to this area that he applied a valuation of $250 per square metre. He had then calculated that there was a secondary area of 550 square metres of filled land {which had been described as an access walkway into the wet land) which he decided was worth 50% of the value of the main dry land area. This reflected his opinion as to the added value of that part of the existing development. -- 10 of 21 -- 11 As with Mr Brown, Mr Goodman-Jones had given consideration to Land Court decisions in which wet land had been valued in the range of 25% to 50% of adopted dry land values. He had decided in this matter to adopt 35% of the value he had applied to the primary dry land. The revetment wall located on Lease J had been constructed by the Crown and in terms of the Act was considered to be an "invisible" improvement. The filling and dredging operations had however been at the cost of the lessee. Mr Goodman-Jones had adopted an added value approach to the development works necessary to bring the land from its unimproved state to its existing stage of development. Based on that existing use, Mr Goodman-Jones's valuation exercise proceeded as follows: Solid Land: 3043 m2 @ $250/m2 550 m2 @ $125/m2 3593 m 2 Less: Fill 7000m3 @ $15/m 3 Below Hi gh Water Mark: 4032 m2 @ $87.5/m2 Less: Dredging 10,000 m3 @ $8/m3 352,800 80 ,000 $760,750 $68,750 829,500 105 .000 724,500 272 ,800 $997,300 ADOPT $995,000 -- 11 of 21 -- • 12 This valuation effectively reduces the Valuer-General's assessment from $1,100,000 to $995,000. The matters which need to be decided are summarised as follows: (1) The Appellant contends that the existing filling development on the Special Lease, is in excess of that which would be warranted if the site was to be developed from unimproved as at the relevant date of valuation. The reasoning is, that the effect of the lease restrictions, and more recent Council policy as to boat repair and construction operations has worsened since the original development was carried out. Now less dry land is necessary for optimum use. There seems to be some logic in that assumption yet the evidence before the Court is confined to subjective opinion that filling development should be restricted to one third of the area and the balance developed for modern style boat moorings. Existing effective filling development is estimated by the Appellant to be about 40% of the site (which would provide an area of approximately 2750 square metres). The Valuer-General calculated the primary filled area (excluding the walkway) on both the Special Lease and Lease J to comprise 3043 square metres. In light of the existing use of the site, I will adopt the Valuer-General's estimate of filled area for valuation purposes. If the area of solid land has become excessive due to the restrictive use potential, then that is a matter which can be further addressed when the effect on value is considered. (2) The Appellant contends for a solid land value of $180 per square metre, for an area of 2260 square metres of the Special Lease. It is Mr Brown's -- 12 of 21 -- ♦ 13 evidence that, based on the sales information he adopted a base value of $260 per square metre. Then, in comparison with the sales, he discounted that figure by 30% after consideration of what he perceived to be the inferior zoning, restricted use potential, larger area, better water aspect but slightly inferior location of the subject land. Mr Goodman-Jones sees the "Port Facilities" zoning as superior to both "Light Industry" and "Local Business". His verbal evidence suggested that he would adopt a valuation in the range up to $350 per square metre (but probably $330 to $340 per square metre) for a "Port Facilities" zoned site hypothetically of similar area to that of the "Light Industry" zoned sale. That hypothetical site if zoned "Light Industry" within the subject land would have been valued at $300 per square metre. He reduces that value to $250 per square metre when the size differential is taken into consideration. Basic to Mr Goodman-Jones's valuation is his contention that the restricted use value of the "Port Facilities" zoned Special Lease equates a value consistent with the "Light Industry" zone. I have some difficulty with Mr Goodman-Jones' proposition that the restricted use potential of the Special Lease does in fact equate a "Light Industry" zoning. Although Mr Brown agreed that the restricted use could be described as being of a light industrial nature, he sees the potential of the Special Lease land as much narrower than the range of uses permitted or capable of receiving Town Planning consent in either the "Light Industry" or "Local Business" zone. -- 13 of 21 -- 14 I do not accept that it can be said definitively that the restricted use of the subject Special Lease solid land is equivalent to any particular use within the overall range permitted within the "Light Industry" zone. It is factual however, that the restricted uses are narrower than the "as of right" uses, and significantly narrower than the "consent" uses in the actual zone in which the land exists - the "Port Facilities" zone. The evidence indicates to me that it is the "consent" uses which have influenced nearby development and the value of land within the "Port Facilities" zone. It is Mr Goodman-Jones' evidence that a valuation of, say, $335 per square metre would apply if a site of 1012 square metres of the subject land was to be valued as zoned. Discounting that value by the same $50 per square metre for size as he had done on the "Light Industry" basis, a value of $285 per square metre would be indicated for the subject solid land zoned "Port Facilities". I cannot accept that on that basis Mr Goodman-Jones' valuation of $250 per square metre for the restricted use basis is reasonable. Quite apart from what might be seen as a significant restricted use potential, there is also the evidence that the size of the solid area is now in excess of that required for the permitted activities, particularly since the Council has restricted the nature of those activities. Doing the best I can on the state of the evidence, I will adopt a solid land value on the restricted basis of $200 per square metre for the primary filled land on the Special Lease area. Consistent with the existing use basis as adopted by Mr Goodman-Jones, I will accept that the filled access walkway -- 14 of 21 -- 15 adds value at 50% of the primary rate for the solid land. The access walkway comprises an area of 550 square metres. (3) Mr Brown values the wet land at 25% of his solid land value while Mr Goodman Jones adopts 35%. Both refer to Land Court precedent. In Keith Lawrie Nominees Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General 11QLCR (1986-87) 120, the learned former President of the Land Court, Mr W F G Smith, found that, in the absence of market evidence, the "rough test" or "rule of thumb" that the wet land is worth 50% of the adjoining dry land, was an acceptable starting point. He referred to that "rough test" rule being adopted by Pike J in Marts Dock and Engineering Coy Ltd v The Valuer-General - Land and Valuation Court (1922-24) 6LGR162. In the Lawrie Nominees matter (supra), Mr Smith then reduced the 50% formula by a further 50% due to the lack of access to the submerged land which, in that matter, was required to be separately valued. Mr Smith referred to a possible remedy to the otherwise intuitive methods employed in the valuation of submerged lands for the purpose of the Act, lying in the introduction of "a statutory formula analogous to that introduced for mining tenements". This, it is to be regretted, has not occurred. In the circumstances of the subject matter, the evidence is that while the dry land uses are diminishing in terms of the lease and council policies, the wet land is assuming a more valuable role. Mr Goodman-Jones has indicated that his subjective approach was to consider the value the wet land adds to the overall use of the property. As developed, there are obvious design inefficiencies for commercial boat -- 15 of 21 -- 16 mooring purposes. I do not accept the findings in the arbitration matter to be of assistance. As I read the reasons, the Arbitrator found that the submerged lands possessed value, but the only positive evidence of value before him was the evidence of one valuer. He adopted that evidence. The opinion was not based on a percentage of dry land value but an assessed flat rate of value for a number of submerged lease areas. With regard to the subject land, it could have been argued that, based on the "rough test" method, the wet land may have been valued in the range up to 50% of the dry land value. I accept that Mr Goodman-Jones has properly considered the added value concept. On the existing use basis I accept his conclusions. On the redevelopment basis used by Mr Brown, 50%, rather than his 25% allowance, would have been seen to be more appropriate. I will adopt 35% of the dry land value on the existing use basis, as being the added value of the wet land. (4) Mr Brown has based his development costs on a hypothetical development including construction of a revetment wall. Mr Goodman-Jones has used the existing development as his basis of assessing the value of the lessee's improvements. He adopts an added value basis of assessment as opposed to Mr Brown's basis of anticipated contract prices together with development and holding cost interest. I am confident that the approach by Mr Goodman-Jones does not disadvantage the Appellant in this matter. His adopted added values are in excess of contract rates and the existing use basis assumes considerably -- 16 of 21 -- 17 more dredging than has been allowed by Mr Brown. (5) Mr Kirby has put before me a detailed submission as to the status of Lease J as he perceived it to be. The land contained in Lease J forms part of Reserve 171 (Reserve for Local Government [Port and Harbour] purposes). That land having been required for public purposes, was originally reserved and set aside for the purposes stated by Order in Council published in the Government Gazette on 29th April 1978. The land was placed under the control of the Council of the Shire of Douglas as trustee. Mr Kirby submits that under Part XI of the Land Act 1962, reservations to a local authority may only be made for "public purposes". He says that any sensible interpretation of Section 5 of the Land Act, where "public purposes" is defined, would not allow the usage of the land demised by Lease J in a manner which is not open to the general public or which would be a source of private profit. Section 5 of the Land Act deals with "Interpretation of terms" and states: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates or requires, the following terms have the meanings set against them respectively, that is to say .. - "Public purposes" - Any of the following objects or purposes or any objects or purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto, namely:- -- 17 of 21 -- 18 Port and harbour purposes The thrust of Mr Kirby's submission is the contention that a lease granted for "private" or "commercial" purposes as distinct from "public" purposes requires validation, the mechanism for which is provided in Section 343A (1) of the Land Act. Otherwise, he says the demise of the land by the trustee is unlawful. Mr Kirby makes numerous points relative to the legislation, as he interprets it, and as he sees it affecting the value of Lease J. In response to his submission, it seems to me, on the evidence before me, that Section 343 of the Land Act has been followed explicitly in the issue of Lease J. Section 343 (2) provides that application for approval of a lease shall be made to the Minister and provides the details required to accompany the application for approval. Section 343 (4) states: "The Minister may, in his absolute discretion, refuse to approve the proposal or, if the Minister is satisfied that the proposed lease is- (a) not detrimental to the public interests; (b) not inconsistent with the purpose for which the land was granted in trust or reserved and set apart; and (c) not for an excessive term and complies otherwise with the requirements of section three hundred and forty-four of this Act, approve the proposal in whole or in part, and in either case subject to such conditions , reservations and modifications as he deems fit." -- 18 of 21 -- .. 19 Paragraphs (a) and (b) are seen to be pertinent. Mr Kirby's submission relies heavily on his interpretation of the definition of "public purposes" in Section 5 of the Land Act. In the overall context of the legislation and particularly Section 343 of the Land Act, I cannot agree that the interpretation of the term "public purposes" should be so narrow as to exclude "private" or "commercial" purposes, as he refers to those types of uses, provided they were (as they are in this case), connected with and incidental to the primary public purposes of "port and harbour". Section 343A(1 ), in my opinion, provides the mechanism for a lease to be approved by the Governor in Council when the purpose is not connected with, or incidental to, the nominated public purpose for which the land is reserved and held in trust. Indeed Section 344 states: "The following provisions shall apply to every lease, granted by the trustees thereof, of land granted in trust or reserved for a public purpose, namely:- (a) the term shall not exceed seventy-five years; (b) the lease shall not contain any covenant or agreement for renewal of lease or for purchase of the leased land, and, unless the Minister otherwise determines, the rent to be reserved shall be the highest annual rent which can reasonably be obtained; (c) save to the extent exempted by the Minister, the lessee shall- (i) at all times destroy all noxious plants on, and keep free -- 19 of 21 -- 20 therefrom, the land comprised in the lease; (ii) except where a lease is granted for a purpose approved pursuant to section 343A, hold the land so that the same may be used for the public purpose for which it was granted or reserved without undue interruption or obstruction; (d) the lease shall contain a covenant that the trustees may terminate the lease upon the failure of the lessee to observe or perform any covenant or condition of the lease which is expressed to be binding upon him." Paragraph (c)(ii) is seen to be particularly relevant. If the Appellant's submission was found to be correct in interpretation of the definition of "public purposes" as it affects the commercial value of Lease J, and if Lease J then still fell to the valued under the Valuation of Land Act, Section 11 (1) (i) provides that the land would be valued as if it was granted by the Crown in fee simple. The benefits of Section 11 (1 )(v) have no application to this land. Mr Goodman-Jones has given Lease J the benefit of the restriction on use, because he has valued it in amalgamation with the Special Lease. Even so he suggests that as an individual equivalent freehold site, because of its very nature and shape, its value is restricted to that which it would add to the adjoining Special Lease. Again I accept the basis adopted by Mr Goodman-Jones in amalgamating the two leases and treating the total amalgamation as being restricted in use -- 20 of 21 -- 21 potential. FINDING I accept the basis of valuation adopted by Mr Goodman-Jones except for the values applied. For the reasons given the valuation will be decided as follows: Special Lease and Lease J in amalgamation Solid land: 3043m2 @ $200 m2 = 550m 2 @ $100 m2 = Less Fill (added value): 7000 m3 @ $15 m3 = Wet land: 4032m 2 @ $70 m2 = $282,240 Less Dredging (added value): 10000 m3 @ $8 m3 = $ 80,000 Adopt $608,600 55 ,000 $663,600 $105,000 $558;600 $202, 240 $760,840 $760,000 The appeal is allowed accordingly. The Valuer-General's valuation is set aside and the unimproved value of the land as described is determined in the amount of $760,000. (R. E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court -- 21 of 21 --