LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Edgarhead Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 18	
		
PARTIES:	Edgarhead Pty Ltd 
(appellant)	
	v	
	Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:	LVA118-14	
		
DIVISION:	General Division	
		
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against annual valuation 	
		
DELIVERED ON:	29 June 2015	
		
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
		
HEARD ON:	2 December 2014	
		
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
		
PRESIDENT:	CAC MacDonald	
		
ORDER:	1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	The site valuation of Lot 755 on Registered Plan 100372 in the County of Stanley, Parish of Woogaroo, is affirmed at Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($510,000) as at 1 October 2013.    	
		
CATCHWORDS:	Practice and Procedure – onus of proof

Valuation – valuation methodology – use of relevant sales – unimproved land and improved land

Valuation – Land Valuation Act 2010 – site value – improved land – evidentiary onus

Land Valuation Act 2010

Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13
Clough v The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70
Cook v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 136
Department of Natural Resources and Mines v Spender (2003) 24 QLCR 414
Gatfield v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 55
Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals Pty Ltd (1981) 48 LGRA 409
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111
Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378  

APPEARANCES:	Mr M Woodhead, agent, for the appellant	
	Ms T Johnson, Senior Lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent 	

Background

[1]	Edgarhead Pty Ltd (the appellant), the owner of land at 27 Alexandrina Circuit, Forest Lake, has appealed against the site valuation of that land as at 1 October 2013.  The valuation, issued by the respondent, the Valuer-General, under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act), determined the site value of the land at $510,000 as at 1 October 2013.  The appellant estimated the site value to be $400,000.
[2]	At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr Mark Woodhead, who is the sole director of the appellant company and a self-employed computer consultant.  Mr Woodhead also gave evidence on behalf of the appellant.
[3]	The respondent was represented by Ms T Johnson, a senior lawyer with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.  Evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by Mr CW Heslehurst, who is a certified practising valuer employed by the respondent.  Mr Heslehurst was responsible for making the valuation, the subject of the appeal.
[4]	The subject land has an area of 540 m².  Mr Heslehurst described the land as fronting a linear section of Council owned parkland along the banks of Forest Lake.  The Council land is grassed, with a concrete public footpath in place.  The rear boundary of the subject parcel is approximately 25m from the lakefront alignment of the parkland.  The land is a rectangular shaped allotment fronting Alexandrina Circuit.  The land falls gently from the street to the rear and the property is, generally, below road level.  The land is improved with a large, two storey, early 2000s brick home. 
[5]	Mr Heslehurst said that the subject property has an unrestricted lake view although an open space corridor and public footpath separate the property from direct lake frontage.  He regarded the property as located in a prestige position as compared with most of Forest Lake which does not enjoy lake views.  The properties adjoining the subject property do have similar lake views.  
[6]	Mr Heslehurst said that Forest Lake is a well-regarded master planned suburb in Brisbane’s south-west.  The suburb is predominantly developed with low density housing and is located approximately 18 kms south-west of the Brisbane CBD.  
[7]	Alexandrina Circuit is bitumen sealed with concrete kerb and channelling and, Mr Heslehurst said, carries low traffic volumes and provides direct vehicular access to the site.  Normal urban services are available to the site and the property is located in a low density residential area surrounded by single unit residential dwellings.  It is in close proximity to Grand Avenue Primary School and Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre.  
[8]	Mr Heslehurst considered that the highest and best use of the site is for a single dwelling house.
Grounds of appeal
[9]	
“The valuation is an unrealistic over - valuation of the property.

Value

I have recently had the property professionally valued at $750,000 and had put the property up for sale.  It did not sell at this value and I had to withdraw it from sale.   

Other sales

Other properties in the same street of similar age and quality have sold in the last 12 months at …

	$754,250		576 m²			7 Alexandrina 

	$835,000		826 m²			21 Alexandrina

	$680,000		885 m²			30 Alexandrina

My property is 540 m².

Building Value

The value of improvements on the land (house, etc) for the homes in this street would be conservatively $350,000 to $400,000.

Real Value

The real market value of my land would be no more than $400,000 taking a property value of $750,000 less a building value of $350,000.  A similar block of land certainly would not sell for any more than $400,000 this year.

Previous Valuation

The previous valuation in 2013 was set at $465,000.  This was also too high but I restrained from objecting to the valuation at the time.  There is no justification for adding a further 10% to the previous land valuation.

Council Rates Increase

The Council may wish to increase the rates generally and I have no objection to that but to artificially increase my land value is not a valid or honest solution to that end.”

Legal Principles
[10]	The subject land in this case is improved non-rural land and, therefore, under s 7(a) of the Act the value of the land to be determined is its site value.  
[11]	Section 19(1) of the Act provides: 
“What is the site value of improved land

(1)	If land is improved, its site value is its expected realisation under a bona fide sale assuming all non-site improvements for the land had not been made.”

[12]	This means that the current non-site improvements on the land, for example the house, are to be ignored for the purposes of the valuation and the land is to be valued as if the house were not there.
Evidence
Appellant’s evidence 
[13]	It can be seen from the grounds of appeal set out above that Mr Woodhead’s case was based initially on a comparison of the value of his property with the sales of other improved properties within the same street.  On the basis that the improved value of the subject property was $750,000 (as shown by the valuation he had received) and, he estimated, the value of the improvements on the subject land was $350,000, he concluded that the site value of the subject land would be no more than $400,000.
[14]	Mr Woodhead also referred to sales of land at Springfield Lakes, because, he pointed out, there are no remaining vacant parcels at Forest Lake in a similar location to the subject property.  Mr Woodhead considered that the comparison with properties at Springfield Lakes was valid because, although Forest Lake was located some 8 kms closer to the Brisbane CBD than Springfield Lakes, Springfield Lakes has a new/larger shopping centre, a new train line, a university and other planned facilities.  He considered that land values in Forest Lake and Springfield Lakes were similar.  
[15]	Mr Woodhead referred to two sales of improved properties in Springfield Lakes which, he said, were similar to the subject:

Springfield Lakes	Property	Sale Price	Size	VG’s valuation
(30 June 2013)	
10/9/2009	9 Amarillo Place	$640,000	700 m²	$325,000 
	
14/2/2013	64 Lakes Entrance Drive	$526,000	679 m²	$197,500 	

[16]	Mr Woodhead also relied on sales of unimproved land with a lake frontage similar to the subject:

Springfield Lakes
	Property	Sale Price	Size	VG’s valuation	
February 2014	1 Drydock Court	$245,000	683 m²	$197,500 	
March 2014
(query 1 June 2014)	18 Lakeview Place	$279,000	487 m²	$235,000	

In Mr Woodhead’s opinion the valuation of these sites showed that the valuation of the subject was inappropriate.  
[17]	Mr Woodhead also submitted that the respondent’s valuation of the subject land was out of relativity with the valuations of similar properties in the same street as the subject property:

Address	Size	Value	
7 Alexandrina 	576 m²	$450,000	
9 Alexandrina	504 m²	$420,000	
17 Alexandrina	450 m²	$420,000	
19 Alexandrina	450 m²	$420,000	

Mr Woodhead said that his property was similar to but smaller than No. 7 Alexandrina.
[18]	It appears that the current valuation of the subject land represents an increase of 10% on the valuation as at 1 October 2012 which was $465,000.  Mr Woodhead submitted that this increase was not justified because the RP Data statistics showed that the median land price of sales in Forest Lake has decreased each year since 2010 from $325,000 to less than $250,000.  Over the last 12 months, said Mr Woodhead, there has been a slight increase to $255,000.  He annexed an attachment to his written material setting out details of information he had obtained from RP Data.  The document states that in 2013 land in Forest Lake decreased in value by 8.8%.  Similarly in 2012 it had decreased by 9.7% and in 2011 by 12.5%.  By contrast, in the Brisbane City Council local authority area, the changes were significantly different, being increases of 1.4% for 2013 and 4.6% for 2012 and a decrease of 10.2% for 2011.  
Respondent’s evidence 
[19]	Mr Heslehurst assessed a site value for the subject land by direct comparison with sales of vacant or lightly improved land.  He included five sales in his sale schedule, brief details of which are set out below.  One of those sales is a Westlake property with river glimpses.  The other four were located in other suburbs outside Forest Lake.  All of the sales were suitable for single residential development only.
[20]	Sale 1 is an 1,106 m² parcel which sold on 4 July 2013 for $575,000.  Mr Heslehurst analyzed the sale to $573,000 and applied a site value as at 1 October 2013 of $560,000.  The sale property is situated at Westlake, approximately 15 kms from the Brisbane CBD.
[21]	Mr Heslehurst said that the sale property enjoyed heavily filtered views of the Brisbane River through a thickly timbered open spaced corridor.  As compared with the subject, he said, the sale was larger with a wider street frontage.  The sale adjoins an open space corridor and its proximity to open space passive recreation areas and surrounding developments is similar to the location enjoyed by the subject property. 
[22]	Overall, Mr Heslehurst considered the sale to be superior to the subject due to the size and position of the sale in a superior residential location.
[23]	Mr Woodhead accepted that the sale provided a good comparison with the subject land.
[24]	Sale 2 is a 610 m² property which sold on 31 August 2013 for $305,000.  Mr Heslehurst analyzed the sale to $303,000 and applied it at $260,000 as at 1 October 2013.  The sale property is situated in Forest Lake but has no lake view and is located 2.3 kms north-west of the lake.
[25]	Mr Heslehurst pointed out that, as compared with the subject, the sale is larger in area with a larger street frontage which he considered to be an advantage.  However, overall, Mr Heslehurst said, the sale was inferior to the subject because of the lack of lake and suburban views available from the sale.  He also said that proximity to the lake, shopping centre and recreational areas were additional advantages enjoyed by the subject as compared with the sale.
[26]	Mr Heslehurst said that this sale represented the lower level of the sales evidence range as it showed the value for land with no lake views in an inferior residential area at Forest Lake.  
[27]	Sale 3 is a 630 m² property which sold on 19 October 2013 for $600,000.  Mr Heslehurst analyzed the sale to $596,000 and applied a site value of $525,000 as at 1 October 2013.  
[28]	The sale property is located at Sunnybank on the boundary between Sunnybank and Robertson.  Mr Heslehurst described Sunnybank as an older well regarded suburb of Brisbane approximately 11 kms from the CBD.  
[29]	The sale property has a corner location with suburban views but no lake or water views.  As compared with the subject, Mr Heslehurst said, the sale is larger and has a larger street frontage of 20m which he considered to be an advantage.  Overall, said Mr Heslehurst, the sale was similar in value to the subject due to the sale’s larger land area, wider street frontage, superior suburb location and closer proximity to the CBD, notwithstanding the lack of views available from the sale.
[30]	Mr Heslehurst considered that the value of the subject most closely resembled the site value of Sale 3.  He did not explain how he adjusted the sale for its location in a different, superior suburb a number of kilometres away from the subject, the lack of lake views available from the sale and the fact that Forest Lake is a master planned estate.
[31]	Sale 4 is a 504 m² property also situated at Sunnybank which sold on 8 August 2013 for $405,000.  Mr Heslehurst analyzed the sale to $402,500 and applied a site value as at 1 October 2013 of $345,000.  
[32]	Mr Heslehurst said that the sale has suburban views available and is located approximately 70m south of the South Coast Rail Line.  When he inspected the property in 2014, he could hear train noise.  As compared with the subject, he considered the sale was inferior because of the sale’s lack of views, slightly inferior land area, train noise and inferior proximity to recreational areas, notwithstanding its superior proximity to the CBD.
[33]	Sale 5 is a 500 m² parcel which sold on 1 August 2012 for $405,000.  Mr Heslehurst analyzed the sale to $404,000 and applied it at $350,000 as at 1 October 2013.  The sale is located at Sunnybank Hills which is approximately 14 kms from the Brisbane CBD.
[34]	Mr Heslehurst said that, overall, the sale was inferior to the subject due to the sale’s lack of views, slightly inferior land area and proximity to recreational areas, notwithstanding the sale’s superior proximity to the CBD.
[35]	Mr Heslehurst acknowledged that there are differences between the suburbs of Forest Lake, Westlake, Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills.  He had been forced to look outside Forest Lake for the purposes of finding sales as there were no sales of comparable vacant land in Forest Lake.  Mr Heslehurst said that as at 1 October 2013, the differences in values in the suburbs arose primarily because Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills are closer to the Brisbane CBD and there has been a transition in those suburbs towards modern home construction.  He considered that, on the whole, Forest Lake and Westlake compared well as good quality residential suburbs.  Forest Lake is the more recently established with many large homes and green recreational areas.
Discussion of sales evidence
[36]	Valuation of the subject land could be carried out in one of two ways – by comparison with sales of comparable improved properties, or by comparison with sales of comparable unimproved or lightly improved land.  If the valuation were carried out on the former basis, it would be necessary to deduct the value of the improvements on the sale land from the total sale price to ascertain the unimproved value of the sale land.  It will be appreciated that to ascertain value in that way may be a complex, difficult, and inaccurate method of determining the site value of the subject land.  
[37]	It is for that reason that the preferred method of valuation, for the purposes of a valuation made under the Act, is the use of sales of unimproved or lightly improved comparable land.  Selection of sales of vacant or lightly improved land, rather than sales of improved properties, avoids the difficulties and errors likely to arise in seeking to ascertain the value of the improvements.  In Clough v The Valuer-General the Land Appeal Court said:
"It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value.  The reason is obvious.  In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements.

Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement."  

[38]	In Clough v The Valuer-General the Court was concerned with the unimproved value of land.  In this appeal it is the site value of the subject land that is to be determined.  The same approach should, however, be adopted.  That is, the best basis for assessment of site value under the Act is the use of sales of comparable parcels of land with similar site improvements to the subject, but which are otherwise vacant or lightly improved.
[39]	However, this is a case where neither party was able to find sales of comparable unimproved or lightly improved land in the vicinity of the subject.  Mr Heslehurst’s solution was to find sales of what he described as comparable vacant land in suburbs at some distance from Forest Lake, and to make allowances for the differences between the sales and the subject, in determining a value for the subject.  Mr Woodhead relied on improved sales in the same street as the subject, improved and unimproved sales in another suburb, and the lack of relativity between the site value applied to the subject land by the respondent and site values applied to other properties in the same street as the subject.  
[40]	Mr Heslehurst adopted the conventional technique for ascertaining the site value of land for the purposes of the Act, that is the use of vacant or lightly improved comparable sales.  However, in my opinion Sale 1 is the only one of his sales that could be said to be comparable with the subject.  It is well recognized that it is almost always necessary, when applying the comparable sales method, to make adjustments between the sales and the subject property.  However, there comes a point where the number of adjustments to be made is such that the sales cannot be said to be comparable.  Thus in Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals Pty Ltd, Hope JA said:  
“Whether the differences between land a sale of which is to be relied upon and the land to be valued are so great that the land the subject of the sale cannot be regarded as comparable is a question of fact and degree.  The differences may be so great that a court may be constrained to hold that the land is in no sense comparable, and that the adjustments which have to be made are so great that the sale can provide no evidence of the value to be determined, and no basis upon which that value can be assessed.”

[41]	For Sales 3, 4 and 5, the differences requiring adjustment are:
•	the location of the sales properties in completely different suburbs from the subject;
•	the distance between the sales and the subject;
•	the differences in proximity to the Brisbane CBD between the sales and the subject;
•	the differences  between the style of development in Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills as compared with Forest Lake.  Forest Lake is a master planned development.  The other two suburbs are not;
•	the age of the developments in each location.  Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills are older suburbs than Forest Lake.  Mr Heslehurst said that there has been a transition towards modern home construction in Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills.  There was no evidence that that is occurring in Forest Lake;
•	the availability of lake and greenspace views from the subject.  Such views are not available from Sales 3, 4 and 5;
•	the proximity of the subject to a recreation area, which was not the case with those sales.  
In my opinion, those differences are such as to make those sales not comparable with the subject, and therefore they should not be relied on.
[42]	Sale 2 raises different issues.  Sale 2 is located in Forest Lake, some 2.3 kms from the subject but with no lake views.  It is inferior to the subject.  Mr Heslehurst applied the sale at $260,000 and valued the subject at $510,000, some $250,000 or 96% higher than the sale.  Those figures alone demonstrate, in my opinion, that the sale is not comparable with the subject.
[43]	Sale 1 is more than twice the size of the subject and located 3 kms closer to the CBD than the subject.  Mr Heslehurst accepted that it was superior to the subject.  He applied the sale at $560,000 and valued the subject at $510,000.  I accept that Sale 1 is comparable with but superior to the subject.  
[44]	Mr Woodhead referred to sales in Springfield Lakes.  However, two of the sales were of improved properties.  There was no detailed evidence describing the characteristics of the sale land or the improvements and therefore I am unable to make any meaningful comparison between the sales and the subject land.  
[45]	The two unimproved sales at Springfield Lakes provide, superficially at least, a better comparison with the subject than the respondent’s sales 2, 3, 4 and 5 in that the Springfield Lakes sales have the advantage of lakeside locations.  However, the Springfield Lakes sales took place after the date of valuation.  Moreover they have been applied by the Valuer-General at $197,500 and $235,000.  Even on Mr Woodhead’s estimate of the value of the subject at $400,000, these sale properties do not appear to be comparable with the subject. 
[46]	I am left in the position, therefore, where there are insufficient sales of vacant or lightly improved properties to support the value applied to the subject land.  As the High Court said in Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue:  
“A fair estimate [of the value of the subject land] could only be made here on the basis of a fair, that is to say, a reasonably representative group of comparable sales.  A group of comparable sales cannot be representative if it does not go beyond sales of scarce vacant land.”  

[47]	Mr Woodhead’s evidence was that there were three sales of improved properties in the same street as the subject, in 2013.  It is likely that there were other sales of improved properties in the vicinity.  In those circumstances, I consider that the valuer should have analyzed improved sales in the area of the subject, for the purpose of this valuation.  The Court said in Maurici:
"Improved sales are used daily for the purposes of statutory valuations under provisions similar to s.6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act, by subtracting the added value of the improvements to them from their sale prices to derive unimproved values.  It may be that in such a desirable area as Hunters Hill where there are apparently many mansions, their presence and the presence of lesser houses may add little, or much less than replacement value to the sale price of the land on which they stand.  But that does not mean that the respondent is entitled to ignore reasonably contemporaneous sales of comparable improved land.  Such sales, particularly in the case of a scarcity of vacant land cannot be disregarded.  The contrary approach is required by the Act."

[48]	It is recognized that difficulties can arise in assessing the value of the improvements.  It cannot be assumed, for example, that the replacement cost of residential improvements necessarily equals their added value.  However, those difficulties can be dealt with by an experienced valuer in the light of ss 25(1) and (2) of the Act which provide: 
"25 Working out the value of site or non-site improvements

(1)	This section applies if, under this division, it is necessary to work out the value of site improvements or non-site improvements (the existing improvements) to or on the land to decide its site value or unimproved value.

(2)	The value of the actual improvements is the lesser of the following -

(a)	the added value the existing improvements give to the land on the valuation day, regardless of their cost;

(b)	the cost that should have the cost that should have reasonably been involved in effecting to or on the land, on the valuation day, improvements of a nature and efficiency equivalent to the existing improvements."

[49]	Although it appears that there were relevant improved sales in the vicinity of the subject, there is not sufficient evidence of those sales to enable me to attempt to analyze them.  Mr Woodhead provided details of the date of sale, the sale price, size and address of each of the properties in Alexandrina Circuit he referred to.  However, there was no evidence as to the nature and quality of the improvements on each property other than a very general statement by Mr Woodhead that the value of the houses in the street would be, conservatively, $350,000 to $400,000.  Further, it is not clear whether that value is said to be the added value of the improvements as referred to in s 25(2)(a) of the Act, or the cost of effecting the improvements on the valuation day, in accordance with s 25(2)(b).  It is not possible for me to say, therefore, by using analysis of improved sales, that the site value attributed to the subject is incorrect.
[50]	My conclusion in relation to the sales evidence is that, although the evidence is not sufficient to support the valuation under appeal, the sales evidence brought by Mr Woodhead does not establish that that valuation is incorrect.
[51]	I turn now to consider Mr Woodhead’s other submissions and evidence.  
Other matters
[52]	Mr Woodhead submitted that the valuation was incorrect because his property had been professionally valued at $750,000 and, on the basis that the improvements were to be valued at $350,000, the site value of the subject should be $400,000.  Again, Mr Woodhead did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that conclusion.  His oral evidence was that the professional valuation referred to in the notice of appeal was an estimate of the property’s value by a real estate agent for the purpose of marketing the property for sale.  That is not a professional valuation.  Further, as explained above, that was no sufficient evidence as to the value of the improvements.
[53]	Mr Woodhead also submitted that the increase of 10% applied to his property for the subject valuation was not justified.  He sought to establish that by relying on statistics from RP Data which, Mr Woodhead said, showed that median land prices in Forest Lake had decreased each year from 2010 to 2013 from $325,000 to less than $250,000.  
[54]	While the RP data document attached to Mr Woodhead’s written submissions does appear to show that there was a decline in the capital value of land in Forest Lake in 2013, 2012 and 2011, I am not prepared to infer from the information in that document that the increase in value of 10% applied to the subject as at 1 October 2013 was incorrect.  There are two reasons for this.  One is that the RP statistics are averaged across the whole of Forest Lake.  They say nothing specifically about the area of the subject property which may well be in a separate category from large parts of Forest Lake because of the subject’s location by the lake, and the quality of the surrounding developments.  The second reason is that the methodology used to calculate the date is described very generally in the document.  No evidence was called from the person who compiled the data, nor was the validity of the methodology tested.  
[55]	Finally, Mr Woodhead submitted that the site valuation of the subject property was out of relativity with the site valuations of other properties in Alexandrina Circuit and provided the following table showing the values as at 1 October 2013:
Address	Size	Value	
7 Alexandrina	576 m²	$450,000	
9 Alexandrina	504 m²	$420,000	
17 Alexandrina	450 m²	$420,000	
19 Alexandrina	450 m²	$470,000	
27 Alexandrina (subject)	540 m²	$510,000   	

[56]	Mr Woodhead referred in particular to 7 Alexandrina Circuit, valued at $450,000 which he said was similar to the subject but larger.  Mr Heslehurst’s evidence, which I accept, was that the lake views available from No. 7 are inferior to those available from the subject.  Further there is a small public car park adjacent to No. 7 which is a disadvantage as compared with the subject.
[57]	I do not consider that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the subject’s value is out of relativity with the values of the properties referred to by Mr Woodhead.
Conclusions
[58]	Although I decided above that the respondent’s sales evidence is not sufficient to support the value applied to the subject land, I was unable to conclude from Mr Woodhead’s sales evidence that the valuation is incorrect.  Similarly, none of the remaining evidence adduced by Mr Woodhead was sufficient to prove that the respondent’s valuation was incorrect or to prove what the valuation of the subject land should be.  
[59]	Accordingly, I consider that the appellant has failed to prove the grounds of appeal, as required by s 169(3) of the Act which provides:
"169   Nature of hearing
…
(3)	However, the appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal."

The effect of that subsection is that, to succeed in the appeal, the appellant must prove the grounds of appeal on the balance of probabilities that is, that it is more likely than not that the valuation is incorrect on the grounds set out in the notice of appeal.  For the reasons explained in this judgment, I have concluded that the appellant has not done this.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
ORDERS
1.	The appeal is dismissed.
2.	The site valuation of Lot 755 on Registered Plan 100372 in the County of Stanley, Parish of Woogaroo, is affirmed at Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($510,000) as at 1 October 2013.  

CAC MacDONALD
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT