Allcot v New South Wales Department of Lands

[2007] NSWLEC 215

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Allcot v New South Wales Department of Lands [2007] NSWLEC 215

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
John David Allcot

RESPONDENT
New South Wales Department of Lands

FILE NUMBER(S):

30917 of 2006

CORAM:

Bly C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- comparative sales evidence involving development and vacant sites

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

DATES OF HEARING:

17/04/2007

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

23 April 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr J.D. Allcot, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Newport, barrister
Instructed by: P. Rankins
of Crown Solicitors

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

23 April 2007

30917 of 2006 John David Allcot v New South Wales Department of Lands

JUDGMENT

1 This appeal relates to an objection by the applicant to the land value as determined by the NSW Department of Lands for the property at 20 Hoddle Street, Goulburn. As at base date 1 Jul 2005 the land value of this property is $169,000.

2 The subject residentially zoned land comprises Lot 12 DP 238957. It has an area of 991 sq m and a frontage of about 29 m. It is slightly elevated above the road with a cross fall to the east. Hoddle Street is sealed and has kerb and gutter. All services are available. It is located about 3.5 km west of the Goulburn central business district in an area developed in the 1970's.

3 The subject land is developed with a single storey dwelling house. It was purchased by the applicant on 20 September 2005 for $266,500.

4 By reference to a number of sales of vacant land the respondent says that the land value of $169,000 is correct. By reference to a number of sales of developed land the applicant says that the land value should be $145,000.

5 In its consideration of this appeal the Court was assisted by the evidence of Mr A Carroll, a qualified valuer. Mr J Allcot is a qualified valuer but in the circumstances of a being a self represented applicant, his evidence cannot be accepted as expert evidence. That is not to say however that it cannot be taken into account.

6 In this case, two basic methods were utilised by the parties in order to ascertain the land value of the subject land, which by definition must exclude its improvements. As indicated the respondent has utilised the method of determining the relevant land value by reference to a number of nearby, vacant land sales. This method involves an analysis of those sales including adjustments in terms of matters such as location, size, typography and sale date relative to the base date. This analysis enables the sale prices to be fairly applied to the subject land to ascertain its value.

7 The applicant has chosen not to use the vacant land sales method. Instead he has sought to determine the value of his land by comparing it to the sale of a number of developed (improved) and undeveloped properties. In so doing he was able to make an assessment of the likely value of the improvements thereon. Having done this he then calculates the likely value of the dwelling house on his property and deducts this from its sale price to determine its land value as being $145,000.

8 Whilst Mr Carroll in his report makes reference to six vacant land sales, which support the land value of $169,000, he explained that two of these sales are of greatest significance and relevance to this conclusion. This is because those properties are located within very close proximity of the subject site and being in the same locality have a very similar character. The other sales are located further away or in locations having a different character.

9 The two sales of greatest significance comprise 110 Deccan Street and 142 Clifford Street, Goulburn. Mr Carroll adjusted both of these sales so as to relate to the base date and for size locality topography and views. In relation to 142 Clifford Street, Mr Allcot agreed with these adjustments, which indicate a comparative value of $176,000.

10 In relation to 110 Deccan Street, Mr Allcot agreed with Mr Carroll's adjustments with the exception of the adjustment to the base date. Property values in Goulburn in 1995 were in decline and Mr Carroll assessed this at 3.5% per annum whereas Mr Allcot said that it would have been between 7.5% and 10% per annum adopting the higher figure. Mr Carroll's calculation indicates a comparative value of $171,225 and Mr Allcot's calculation indicates a comparative value of $161,700.

11 In support of his contention that 3.5% was the correct adjustment figure Mr Carroll refers to a property in Robinson Street, Goulburn that was sold and resold for a lesser amount over a period of 21 months indicating a decline of 17% or 0.8% per month. He also refers to the sale of adjoining properties in Barry Crescent Goulburn over a period of about two months indicating a decline of 0.94% over that period. Applying these figures to the period between the sale date for 110 Deccan Street, and the base date (about 6.5 months) one would expect a rate of decline of about 5.6% rather than the 3.5%, which he adopts. He explained this difference on the basis of his professional assessment of the circumstances including the fact that these properties are located some distance away in areas having different characters. Mr Allcot was familiar with the Robinson Street sales having utilised these in his own report. He was also familiar with the Barry Crescent sale having also referred to it. Like Mr Carroll he applied his personal experience to these matters to conclude that 10% was the correct figure.

12 Whilst I have some difficulty with accepting the approach of carrying out a mathematical calculation then adjusting the answer on the basis of professional opinion, I prefer the evidence in this regard of Mr Carroll. This is because for the reasons given above, his evidence must attract more weight than that of Mr Allcot. Notwithstanding this, a strict mathematical approach would indicate a comparative value of about $168,000.

13 The other four sales referred to by Mr Carroll, taking into account his adjustments indicate comparative values ranging between $142,000 and $189,600. Taking into account Mr Allcot's adjustments for these sales the range of comparative values is between $123,250 and $176,000.

14 Whilst it might have been preferable to have more than two comparable sales I am satisfied that the two sales provided by Mr Carroll provide a sufficient basis to support the previously determined land value of $169,000. The proximity of these sales to the subject land and the similar character of the area in which they are situated provide support for this conclusion. The other four sales referred to by Mr Carroll particularly taking into account Mr Allcot's adjustments provide no real assistance other than a broad indication that $169,000 is not necessarily wrong.

15 It is now well established that the approach of considering comparable vacant land sales is the most reliable means of determining land value as compared to the approach of considering developed land sales and making allowances for the value of improvements thereon. Taking this into account together with the fact that the sales utilised by Mr Allcot are located some distance away from the subject site in areas having a somewhat different character I have decided that the approach taken by Mr Carroll is to be preferred. Hence it is not necessary to analyse Mr Allcot's evidence.

16 I thus conclude that, in accordance with s40 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the applicant has not met the onus of showing that the notified land value is incorrect. I have therefore decided that the appeal should be dismissed and confirm the land value for the property at 20 Hoddle Street, Goulburn as at base date 1 July 2005 at $169,000.

___________________

T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
ljr