Bingie Point Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General (NSW)

[2004] NSWLEC 499

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Bingie Point Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General (NSW) [2004] NSWLEC 499
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Bingie Point Investments Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Valuer General (NSW)
FILE NUMBER(S):	30292 of 2004
CORAM:	Bly C
KEY ISSUES:	Valuation of Land :- Coastal lands protection - rural residential dwelling
LEGISLATION CITED:	Valuation of Land Act 1916 Eurobodalla Rural Local Environmental Plan 1987
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	19/08/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	08/19/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr T W Magney, agent RESPONDENT Mr A Pickles, barrister SOLICITORS Crown Solicitors Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

19 August 2004

30292 of 2004 Bingie Point Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General (NSW)

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1916, against the Valuer General’s Notice of Valuation dated 13 September 2002 for base date 1 July 2002. It relates to Lot 2, DP 704685 and Lot 216, DP 752137, Parish of Congo, County of Dampier, in the Eurobodalla Shire. It comprises 33.39 ha of land at 660 Bingie Road, Bingie.

2 At the base date the notified land value is $437,000 and the applicant initially contended that this should instead be $260,000. The land is zoned 7(F1) Environmental Protection (Coastal Lands Protection) under Eurobodalla Rural Local Environmental Plan 1987 gazetted on 11 December 1987.

3 The majority of the property is undulating to hilly falling in a mainly north-eastern direction, the remainder of the property falls to the south-east. It has been fully cleared but is partly subject to heavy regrowth especially at its southern end. The site enjoys excellent ocean and beach views to the north and south and has frontage to a formed but unsealed roadway.

4 Expert valuation evidence was provided to the Court on behalf of the respondent by Mr L Tierney, a senior valuer with the Department of Commerce Property Valuation Services. On behalf of the applicant evidence was given by Mr J Doncas, a registered valuer.

5 These experts agreed that the highest and best use of the land is for a rural residential dwelling. The evidence provided by these experts produced an analysis of five sales of land in the vicinity of the site and beyond.

6 After a careful analysis of these sales and in discussion with the experts I formed the conclusion that three of these six sales including two which were agreed as being the most relevant should be the subject of a more careful examination. That examination was initially undertaken in the Court by questions put to the experts. Subsequently the Court invited the experts to further consider the aspects of their analyses where they disagreed.

7 Following their consultation on these matters a number of adjustments were made resulting in agreements in relation to various aspects of adjustments to these sales where previously there had been no agreement. The remaining disagreements related to the more subjective aspect of location, views and outlook.

8 The resulting differences were, in relation to two sales, only a matter of 5% whereas in relation to sale 1 the difference was 40%. I was invited to take into account the extent to which Mr Doncas has agreed to vary his adjustment figures but I would give that matter no weight. Mr Doncas is an expert and I believe that he, in conference with Mr Tierney was exercising his expertise appropriately as a valuer.

9 The result of applying the final adjustments produced a range of valuations. In relation to sale 1, Mr Tierney produced a value of $435,000 and Mr Doncas produced a figure of $320,000. In relation to sale 3 Mr Tierney produced a figure of $427,000 and Mr Doncas a figure of $400,000. In relation to sale 4 Mr Tierney produced a figure of $442,000 and Mr Doncas a figure of $420,000.

10 As for the figure of $320,000 for sale 1, as calculated by Mr Doncas, given that it is so very different to the other five figures and bearing in mind that this is the figure produced where the greatest disagreement between the two experts lies, that is to say the 40% that I referred to earlier, I would put that figure aside and not utilise it for the purpose of determining the land value for this property.

11 Mr Magney submitted that I should determine the land value to be $410,000 being the average of Mr Doncas’ figures for sales 3 and 4. Mr Pickles submitted that if one takes an average of the five remaining figures this produces an average of $424,500 and because the difference between this and the advised land value is so small that the land value should not be disturbed. Alternatively the average figure could be used.

12 I have decided that the most appropriate way of deciding what the land value should be and bearing in mind that this is an inexact science is to recognise the expert input of both of the valuers who have long but differing experience as valuers. I thus believe that the land value is likely to be somewhere between the opinions of these experts and the best way to find that value in this case is to take an average of the averages.

13 Mr Tierney’s average in round numbers was $435,000, Mr Doncas’ average was $410,000. Leaving aside the $320,000 for sale 1, for the reasons that I have already given, this produces an average of $423,000.

14 On that basis I uphold the appeal and determine the land value of the subject property to be $423,000.

15 The orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The land value for property No. 190368 – Eurobodalla being Lot 2 DP704685 and Lot 216 DP752137 Parish of Congo being 660 Bingie Road, Bingie, at base date 1 July 2002 is $423,000.

3. The exhibits are returned.

___________________
T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
rjs