Callow v Valuer-General of New South Wales

[2012] NSWLEC 264

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Callow v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2012] NSWLEC 264

Hearing dates:

30 November 2012

Decision date:

30 November 2012

Jurisdiction:

Class 3

Before:

Craig J

Decision:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The land value of the land known as 150 Hobart Street, Riverstone NSW as at base date 1 July 2011, is determined to be the sum of $55,000.

3. The hearing fixed for Tuesday 4 December 2012 is vacated.

4. Each party is to pay his or her own costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

VALUATION OF LAND - appeal pursuant to s 37 of Valuation of Land Act 1916 - Valuer-General accepted value proposed by applicant - applicant refused to consent to an order determining the land value contended for - mistaken belief that hearing would address grievances with present planning controls - appeal allowed

Legislation Cited:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Vicky Callow (First applicant)
David Thatcher (Second applicant)

Valuer-General of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation:

COUNSEL
Self represented (First applicant)
No appearance (Second applicant)

M R M Carpenter (Respondent)
SOLICITORS
Self represented (First applicant)
No appearance (Second applicant)

I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s):

30782 of 2012

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Vicky Callow and David Thatcher have appealed to this Court pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. They objected, unsuccessfully, to the determination by the Valuer-General of the land value of their land known as 150 Hobart Street Riverstone NSW. They contended that the value determined by the Valuer-General was too low and that the correct value to be assigned to the land should be the sum of $55,000 at base date 1 July 2011.

1. Since the commencement of these proceedings, the Valuer-General has accepted that the land value should be determined in the sum contended for by Ms Callow and Mr Thatcher. Notwithstanding what would appear to be agreement as to land value, Ms Callow, who has appeared on behalf of both applicants, declined to sign Consent Orders determining the land value in that sum or otherwise agree to an order to that effect.

1. It seems that Ms Callow and one assumes, Mr Thatcher, are concerned at the current planning controls applicable to their land and the impact which those controls have on their right to continue to use that land. Much of the oral argument addressed to me today by Ms Callow has been directed to what she perceives to be "a loss of rights" that has occurred by reason of the current zoning applicable to the land that is the subject of this appeal.

1. I have endeavoured, in the course of the hearing, to explain and make clear to Ms Callow that in the context of an appeal under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act, the effect upon any right claimed to have been lost by reason of the rezoning of her land is irrevelant except to the extent that it has any impact upon land value. As the matters put to me by Ms Callow make clear, she mistakenly believed that the present appeal would provide a means by which this Court could address her grievance with the current zoning of her land and have the Court reinstate the former zoning.

1. I have already indicated, that the land value for which Ms Callow and Mr Thatcher contend is agreed in by the Valuer-General. There is no reason to consider that such a sum is inappropriate to reflect the land value of the land in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act.

1. For these reasons, I am prepared to allow the appeal and determine the land value to be in the sum agreed between the parties.

1. Accordingly, the orders that I make are as follows:

1.  The appeal is allowed.

2.  The land value of the land known as 150 Hobart Street, Riverstone NSW as at base date 1 July 2011, is determined to be the sum of $55,000.

3.  The hearing fixed for Tuesday 4 December 2012 is vacated.

4.  Each party is to pay his or her own costs of the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 December 2012