Campbell, M v Valuer-General

[2005] NSWLEC 609

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Campbell, M & Anor v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 609

PARTIES:

APPLICANTS
Peter Malcolm Campbell
Malcom William Campbell

RESPONDENT
Valuer-General of Department of Lands

FILE NUMBER(S):

31265 of 2004

CORAM:

Talbot ACJ

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- land value

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

DATES OF HEARING:

25/10/05-26/10/05

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

10/31/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
N/A

RESPONDENT
Mr G Bartley
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Talbot ACJ

31 October 2005

31265 of 2004 Campbell, M and Anor v Valuer-General

JUDGMENT

1 Talbot ACJ: This is an appeal against the unimproved land value assessed by the Valuer-General (“the respondent”) for Lots 257 and 258 DP 27201, being 48-50 Vena Avenue Gorokan (“the site”). Lot 257 has an area of 542m2 and Lot 258 has an area of 513m2. The two lots are vacant except for some clearing and the construction of a gutter crossing with a gravel surface and a mixture of boundary fencing. Trees are located on the property, one with termite infestation.

2 The land value of the site, as assessed by the NSW Department of the Valuer-General for rating purposes as at Base Date 1 July 2003 was $322,000.

3 The site is zoned 2(a) Residential under the provisions of Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991 (“LEP 1991”). Development on the site is generally controlled through the provisions of Wyong Development Control Plan No. 58 (“DCP 58”). Single residential dwellings are permissible on both lots. Clause 5.3 requires a minimum area of 550 m2 for a dual occupancy building (or attached dual occupancy) and 700 m2 for a dual occupancy development (or detached dual occupancy).

4 Mr Neil Everson, a Certified Practising Valuer, provided evidence for the applicant and determined land value of the site at $279,000.

5 Mr Ian Davey, a Certified Practising Valuer, provided evidence for the Valuer-General and determined land value of the site at $350,000.

6 Both valuations were made for the purposes of s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (“the Act”).

7 The site is slightly above the road frontage with a moderate cross fall to the south. It is located on the higher side of Vena Avenue and has distant, partly obscured and filtered views to Tuggerah Lake from the higher areas of the site. The general area consists of predominantly single occupancy residential dwellings with a large range of dwelling ages and construction type. Many post war small residential dwellings exist with recent contemporary residential dwellings.

8 The Court has been referred to a large number of sales in the Kanwal/Gorokan area. Some of the sales are more remote from the location of the subject site than others. The most important or relevant comparable sales were the subject of broad agreement between the valuers. Ten comparable sale sites were inspected within close proximity to the subject land. All of the inspected sales have been taken into account for the purpose of determining the land value at the Base Date either as being directly comparable with minor adjustment or as a check. One sale was of vacant land at 3 Donald Avenue and another site has been redeveloped after purchase following demolition and removal of existing improvements at 35 Georgina Avenue. In all other cases allowance has been made for the value of the improvements in respect of which there has been a difference in opinion between the valuers. I have deduced what I consider to be a reasonable allowance in that respect.

9 Neither party takes the point that a scarcity factor needs to be taken into account. The subject land is situated in a location containing a mixture of older dwellings up to 60 years old amenable to replacement and modern houses erected in more recent years right up to the present. There are clearly a number of sites that are capable of redevelopment on the basis that the existing improvements will be demolished. The area is in a state of transition.

10 I have taken as most comparable the sales of 2 Vena Avenue, 30 Vena Avenue, 35 Georgina Avenue and 3 Donald Avenue. These sales were seen by the valuers as being the most relevant of the comparable sales. After necessary adjustment for time, size, topography, value of improvements and location including availability of water views, these sales show a range for land value of the site at the base date between $310,000 and $340,000. I accept a rational midpoint for land value of the site at $325,000 before any further adjustment for idiosyncratic detriment.

11 The evidence relied upon regarding termite infestation is visual inspection and assessment by the respective valuers confirmed to a limited extent by observations made during the view of the site. There is no confirmatory evidence of the assessment of the cost of treatment and ongoing maintenance following eradication relied upon by Mr Everson in the sum of $17,000. I accept nonetheless that a purchaser would be aware of the significant infestation of termites from the self-evident nest and damage to trees at the site. Mr Everson attributed a further sum of $6,000 to detractive influence in the market.

12 Mr Davey was prepared to concede that there was an obvious infestation but that any allowance by a hypothetical prospective purchaser would be minimal. He was not convinced that all the costs referred to by Mr Everson would be necessary.

13 None of the sales sites inspected or relied upon attracted any allowance for onsite treatment of pests. I am of the view that a prospective purchaser would regard the presence of termites observed on the subject site as an adverse feature of the property and make a price adjustment accordingly. I am prepared to assess that adjustment as being between $10,000 and $20,000 depending upon the level of inquiry and advice obtained and accordingly allow $15,000 on that account.

14 Mr Everson made a further allowance for costs associated with registration of separate titles. I am not prepared to make any such allowance as the land value has been determined irrespective of whether the land was sold as suitable for two dwellings on separate lots or for development of one dual occupancy dwelling. Moreover the land is already subdivided into two lots within an existing deposited plan and is therefore prima facie capable of sale in separate allotments without incurring any additional costs for title separation.

15 The land value at the base date of 1 July 2003 is determined at $310,000.

16 The appeal is upheld. The Court decides that a land value in the amount of $310,000 as at the base date of 1 July 2003 determined pursuant to section 6A of the Act be substituted for the land value of $322,000 determined by the Valuer-General.

17 The exhibits may be returned.