John Patrick Crowley v Valuer General

[2004] NSWLEC 47

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	John Patrick Crowley v Valuer General [2004] NSWLEC 47
PARTIES:	APPLICANT John Patrick Crowley RESPONDENT Valuer General
FILE NUMBER(S):	31169 of 2003
CORAM:	Hussey C
KEY ISSUES:	Valuation of Land :- Objection
LEGISLATION CITED:	Valuation of Land Amendment Act 2000
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	13/02/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	02/13/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr J P Crawley, self represented RESPONDENT Mr D Newhouse, solicitor

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

31169 of 2003 Hussey C 13 February 2004

John Patrick Crowley
Applicant

v Valuer General
Respondent Judgment

1. This matter involves an appeal against the Valuer Generals disallowance of an objection to the land value of a residential property at No. 79 Stanley Street, Wagga Wagga. The parties agreed that this matter be determined by way of a s 34 Conference. The valuation details are:

Title particulars: Lot 82 in DP 239437,
Parish of South Wagga Wagga.

Dimensions: 24.3 8/24.98 x 38.06/33.08

Area: 866.3 m2

Zoning: 2 Residential, Wagga Wagga LEP, 1985

Base Date of Valuation: 1st July, 2002.

Date Acertained: 17th October, 2002.

LAND VALUE: $60,000.

2. The applicant contends that this land value is too high and should be in the order of $48,500. The main reason for this conclusion is that the land fronts Stanley Street, which apparently carries a considerable volume of traffic. Mr Cowley considers this depreciates the property.

3. Mr B. Edgell, licensed valuer No. 2206 supported the land value by reference to 8 sales in the area. These sites were inspected by the parties.

4. Mr Cowley relies to some extent on another nearby sale at 88 Stanley Street. This sale was apparently made on 13 October 2000 for $43,500. However no specific evidence of the sale was produced, and Mr Edgell does not consider it relevant. However, on consideration of the oral evidence, it appears to me that this land is inferior because of its corner position, which restricts placement of a dwelling and its topography, which limits regular private open space in the rear yard area, when compared to the subject property. Accordingly I accept that the subject property is less constrained and therefore has a higher value than No. 88.

5. Insofar as some of the sales are prior to the base date, they can be adjusted in line with the general increases in property values for the area and that adjustment rate was not disputed.

6. For Sale 1-1A James Street, the adjusted price is in the order of $48,000, at the base date and that is for and area of 450 m2. Even though it is located closer to shops, as stated by Mr Crowley, nevertheless I rely on Mr Edgell’s opinion that this land is inferior to the subject land because it is substantially smaller in area and near an arterial road. As Mr Cowley considers this land is superior to his, I consider this opinion is unrealistic.

7. In response to Mr Cowley's concerns about traffic volumes, Mr Edgell refers to sale No. 3 at 55 Simpkin Crescent. This property was on a relatively busy road at the time of first sale at $58,000 on 10 May 1996. Then its re-sale at $62,000 on 17 September 1999 and further re-sale of $68,000 at 4 March 2002, give an analysed land value of $68,800. Whilst Mr Edgell agrees that this is superior, I accept this is marginal and not to the extent suggested by Mr Cowley.

8. The other sale of some relevance is Sale No. 7, at 14 Patamba Street. This is for a nearby lot of 935.9 m2, with transfer date 28 March 2001 at an analysed land value of $68,000. Insofar as Mr Edgell concludes this regular shaped lot is superior, Mr Cowley also agrees and says this is in the order of 20 %. But I do not consider there is sufficient relativity in this sale, to confirm Mr Cowley's contention that the subject land has a value in the order of $48,500.

9. Having considered the evidence and undertaken a view, I accept that Mr Edgell has determined the valuation in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Amendment Act, 2000, which states;


The Land Value of the land is the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bone fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other than land improvement, and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in the title had not been made.


10 . Under the circumstances, I consider Mr Edgell’s approach is based on current valuation practice, which includes analysis of other comparable sales, rather than assessment of past V.G. valuation trends and on this basis, his valuation of $60,000 is reasonable. I do not consider it reasonable to give the determinative weight to Mr Cowley's speculative evidence on the relativity with the sale at No. 88, or his other sales adjustments.

11 . In the ultimate, I do not consider Mr Cowley has adequately demonstrated there are any other comparative land sales in the order of $48,000, which he contends that equates to his property. Therefore I do not consider he has made an adequate case, that the land value is too high.

Orders
12 . The orders of the Court is:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
________________
R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
rjs