Jones v Valuer-General

[2003] NSWLEC 435

>

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Jones v Valuer-General [2003] NSWLEC 435
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Anthony Peter Jones and Lorraine Ellen Jones RESPONDENT Valuer-General
FILE NUMBER(S):	30864 of 2002
CORAM:	Nott C
KEY ISSUES:	Valuation of Land :- Land value - house-lot- comparable sales
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	14/07/2003
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	07/14/2003
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANTS Mr Anthony Jones, self-represented RESPONDENT Mr Ray Jones, agent SOLICITOR Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

30864 of 2002

Nott C

14 July 2003

Anthony Peter Jones and

Lorraine Ellen Jones

Applicants

v

Valuer-General

Respondent

Reasons for Judgment

1. This is an appeal in respect of the land value determined for 99 The Drive, Stanwell Park, as at 1 July 2001 (the “base date”). The Valuer-General determined the value to be $752,000. Following an objection the value was reduced to $700,000, which is the value now contended for on behalf of the Valuer-General. The applicants claim that value is still too high.

2. At the hearing, Mr A Jones, who owns the subject property with his wife, appeared for himself and gave evidence. He presented to the Court adjustments that he submitted should be made to the valuation report that was tendered on behalf of the Valuer-General, and also adjustments that should be made to a valuation report by valuers retained by the applicants. The applicants’ valuation report is dated 24 January 2003, by Walsh and Monaghin Pty Ltd, and the author of that report is Mr M Allen. He was not called to give supplementary oral evidence in support of the valuation, but by the same token a notice requiring Mr Allen to attend for cross-examination had not been given. In any event, the report was tendered without objection.

3. The Valuer-General presented an expert report from valuer, Mr P J Smith, in support of the Valuer-General’s contention of $700,000. n the first five column of a document I have entitled “Schedule A”, I have set out particulars of sales relied upon by Mr Smith. I incorporate schedule A in my judgment:

4. The applicants’ valuer relied in particular on four of the sales referred to by Mr Smith. Each of the properties, except for one, was an improved property in the sense that there was a house or other facilities on the property at the date of contract. The one property that I regard as unimproved (except for fencing) is 15 Hillside Crescent, Stanwell Park. Having regard to the evidence concerning the sale of this unimproved property, I find difficulty in using it to infer a land value for the subject land. Unlike the subject property it is not close to the beach and does not have ocean views.

5. As regards all the other sales referred to by Mr Smith, four of which as I mentioned are also referred to by Mr Allen, I have used those sales to arrive at a land value for the subject land, taking into account the evidence of the parties. There was substantially no dispute as to the estimated value of the improvements on three of the sales referred to by Mr Allen.

6. As regards 93 The Drive, Stanwell Park, there was a difference between the valuers in the order of $85,000 concerning the value of the improvements. Having heard the additional oral evidence, I give greater weight to the opinion of Mr Smith and accept his opinion that because of the unsuitable layout of the house at 93 The Drive, Stanwell Park, a figure of $100,000 should be attributed to the improvements on that property.

7. Also having considered all the evidence, I find that some of the opinions expressed by Mr Allen appear to be exaggerated. For example, he expressed the opinion that the views available at 39 Murrawal Road are considered to be vastly superior to the views available from the subject land. This was not an opinion that was adopted by Mr Smith. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that although the views may not be vastly superior, they are in fact superior to the subject land.

8. Mr Smith did not make any adjustment to the contract price in respect of the comparable sales he relied upon to take account of any movement in the market between the date of contract and the base date. However, although no adjustment was made for time in Mr Smith’s written statement, he did give oral evidence as to what he considered would be the land value for each of the comparable sales at the base date. The applicant, Mr A Jones, accepted the opinions expressed by Mr Smith concerning what would be the land value of each of the comparable sales.

9. Accordingly, I have set out in my schedule A the land values that I consider appropriate for each of the comparable sales after analysing the contracts, taking into account the improvements and making an adjustment for time. Schedule A then sets out an overall percentage adjustment to be made to the land value of each of the comparable sales. This overall percentage adjustment takes into account both positive and negative features when a comparison is made between the land in the comparable sale and the subject land.

10. For example, in respect of the Valuer-General’s sale 1, the views available at the subject land are a little superior to the views available at 93 The Drive, Stanwell Park and the access to the beach is better, and so they are positive features. Also overlapping with the question of views is the size and shape of the land. As regards size and shape, the property at 93 The Drive is superior to the subject land. However, overall I would make a 5% positive adjustment to the analysed land value of 93 The Drive, Stanwell Park, in order to arrive at a land value from that sale alone for the subject land of $682,500.

11. It has been held of course that it is not appropriate to determine a land value for the property being valued from one sale alone, because there may be many factors which are unusual and therefore it is desirable to refer to as many sales as possible. In schedule A (above), I have referred to all the sales used by the Valuer-General except the sale of 15 Hillside Crescent, which I mentioned earlier.

12. It is appropriate not to average the land values of each of the comparable sales but to infer a land value from the subject land from each of the comparable sales. It is then appropriate to take into account all the evidence, which I have done, and make an overall assessment of what land value should be determined for the subject land. I consider that an appropriate determination of the land value is a little less than the $700,000 contended for by the Valuer-General and I determine the land value to be $690,000.

13. In taking account of the various factors it seems to me that the two properties at Coalcliff should not be excluded and I have not done that, but I have taken into account that those properties are more isolated than the subject land and do not have access as readily to amenities. However, those properties generally have quite superior views and access when compared with the subject land.

14. In relation to the question of averaging, I also note that Mr Allen did not average sales and that he placed more reliance on sales closest to the base date to ascertain the market value of the property as he states at page 4 of his report.

15. While there is significant agreement between the parties as regards the land value of each of the comparable sales, the great difference between the valuers is in what they infer to be, from the comparable sales, the land value of the subject land. I cannot accept when one makes a comparison based on the evidence in this appeal that there should be a land value determined of $620,000 as set out in Mr Allen’s report.

16. Accordingly, the orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The land value of 99 The Drive, Stanwell Park, as at 1 July 2001 is amended to $690,000.

3. The exhibits may be returned.

___________
A J Nott
Commissioner of the Court
mp