May v Valuer General

[2006] NSWLEC 167

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

May v Valuer General [2006] NSWLEC 167

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Helena May and Maurice May

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30391 of 2005

CORAM:

Brown C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- unimproved land value.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916
North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001
Surveyors’ Practice Regulation 2001

DATES OF HEARING:

28/02/2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

02/28/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr T. S. Hale, SC

RESPONDENT
Mr. G. Bartley, barrister
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Brown C

28 February 2006

30391 of 2005 Helena May and Maurice May v Valuer General

JUDGMENT

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the unimproved land value assessed by the Valuer General for lot 113 in DP 854238 being No. 35 Milson Road, Cremorne.

2 The site is the shape of a parallelogram with a frontage of 16.24 m to Milson Road, a rear boundary line of 15.225 m and a south-east side boundary of 55.26 m. The fourth boundary is the north-western boundary line. It is a similar depth to the other side boundary but also includes an irregular extension towards the rear jutting into the adjoining property to the north. Attaching to this extension are legal instruments that provide pedestrian and vehicular access to Cremorne Lane, some 20 m away to the north-east.

3 Erected on the land is a 1920-30s basement level plus two-storey cement rendered brick tile and sandstone residence, which has been modernised in keeping with its original style. The property is afforded wide harbour views from the second storey of the house and there would be more expansive views from the third storey of the dwelling. Views from the basement level of the house and swimming pool comprise more limited harbour glimpses. Below the pool on the front garden level, the harbour views are obscured by trees but at the street frontage level views of the harbour can be seen in between residences on the opposite of Milson Road

4 The land comprises three distinct levels. Firstly, there is a front garden level, which rises steeply from the street frontage and it contains a concrete swimming pool and a single garage at the street frontage. Secondly, a middle section of the block where the house is situated and thirdly, a rear garden level, which is at the back of the house and is reasonably flat land. This area provides access to the parking facilities and Cremorne Lane.

5 The land value of the site as assessed by the New South of Wales Department of Valuer General for rating purposes at the base date of 1 July 2004 is $2,040,000.

6 The site is zoned residential G (Cremorne Point) under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001. Single dwellings are permissible within this zone.

7 The Valuer General tendered a town planning report from Mr Anthony Rowan although no issues relating to this report were raised by either party.

8 Mr Timothy Nichol, a certified practicing valuer, provided evidence for the Valuer General and determined the land value at $2,000,000 although the Valuer General pressed the assessed value of $2,040,000. The land value was based on s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

9 The applicant did not provide any expert valuation evidence but accepted Mr Nichol’s rate of $2450 per sq m for good building land and $1225 per sq m for steep building land. Where the parties differed was the percentage of good building land and steep building land on the site. The particular area in dispute was middle section of the block where the house is situated.

10 Both parties provided reports from surveyors to support their respective positions. The Valuer General through their surveyor Mr Malcolm Drummond maintained that 665.2 sq m of the 991.2 sq m site (or 60%) was good building land. Mr Medway for the applicant calculated 460 sq m (or 46%) of the site was good building land.

11 In considering the two different approaches I prefer the evidence of the Valuer General for a number of reasons.

12 Firstly, Mr Medway relies on the definition of, “steep or mountainous terrain”, in the Surveyors’ Practice Regulation 2001. This definition means, “terrain with slopes that are generally greater than 10O”

13 I accept the submission of Mr Bartley, the Valuer General’s advocate that the use of this definition has little relevance in the context of the assessment of land values, particularly in this case where it would be likely that any hypothetical purchaser would seek to maximise the panoramic views over Sydney Harbour irrespective of the slope of the land. The location of the existing dwelling clearly supports this proposition.

14 Secondly, the suitability of the area in dispute for a dwelling is difficult to dispute when a dwelling already exists on the part of the site in dispute. The area beneath the dwelling has been benched to provide for the dwelling and it is a matter to be considered as part of the valuation process through the definition of, “land improvement”, in cl 4 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. Again, it would be difficult to imagine a hypothetical purchaser being overly influenced by the slope of the land in this location when it affords the opportunity for significant harbour views.

15 As no evidence was provided to disturb the valuation of the Valuer General the land value at the base date of 1 July 2004 is determined at $2,040,000.

16 The Orders of the Court are,

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The land value at the base date of 1 July 2004 of the premises at No. 35 Milson Road, Cremorne, is determined at $2,040,000.
3. The exhibits are returned.

___________________

G T Brown
Commissioner of the Court
ljr