Neofitou v Valuer-General
[2014] QLC 16
•30 April 2014
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Neofitou v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 16 PARTIES: Miltiades Georgiou Neofitou
(appellant)v Valuer-General
(respondent)FILE NO: LVA374-11
LVA283-12
LVA184-13DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDINGS: Appeals against annual valuations DATE OF HEARING: 2 October 2013 DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Bowen PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald ORDERS: 1. Appeals LVA374-11, LVA283-12 and LVA184-13 are dismissed.
2. The site value of Lot 1 on Survey Plan 156155 in the County of Herbert, Parish of Pring is affirmed at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011 and 1 October 2012.
CATCHWORDS: Valuation - valuation methodology - different approaches required under Valuation of Land Act (VLA) and Land Valuation Act (LVA) for non-rural land - unimproved value or site value - no deduction for site improvements under LVA.
Valuation - valuation methodology - two parts of property zoned differently and used for different purposes - permissible to value as separate parts of a single valuation.
Valuation - valuation methodology - use of sales - whether analyzed or applied value should be used in comparing subject.
Land Valuation Act 2010
Valuation of Land Act 1944Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397
APPEARANCES: Mr MG Neofitou, the appellant
Mr IR Pepper, principal lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent
Miltiades Georgiou Neofitou (the appellant) has appealed against three objection decisions in relation to three annual valuations issued by the respondent, the Valuer-General, under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA).
Appeal LVA374-11 concerns the site valuation of the appellant’s property as at 1 October 2010; Appeal LVA283-12 concerns the site valuation of the same property as at 1 October 2011 and Appeal LVA184-13 concerns the site valuation of that property as at 1 October 2012.
The respondent determined the site value of the property at $830,000 as at each of the relevant dates. The appellant has contended for a site value of $444,540 as at each of those dates.
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Neofitou appeared in person. Prior to the hearing he had supplied a written statement of evidence which was tendered into evidence. The respondent was represented by Mr IR Pepper, principal lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Mr OL Eisenmenger, a registered valuer employed as a senior valuer by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, gave evidence in support of the valuations under appeal. Mr Eisenmenger also provided a written report which was tendered into evidence at the hearing.
The land the subject of the appeal has an area of 3.493 ha and is situated at 18-20 Richmond Road, Bowen, Queensland, about 1.5 km from the centre of Bowen. It is used for motel purposes. Mr Eisenmenger described the property as of generally rectangular shape. It is set in a depression and over time it has been partially filled and levelled in its southern part, where a motel complex has been built. The northern part of the property is undeveloped being low lying in the middle and higher on the eastern and western parts. Mr Eisenmenger said that extra fill, drainage and site works would be required before this part of the property could be further developed with buildings.
There is narrow driveway access from Richmond Road into the southern part of the property near its south-western corner. Most of the southern boundary of the property lies behind a carpark which is part of a neighbouring shopping centre. The northern boundary of the property adjoins Hillview Road, however there does not appear to be any legal formed access onto that road from the subject property. Both Hillview and Richmond Roads are bitumen sealed.
Mr Eisenmenger said that the surrounding land uses are mixed, with a shopping centre adjoining the southern boundary and commercial and residential uses on the western boundary.
It appears from Mr Eisenmenger's written report that he originally thought that the whole of the property was zoned Residential Precinct R2. Shortly before the hearing his enquiries revealed that the southern part of the property is zoned for business purposes and, at the hearing, he corrected the information in his written report. Mr Eisenmenger said that the correction made no difference to his valuations. If anything, the effect of the amendment would be that the southern part of the property might be valued at a higher rate because the business zoning allowed a range of increased uses. However, Mr Eisenmenger was satisfied that the amount of the valuations was correct and Mr Neofitou did not suggest that the change in the description of the zoning should alter the outcome of the appeals.
The northern part of the property is zoned Residential Precinct R2 (950). Mr Eisenmenger said that the following uses are consistent with and preferred within the residential zone R2 - residential purposes comprising long term accommodation including annexed apartment, dual occupancy, dwelling house, multiple dwelling units and retirement village; residential purposes comprising short term accommodation including accommodation building, bed and breakfast, caravan park and institutional residence.
Valuation Methodology
Under s 51 of the LVA the Valuer-General is required to decide the value of land as provided for under the Act for the purposes mentioned in s 6.
Section 7 provides that the value of non-rural land is its site value. The subject land is non-rural land[1].
[1]See ss 8 and 9, Land Valuation Act 2010.
Section 19(1) of the LVA provides that if land is improved, its site value is its expected realization under a bona fide sale assuming all non-site improvements for the land had not been made. The effect of this provision is that the subject land is to be valued with any site improvements in place as at the relevant dates, but ignoring any non-site improvements.
Site improvements are defined in s 23 as follows:
"23 What are site improvements
(1) Site improvements, to land, means any of the following done to the land—
(a)clearing vegetation on the land;
(b)picking up and removing stones;
(c)improving soil fertility or soil structure;
(d)if the land was contaminated land as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 - works to manage or remedy the contamination;
(e)restoring, rehabilitating or improving its surface by filling, grading or levelling, not being irrigation or conservation works;
(f)reclamation by draining or filling, including retaining walls and other works for the reclamation;
(g)underground drainage;
(h)any other works done to the land necessary to improve or prepare it for development.
(2) However, a thing done as mentioned in subsection (1) -
(a)is a site improvement only to the extent it increases the land’s value; and
(b)ceases to be a site improvement if the benefit was exhausted on the valuation day.
(3) Also, excavating the land for any of the following is not a site improvement -
(a)footings or foundations;
(b)underground building levels.
Example of an underground building level—
an underground car park
(4) In this section -
clearing vegetation on land -
(a)means removing, cutting down, ringbarking, pushing over, poisoning or destroying in any way, including by burning, flooding or draining; but
(b)does not include destroying standing vegetation by stock or lopping a tree."
The site improvements on the subject land were fill and levelling on the southern part of the land.
Mr Eisenmenger's evidence was that he had adopted the direct comparison approach, in carrying out the subject valuations, whereby sales of properties with a comparable use were analyzed and directly compared to the subject property, in order to determine the value of the subject. Mr Eisenmenger said that he had approached the valuation by valuing the property in two separate parts and then adding the two values to reach the total value. The southern part of the property, which had been filled and on which the motel complex is situated, was valued as a developed site and an allowance made for the narrow frontage. The northern part of the property, which is low lying and generally undeveloped, was valued as balance land. The valuation was made by comparison with vacant land sales which transacted prior to the date of valuation, Mr Eisenmenger said.
The appellant objected to that methodology saying that as the land was held under one title there should be one valuation only.
That objection overlooks the fact that one valuation only was issued by the respondent. I consider that it is open to a valuer to value a property in separate parts, in appropriate cases, where, as here, the two sections of the property are zoned differently and used for different purposes.
Mr Eisenmenger's calculations were -
Southern part – 14,500 m² at $45/m² $652,500
Less allowance for restricted frontage 12.5% $ 81,562
$570,938
Northern part – 20,430 m² at $12.50/m² $255,375
$826,313
Adopt $830,000Before considering the sales evidence, it is convenient to make some observations about the changes to valuation methodology caused by the introduction of the Land Valuation Act in 2010.
Prior to the commencement of the LVA, the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA) required the chief executive to decide the unimproved value of the land to be valued for the Acts under which local authorities are established (s 13). The unimproved value of improved land was to be determined under s 3(1)(b) on the assumption that, as at the date of valuation, the improvements did not exist.
Mr Neofitou's evidence was that the last unimproved valuation of the subject issued under the VLA was $500,000, as at 1 October 2009. Mr Eisenmenger's explanation for the significant increase in the valuation from $500,000 as at 1 October 2009 to $830,000 as at 1 October 2010 was that the former valuation represented the unimproved value whereas the latter valuation was the site value.
As will be seen when the sales evidence is discussed below, all of the sales relied on by Mr Eisenmenger were of vacant or lightly improved properties. It appears that the sales evidence in relation to the southern part of the subject provides a value for that part in a comparable state with the sales, that is with the fill and levelling in place. Mr Eisenmenger said that in the past, for valuations under the VLA, he would have deducted the value of the improvements to reach the unimproved value of the land. Now, under the LVA, the site improvements are part of the site valuation, and their value is not deducted.
I now turn to consider Mr Eisenmenger's valuations.
Appeal LVA374-11
For the valuation as at 1 October 2010, Mr Eisenmenger relied on three sales, Sales 1-3, for the valuation of the southern part of the property, and one sale, Sale 4, for the valuation of the northern part.
Sale 1 is a 3,202 m² property which sold on 22 October 2007 for $385,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to $385,000 and applied it at a value of $370,000 or $115.55/m².
Mr Eisenmenger described the property, which is at Tracey Street, Queens Beach, Bowen, as excess school property comprising an old pre-school building. It appears that that building was worth nothing as the sale price and analyzed value are the same. At the time of sale the property was zoned Special Purposes but Mr Eisenmenger said it was bought for redevelopment as a multi unit site. After a successful change of use application and development approval, construction of building units commenced in 2012. Mr Eisenmenger recognized that the southern part of the subject is much larger than the sale so he applied $45/m² for the southern area of the subject to reflect the diminishing pro rata rate of value for a larger property. Overall he considered the sale to be inferior to the subject due to its smaller area.
There are difficulties with the use of this sale for the valuation as at 1 October 2010. The first is the date of the sale which is some three years before the date of valuation. There was no evidence from Mr Eisenmenger as to any changes in the market between the date of sale and the date of valuation. The second issue is that the sale did not have the same zoning as the subject as at the date of sale although the sale price may reflect its potential for rezoning to a multi unit site. However the costs involved in an application for change of use are not factored into the comparison between the sale and the subject. On the whole, I consider that it would be unsafe to rely on Sale 1 to support the subject valuation, particularly because of the date of sale.
Sale 2 is a 2,023 m² property situated at 31 St Kilda Road, Bowen which sold on 6 May 2010 for $561,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to an unimproved value of $550,000 or $271/m². As the property was used as a single residential dwelling the applied value of $167,500 as at 1 October 2010 reflects that use. Mr Eisenmenger did not say what value he would have applied to the sale property if it had not received the concessional valuation. Without that information I am unable to see how the sale was applied to value the subject, as the subject does not have the benefit of the concession applied to the sale.
Sale 3 is a 1,210 m² property which sold on 4 December 2009 for $210,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to a site value of $210,000 or $173.55/m². He applied a value of $200,000 or $165/m² as at 1 October 2010.
The sale was zoned Residential Precinct R2 and, Mr Eisenmenger said, was bought for the purpose of developing the property with residential units. Again there is a significant difference between the area of the sale and the subject but again Mr Eisenmenger said that he took this into account by applying a rate of $45/m² to the subject.
On the whole, while recognizing the difficulties that Mr Eisenmenger faced in finding comparable sales, I do not consider that the sales evidence strongly supports the valuation under appeal. However the appellant did not bring any sales evidence to contradict Mr Eisenmenger's evidence. In particular, although Mr Neofitou challenged the comparability of the sales with the subject in general terms, he adduced no evidence to persuade me that Mr Eisenmenger's use and application of Sales 2 and 3 was incorrect.
Sale 4 was used by Mr Eisenmenger to determine the site value of the northern part of the subject at $12.50/m². Sale 4 is a 4.745 ha property which sold on 9 April 2008 for $2,585,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to a site value of $2,500,000 and applied a site value as at 1 October 2010 at $1,200,000 or $25.20/m².
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale was a large parcel of land on the edge of residential development purchased for development into residential lots. It has a zoning of Residential Precinct R1. At the time of sale, the property was vacant with 200 old mango trees on site. It was formerly farming land. Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale property is generally flat in nature and would need significant development works such as filling and drainage before any development could occur.
Mr Eisenmenger said the sale property is larger than the subject and is superior to the subject overall. The application of $12.50/m² for the northern part of the subject property reflects the inferior quality of this portion of the subject land (being low lying) compared to $52.70/m², which is the analyzed value of the sale.
There are a number of problems with the use of this sale. The sale took place in April 2008, some 30 months before the date of valuation. Again Mr Eisenmenger gave no evidence as to any movements in the market during that period. The sale price was $2,585,000 which was analyzed to a site value of $2,500,000. Nevertheless Mr Eisenmenger said the property was vacant so it is unclear why $85,000 was deducted in reaching the analyzed site value. Further, in applying the subject to the sale, Mr Eisenmenger used the analyzed site value of the sale rather than its applied value. Correct valuation methodology requires that the applied unimproved value of the sale is to be used in valuing the subject[2]. It is also noted that the sale has been applied at $25.20/m² as compared with $52.70/m², its analyzed site value. This means that the sale has been applied at 48% of the analyzed site price which appears to indicate that the sale price was well above market value.
[2]Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources & Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd, (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397.
Again, however, the appellant has not adduced any sales evidence to demonstrate that Mr Eisenmenger's assessment of the value of the northern section of the subject is incorrect.
Appeal LVA283-12
For the valuation as at 1 October 2011, Mr Eisenmenger relied on two sales, Sale 5 and Sale 6, to value the southern part of the subject property at $45/m². Sale 4 was used for the purpose of valuing the northern part of the subject property at $12.50/m².
Sale 5 is a 1,568 m² property with dual street frontage to Thomas and Quay Streets which is located close to Bowen Harbour and has water views. The property is zoned Residential Precinct R2. The property sold on 24 June 2011 for $630,000 which Mr Eisenmenger analyzed to $630,000 or $401/m². The applied value of the sale property as at 1 October 2011 is $315,000 which is a concessional valuation reflecting the property's use for a single dwelling house. Mr Eisenmenger did not venture an opinion as to its notional applied value if the concessional valuation had not applied.
Mr Eisenmenger said that both the sale and the subject have dual street frontage, however the frontage to the subject is inferior as it does not run along the full length of the block. Further, as I noted earlier, it is not clear whether there is legal access to the rear of the subject from Hillview Road. Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale is also superior in that it is situated close to the beach and has water views. Overall, he said, the sale was inferior to the subject because of its smaller area.
There was no explanation from Mr Eisenmenger as to how a sale of a 1,568 m² property, which analyzed to a site value of $401/m², can be used to justify an applied site value to the subject of $45/m². My conclusion is that the sale and the subject are not comparable properties.
Sale 6 is a property of 1.762 ha which sold on 13 April 2011 for $1,072,500. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to a site value of $975,000 or $55.30/m². The applied value of the sale as at 1 October 2011 was $300,000 which is a concessional valuation as there is a dwelling on the property. Again Mr Eisenmenger did not provide any opinion as to what the notional applied value might have been if the concessional valuation did not apply. This makes comparison with the subject very difficult.
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale property was purchased by an adjoining owner who bought the land to expand a caravan park. There is a dwelling on site. The property is zoned Residential Precinct R1 which Mr Eisenmenger said was inferior to the zoning of the subject. He considered the topography of the sale to be slightly superior to the subject and said that the sale is superior to the southern developed part of the subject. Hence he had applied a value of $45/m² for the subject.
Although the sale was to an adjoining owner, there was no evidence that the price paid was above market value. I have accepted Mr Eisenmenger's Sale 6 as evidence of the value of the southern portion of the subject land.
As indicated above, Mr Eisenmenger relied on Sale 4 to establish the value of the northern portion of the subject land at $12.50/m². I have already discussed the difficulties with applying Sale 4. A further difficulty with its use for the valuation as at 1 October 2011 is that the sale took place some 42 months before the date of valuation.
Although I have some doubts as to the applicability of the sales evidence for this valuation, the appellant has brought no sales evidence to show that the valuation is incorrect.
Appeal LVA184-13
For the valuation as at 1 October 2012, Mr Eisenmenger relied on two sales, Sales 7 and 8, for the valuation of the southern part of the property at $45/m², and one sale, Sale 9, for the valuation of the northern part at $12.50/m².
Sale 7 is an 1,130 m² property which sold on 18 November 2011 for $230,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to a site value of $230,000 or $203.50/m². He applied a value of $210,000 or $185/m².
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale comprises two allotments with a Residential Precinct R2 zoning which is suitable for development. The sale is located within 500 m of the Bowen Town Centre and has good access. The two lots are level with a good building contour.
The sale has superior access and frontage as compared with the southern part of the subject property, Mr Eisenmenger said. The sale is much smaller than the subject and the lower pro rata rate of $45/m² applied to the subject area reflects the size difference. Mr Eisenmenger said that as the sale is smaller it is inferior to the subject.
Sale 8 is an 1,126 m² property which sold on 22 December 2011 for $310,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to a site value of $310,000 or $275/m². He applied a value of $210,000 or $186/m².
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale has a Residential Precinct R2 zoning and is situated about 500 m from the centre of Bowen. Good access is available to the property from William Street, Bowen. The property comprises two rectangular shaped allotments which are generally level with a good building contour.
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale has superior access and frontage compared with the southern part of the subject property. However the sale is much smaller than the subject and the pro rata rate of $45/m² applied to the subject reflects the size difference. As the sale is a smaller property it is inferior to the subject, Mr Eisenmenger said.
Although there are obvious differences between the sales and the subject, I have accepted Mr Eisenmenger's professional opinion that the rate of $45/m² applied to the subject is appropriate on the basis of Sales 7 and 8.
Sale 9 was used by Mr Eisenmenger to value the northern part of the subject land as at 1 October 2012.
The sale property has an area of 4.13 ha and sold on 26 April 2012 for $225,000. Mr Eisenmenger analyzed the sale to an unimproved value of $217,000 and applied an unimproved value of $200,000 as at 1 October 2012. As the property is a rural residential site, it appears that Mr Eisenmenger did not apply a rate per square metre to the sale property. Rather he adopted a comparison on a site basis with the northern part of the subject which he valued at $255,375.
The sale is a rural residential site with rural zoning set in the Don River delta. The property has good access via a bitumen sealed road and is situated approximately 1.5 km by road from Queens Beach, Bowen. Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale property is flat and low lying and is subject to periodic flooding in times of high rainfall. A filled and raised building pad will be required to establish a dwelling on site.
Power, telephone and garbage collection are available to the sale property as compared with the full town services available to the subject, namely, water, sewerage, power, telephone and garbage collection.
Mr Eisenmenger said that the sale has an inferior zoning as compared with the northern part of the subject and also has inferior services and location. While the sale is larger than the northern part of the subject, on an overall comparison the sale is slightly inferior to the northern part as it has inferior services, location and zoning and limited potential for development. Overall, he considered the sale to be inferior to the northern undeveloped part of the subject and this was reflected in the slightly higher value applied to the northern part of the subject.
I have accepted Mr Eisenmenger's comparison between the subject and the sale.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the 2012 valuation is supported by the sales evidence, which was not effectively challenged by the appellant.
Grounds of appeal
The grounds of appeal annexed to each of the notices of appeal were summarized in the appellant's written submissions filed on 25 September 2013. Before considering these in detail, it is relevant to note that s 169(3) of the LVA provides that the appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal.
The valuations have failed to take into account the physical characteristics of the land.
The appellant submitted that the physical characteristics of the land facing Richmond Road (that is the southern, commercial zoned land upon which the motel is situated) include:
(a)narrow street frontage; and
(b)the only access to or from the property to the road is by way of road reserve only between the land and the road. It was submitted that use of the road reserve is pursuant to Queensland Transport Approval No. 299/433/125/9511 to use the land between the land and Richmond Road, as an entrance and to construct signs.
As to the Queensland Transport approval, the evidence and document supporting the evidence given at the hearing was that the approval related only to permission to construct signs. In any event, it is clear from Mr Eisenmenger's calculations set out at [17] above, that he has made an allowance of 12.5% or $81,562 for the restricted frontage of the property to Richmond Road. The appellant pointed to no evidence to establish that that was not an adequate allowance. I consider therefore that this aspect of the ground of appeal has not been established.
The appellant submitted that the physical characteristics of the vacant land facing Hillview Road include:
(a)changes by the Whitsunday Regional Council which caused the drainage, ponding and other problems on the land -
· by raising the adjoining Hillview Road by 1.2 m and failing to construct culverts; and
· diverting the flow of water from the road on to the subject land.
(b)requirement of fill and levelling;
(c)considerable cost of fill and for further fill requirements.
Mr Eisenmenger has valued the northern portion of the subject land relying on two sales, Sale 4 and Sale 9. His evidence was that Sale 4 would need significant development works such as filling and drainage before any development could occur. He said that the Sale 9 property was flat and low lying and suffered from periodic flooding in times of high rain fall. In order to establish a dwelling on site, a filled and raised building pad would be required on the sale property.
As to the requirement for and costs of fill, Mr Neofitou said that he held a quotation from an earthmoving company for fill for $60,000 plus levelling and compacting. Further he had spent $8,000 to $12,000 per year for a number of years to try to fill the land, but realized he was throwing good money after bad. The specific disabilities of the land that he identified were the negative impacts of wet weather upon the land; drainage problems; the severe impact of the accumulation of water in wet weather on the land; ponding; mowing was difficult due to the unlevel nature of the land; the land could not be slashed; the land was unworkable; he could not sell the land, the land was vacant and not being used and the land has no or limited use.
Mr Neofitou said that the Council had raised Hillview Road by 1.2 m which had cost him a lot of money and created a pond. He said that the new Council had admitted the mistake and there was some hope of a resolution although the issue remained unresolved to date.
The sales selected by Mr Eisenmenger have physical characteristics similar to the northern portion of the subject land. It follows that the application of those sales in the valuation of the subject takes into account the physical disadvantages of the northern part of the subject site. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that insufficient account has been taken of those disadvantages or disabilities. Accordingly, I do not consider that this aspect of the ground of appeal has been established.
The statutory land valuation is contrary to and inconsistent with the overall decrease in residential land values and the overall decrease in commercial land values in the Whitsunday Council Region.
The appellant referred to two documents issued by the Department of Environment and Resource Management which set out valuation information relevant to the Whitsunday Regional Council area. With respect to the valuation due to come into effect on 30 June 2011 (that is the valuation as at 1 October 2010) the document indicated that residential land values in the area had decreased overall by 1% and that commercial and rural land had reduced marginally. Mr Neofitou pointed out that the 2010 valuation of the subject was over double the original valuation and submitted that the significant increase was contrary to and inconsistent with the overall decrease in the Whitsunday area.
In respect of the valuation due to come into effect on 30 June 2012, (that is the valuation as at 1 October 2011), the document indicated that, overall, the values in the Whitsunday Regional Council area had reduced by 10.9% since the previous valuation. However the value of properties in Bowen had generally remained the same.
It is accepted that the valuation of the subject land increased by some 66% between the valuation as at 1 October 2009 and the valuation as at 1 October 2010. However as discussed above, that difference was explained by the changes to the legislative regime introduced by the LVA. The valuation as at 1 October 2009 determined the unimproved value of the subject land. The valuation as at 1 October 2010 and the subsequent valuations are site valuations, that is the valuations include the value of the site improvements, fill and levelling, on the subject land.
I do not consider that the appellant has proved this ground of appeal.
The statutory land valuations are not supported by property sales evidence. The statutory land valuations do not reflect the downturn in the real estate market. Some other properties in Bowen and elsewhere are assessed at half the cost per square metre than the appellant's property.
As discussed in some detail above, I consider that the land valuations are supported by the sales evidence, although that evidence is not strong. However as pointed out earlier, the appellant has brought no evidence of sales to show that the land valuations are incorrect, do not reflect the downturn in the real estate market and that other properties are assessed at half the cost of his property.
In the circumstances, I do not consider that these grounds are made out.
The appellant submitted that from the time of his purchase of the property in 1972, two separate assessments had issued for two parts of the property until the annual valuation of $150,000 issued on 4 March 2003. The appellant said that Council had informed him that the reason for the amalgamation was, to the effect, "to get more money out of you and nothing can be done to change it".
The appellant said that when the property was the subject of two separate assessments, the valuation of the vacant land facing Richmond Road was $32,000 as at 1 October 2000 and $35,500 as at 1 October 2002. Both those valuations included a parcel of 693 m² which was sold in February 2003. Before the valuation as at 1 October 2002 took effect, a new amalgamated valuation of the property at $150,000 was issued, on 4 March 2003. The appellant objected to that valuation and the decision on the objection (excluding the 693 m² sold) was:
Northern portion $90,000
Southern portion $20,000
Total $110,000
The appellant submitted that the 2003 amalgamation can not have made the land more valuable.It appears that the reason for the new valuation was the sale of the 693 m² parcel. It is impossible for me to deal with the submissions as they are not relevant to the valuations that are under appeal, and, in any event, there was no evidence as to how the 2002 valuations had been reached.
Finally, the appellant submitted that an appropriate value for his property was $444,540. It appears that that figure was calculated as the result of a conversation between the appellant and a real estate agent who estimated the value per square metre of the subject land. I can give no weight to that evidence. The real estate agent was not called and there is no evidence as to the basis on which the estimate was made.
Accordingly I consider that the appellant has failed to prove his grounds of appeal and the valuations must be affirmed.
ORDERS
1. Appeals LVA374-11, LVA283-12 and LVA184-13 are dismissed.
2.The site value of Lot 1 on Survey Plan 156155 in the County of Herbert, Parish of Pring is affirmed at Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($830,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011 and 1 October 2012.
CAC MacDonald
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
2