Newman v Valuer General

[2004] NSWLEC 474

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Newman v Valuer General [2004] NSWLEC 474

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Philip Moreton Newman

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30459 of 2004

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Appeal :- against the land value of 9 Denison Street
Manly

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

24/08/04

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

08/24/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
No appearance

RESPONDENT
Ms T Jowett, barrister
Ms A Gray, solicitor
Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

24 August 2004

30459 of 2004 Paul Moreton Newman –v- Valuer General

The following decision and orders were handed down extempore on 24 August 2004. Some minor alterations and additions have been made in the interests of clarity and completeness.


JUDGMENT

1 This appeal is against the disallowance of an objection that the land value of $302,000.00 at 9 Denison Street, Manly is too high.

2 The appeal was listed for hearing today, 24 August 2004 and commenced with a view. However there was no appearance by the applicant. Notwithstanding this, the subject property was inspected with the agreement of the tenant Ms Shakespeare. But she was unable to provide any further assistance.

3 However, a detailed valuation report was presented in exhibit 1, by Mr Mark Bishenden, registered Valuer No. 3771 and this was considered. The report was prepared in accordance with the provisions of s 6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act as shown in Annexure 1.0. This report analysed three other comparable sales being No. 15, No. 17 and No. 20 Denison Street, Manly. These properties were also inspected.

4 Agreement was granted for the matter to be completed by way of an On-site hearing (OSH) taking into consideration the non-attendance of Mr Newman. However, detailed correspondence submitted by Mr Newman was considered i.e. Exhibit 3 the Applicant’s Bundle of documents. These objections seem to fall into two main categories:

i) That the method of valuation should take into account the rent on a property in terms of, capitalisation values, and

ii) That some allowance should be made in respect to the heritage significance of the property i.e. a possible reduction of 15%.

5 However, Mr Bishenden said that the method of the capitalisation value method was not appropriate for residential properties where there are direct comparable sales. From my observations on the view, I accept this approach given the proximity of these other sales and their similarities to the subject land.

6 With respect to the heritage significance, I have been referred to the various zoning controls and note that whilst this property is in a conservation area it is not a listed item and I am satisfied that the detailed report by Mr Bishenden has taken this aspect into account.

7 The subject property is described as part lot 1 in DP 965161 and it has total area of 136.7 sq m. The zoning is Residential 2 in Manly LEP 1988 and the property has single storey brick detached dwelling erected on it.

8 In his analysis of the three comparable sales, Mr Bishenden included the following summary table (Annexure 3), to his report.

9 From this comparative analysis, Mr Bishenden’s conclusion is that the land value at the 1 July 2002 should be $440,000.00. Having considered the available evidence presented to the Court I am satisfied that Mr Bishenden’s approach has been in accordance with accepted valuation practice and there is no alternative substantive evidence submitted by the applicant in this case. Accordingly I accept there is a case that the land value could be in the order of $440,000.00. However, in the ultimate I am satisfied that the Applicant has not made any case that the land value of $302,000.00, as at the base date of 1 July 2002 is too high.

10 Further to this, I note that the Respondent has made an application for costs incurred in this appeal. Accordingly the parties are directed to lodge all written submissions in respect of costs within six weeks, i.e. by the 5 October 2004, with the parties having liberty to apply with three days notice.

11 Accordingly, the Court orders are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The land value of $302,000.00 at the base rate of 1 July 2002 is confirmed.

_________________________
R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
Ljr/rjs