Panagiotonakos v Valuer General

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Panagiotonakos v Valuer General [2011] NSWLEC 1254

Hearing dates:

28 and 29 March 2011

Decision date:

05 July 2011

Jurisdiction:

Class 3

Before:

Parker AC

Decision:

(1)The Appeal is dismissed.

(2)The Land Value for the property known as 69 Livingstone Road, Petersham as at the base date of 1 July 2009 is $344,000.

(3)No Order is made as to costs.

(4)The exhibits are returned.

Catchwords:

Valuation of Land

Legislation Cited:

Valuation of Land Act 1916
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001

Cases Cited:

Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 225
Graham Trilby Pty Limited v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 217
Jessica Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1375
Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited v Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 4

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Mr C Panagiotonakos (Applicant)

Valuer General (Respondent)

Representation:

Mr C Panagiotonakos (Applicant in person)

Ms M Carpenter, Barrister
Instructed by Mr J McMahon,
Solicitor for Valuer General (Respondent)

File Number(s):

30878 of 2010

Judgment

1. This is an appeal by Mr C Panagiotonakos (the Applicant), under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act), against the Land Value assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent) in respect of the property known as 69 Livingstone Road, Petersham (the subject property).

Background

1. The Applicant was self-represented.

1. The Respondent was represented by Ms M Carpenter, Barrister, instructed by Mr J McMahon, Solicitor for the Respondent.

1. The Land Value of the subject property at 1 July 2009 (the Base Date) was assessed by the Applicant at $315,000 and by the Respondent at $344,000.

1. The matter was the subject of a conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 but the parties were unable to reach agreement.

1. The Respondent claimed that the Applicant's appeal had not been made within the sixty day period specified in s 38(1) of the Act and noted that the Court may allow an appeal outside this period under s 38(2) of the Act.

1. Accordingly, under s 38(2) of the Act, the appeal is allowed.

1. The appeal was the subject of an on site inspection on 28 March 2011, followed by a hearing in Court on 28 and 29 March 2011.

1. Section 40(2) of the Act states:

"On an appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant's case."

The subject property

1. The subject property is located in Petersham, an inner western suburb being approximately seven kilometres west of the Sydney CBD in an area of residential development.

1. The subject property has a frontage to Livingstone Road, a high volume four lane road subject to clearway conditions, resulting in high levels of traffic noise and vibration.

1. The subject property is subject to vibration, aircraft pollution and aircraft noise, being situated approximately upon the 25 decibel contour of the Marrickville Council Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) map, which was tendered as evidence by the Respondent.