Sim v Valuer General

[2006] NSWLEC 119

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Sim v Valuer General [2006] NSWLEC 119

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Geoff Sim

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30442 of 2005

CORAM:

Brown C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- land value

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

DATES OF HEARING:

13/02/2006

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

02/14/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G. Sim, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Bartley, barrister
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitors Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Brown C

14 February 2006

30442 of 2005 Geoff Sim v Valuer General

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against the unimproved land value assessed by the Valuer General for Lot 56 in DP 4264 being No. 11 James Road, Mount Kembla.

2 The site is a long narrow block with a frontage to James Road of 83.13 m and a depth between 15.01 and 14.905 m giving a total site area of 1239 sq m. The land falls sharply from its James Road street frontage for approximately 2 to 3 m and then has a gentle fall from west to east. The land also has a moderate cross fall from south to north.

3 The southern half of the property is bisected by a tributary of American Creek that cuts through the property from approximately the south western corner to half way along the eastern side boundary of the property. This southern section of the land is not suitable for the construction of any buildings as it is predominately open creek and steep creek banks. The northern half of the subject property comprises the actual building site, which has a gentle to moderate fall from west to east.

4 There is an approximately 25-year-old two storey western red cedar and colorbond roofed dwelling erected on this portion of the land. The dwelling is built approximately 2 to 3 m from the eastern boundary of the property. Approximately 10 m to the north of the dwelling is a concrete stormwater pipe which emanates from beneath James Road and empties on to the subject property causing a flow of stormwater to cross the subject property from west to east to the creek bed. This stormwater channel does not impact on the dwelling.

5 The land value of the site as assessed by the Valuer General for rating purposes, at base date 1 July 2004, was $130,000. Mr Murray Allen, a certified practising valuer, provided evidence for the Valuer General and determined the land value of the site at $210,000. Notwithstanding the difference between the Valuer General’s land value, the Respondent did not press Mr Allen’s valuation but maintained that the Valuer General’s valuation of $130,000 be endorsed by the Court. Mr Allen’s valuation was made for the purpose of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

6 Mr Sim was self represented and provided no valuation evidence but cross-examined Mr Allen on his evidence. He proposed a land value of $90,000.

7 Mr Allen provided four comparable sales in the Mount Kembla village. The sales were all improved sales. The sites in Mount Kembla village were inspected. These sites and the subject site are all zoned 7(c) Environmental Protection Residential Zone under Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990. Eight vacant land sales were also provided in other nearby areas. Four of the vacant land sales were described as steep or defective to compare with the impact of the creek on the subject site.

8 I accept that the four Mount Kembla sites at 232 Cordeaux Road, 29 Avon Parade, 6 Benjamin Road and 1 Cudgee Crescent, provide the most comparable sales for the purposes of a valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1916. All but No. 232 Cordeaux Road are considerably smaller than the subject site however Mr Allen has made no adjustment for size as these properties have similar areas suitable for the construction of a dwelling as the subject site. Other adjustments were made and were explained by Mr Allen on the view of the sites.

9 Mr Sim provided a written submission that outlined the basis of his objection to the Valuer General’s valuation. The issues raised in support of his proposed land value are:

• additional flood erosion with up to 15 per cent of the land lost already,
• the discharging of stormwater from council land into the drainage channel on his property in two separate locations,
• the likelihood of further rain and further erosion with the potential to threaten the stability of the existing dwelling.

10 In this regard Mr Sim provided a geotechnical assessment indicating that:

“significant stabilisation works will be required to reinforce the banks of the watercourse in order to protect Mr Sim’s land and ultimately the dwelling. These works must be progressed as a matter of urgency”.

11 In considering the evidence, Mr Sim did not seriously challenge the sales selected by Mr Allen or his adjustments but only raised concern that none of the sites resemble the particular characteristics of his property and particularly the inclusion of a stormwater drain and potential scouring in times of heavy rain.

12 I accept the explanation given by Mr Allen that sales in Mount Kembla were limited and the four comparable sales in the area, with adjustments, are appropriate for the purposes of this appeal. On this basis I accept Mr Allen’s valuation of the land at $210,000 and consequently the submission of the Respondent that it will accept the assessed land value of $130,000.

13 The remaining matter to address is whether any further adjustment should be made for the likelihood of further scouring brought about by the stormwater flows in the drainage channel on the subject site. Mr Allen states that he had taken the northern and southern watercourses into consideration in his evaluation. Three of the comparable sales are similar to the area, not affected by the northern and southern watercourses. As no adjustment were made for size on these sites, this approach essentially gives no consideration to any area outside the area used for the dwelling and its curtilage. For this reason I accept no further adjustments are appropriate.

14 In coming to this conclusion I accept that the potential for further erosion of the site exists, however as explained by Mr Sim, this erosion will essentially take place from the adjoining property due to the alignment of the watercourse. While Mr Sim’s attempts to address this potential problem have not been successful, I am not convinced that these circumstances relate directly to the purpose of this appeal and that any further adjustment can be made for any potential erosion from storm events. Importantly, no details were provided on any remediation works required or any hydrological data on the watercourse. The likely need for works on the adjoining property to address any further scouring further complicates the assessment of any adjustments to the value of the subject site.

15 The orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The land value for No. 11 James Road, Mount Kembla, as at 1 July 2004 is confirmed at $130,000.
3. The exhibits are returned.

___________________

G T Brown
Commissioner of the Court