Simou v Valuer-General

[2004] NSWLEC 740

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Simou v Valuer-General [2004] NSWLEC 740

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Cyriacos Simou

RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30943 of 2004

CORAM:

Nott C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- Not appropriate to determine the "land value" by reference to average land values in the local government area - scarcity premium - no discernible difference between land value deduced from improved land sales as distinct from vacant land sales

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

03/11/2004

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

11/03/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Cyriacos Simou, in person

RESPONDENT
Ms T Jowett, barrister
SOLICITOR
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

3 November 2004

30943 of 2004 Cyriacos Simou v Valuer-General

JUDGMENT


1 This is an appeal under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 in respect of the land value of the property at 140 The Boulevarde, Dulwich Hill, as at the base date 1 July 2003. The relevant date of valuation was 27 October 2003.

2 The Valuer-General determined the land value as at the base date to be $370,000. The applicant has appealed against that value claiming it is too high. The basis upon which he claims that it is too high is that statistics supplied to the Sydney Morning Herald indicate that for various local government areas there were certain average land values provided.

3 The statistics from which these values were derived were not put before the Court. What is before the Court in respect of the Marrickville Local Government Area is that for the year 2003 the average land value was $216,886; and for the year 2004, $268,939.

4 During the hearing I indicated to the applicant that it would not be an appropriate way to determine the land value of his property by reference to average land values throughout a local government area.

5 I have before me other evidence presented on behalf of the Valuer-General from a qualified valuer, Mr E Ferdinandz . In his statement of evidence (exhibit 1) he has considered in detail, from all the sales that he looked at, ten sales the particulars of which are set out in the report.

6 Having regard to those sales, it is my opinion that if the subject land were vacant at the base date it would command a sale price well in excess of $370,000, but I am not necessarily convinced that it would be as high as indicated by Mr Ferdinands of $570,000.

7 I am satisfied on the evidence that the land value determined by the Valuer-General of $370,000 is not too high for the subject land. It would be an error of law for me to make a determination that the land value should be less by reference to average land values for the local government area when I have before me specific sales evidence of both improved properties and unimproved properties that indicate a land value for the applicant’s land in excess of $370,000.

8 I am satisfied that Mr Ferdinands has in general made appropriate adjustments to the sales that he looked at.

9 An important adjustment that has to be made in respect of sales that occurred some months or even a year or so before the base date is that those contract prices have to be adjusted for the movement in the market. Property prices in the inner city area, according to the evidence, were on the increase for a number of years prior to the base date and at least for the year after the base date. Not only is there the general opinion as to there being an increase, but there is before me specific sales and re-sales of the same properties that also confirm that there has been a substantial increase in the value of property for the immediately preceding years to the base date.

10 Mr Ferdinands, instead of adopting a perhaps higher percentage increase per month, which could be indicated by the evidence, adopted a conservative one per cent per month.

11 I have had the benefit of looking at the subject property and its location and at the location and surroundings of other properties that both parties wished me to look at. There were several properties that I did not look at but both parties agreed that I need not look at those properties. Nevertheless, I have taken into account the written material presented by Mr Ferdinands concerning those properties.

12 I have already indicated my opinion as to the land value not being too high.

13 I wish to make a comment specifically in respect of sale 3, which is of 13 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill. As I indicated, the contract price for that property has to be increased because the sale occurred before the base date. Increasing the contract price of $485,000 to take account of the movement in the market, the value of that property at the base date would be $524,000. There should, however, be an adjustment to that price because that property is wider than the subject property and there would have to be a downward adjustment of the $524,000. But taking into account that adjustment and the other differences between that property and the applicant’s property I am still satisfied that, looking only at that sale, that sale would indicate that this applicant’s property would have a land value in excess of $370,000.

14 Likewise, the other properties indicate to me that the land value determined by the Valuer-General of $370,000 is not too high.

15 Mr Ferdinands looked at the question of whether there was a scarcity premium, insofar as there might be a different value indicated for the applicant’s land by using unimproved or vacant property as distinct from improved properties. He formed the opinion that there was no difference to be discerned in a land value to be inferred for the subject property whether it be from the improved sales or the vacant land sales and on the facts of this case I concur with that.

16 In the circumstances therefore, notwithstanding the difficulties that the applicant has to face about the payment of land tax, which is a common burden many people have to bear but one which the Court does not have power to relieve, I am of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed because the land value determined by the Valuer-General is not too high.

17 Accordingly, the orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal be dismissed;
2. The exhibits, other than exhibits 1 and A, may be returned.

____________________
A J Nott
Commissioner of the Court
Ljr/rjs