Simpson, Christine & Anor v Valuer General

[2007] NSWLEC 498

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Simpson, Christine & Anor v Valuer General [2007] NSWLEC 498

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Simpson, Christine & Anor

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30344 of 2007

CORAM:

Miller AC

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :-

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916
Land and Environment Court Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING:

20/07/2007

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

24 August 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr S. Simpson, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Ms A. Pearman, barrister
Instructed by Mr P. Rankins
of Crown Solicitors Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Miller AC

24 August 2007

30344 of 2007 Simpson, Christine & Anor v Valuer General

JUDGMENT

1 This is an Appeal by Mrs C Simpson (the Applicant) against the Land Value assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent), in respect of Lot 23 DP 975684 known as 7 Claude Avenue, Cremorne (the site).

The background

2 The Land Value of the site, as assessed by the Respondent as at 1 July 2004 was $939,000.00. The Applicant contended that the Land Value should have been $600,000.00.

3 The matter was listed as a Preliminary Conference under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. At the commencement of the Conference the parties requested that I dispose of the matter in accordance with Section 34 (3)(b)(ii) on the basis that a hearing would proceed forthwith. For this reason I did not inspect the site or any of the comparable sales referred to in the evidence. As required in Section 34 (3A) the reasons for my decision are set out hereunder.

The site

4 This is located on the eastern side of Claude Avenue, has an area of 445.91 m2 being a level rectangular parcel slightly below street level. Claude Avenue is described as “an average street with minimal through traffic”. Surrounding development includes similar free standing dwellings as erected on the site. Sydney Harbour water glimpses and a City outlook is afforded from the footpath in front of the site. Improvements comprised a detached brick and tile dwelling.

The evidence

5 The Respondent provided a Statement of Basic Facts (which restates information contained in a document headed “Valuation Review” prepared by Mark Barden, Registered Valuer No. 2469), includes a total of six comparable sales and concludes that the Land Value under Section 6 A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, at the relevant date, should be $939,000.00.

6 All comparable sales used by Mr Barden were of improved residential properties from which he deduced a Land Value. The comparable sales are set out hereunder.

7 Sale Number 1 adjoins the site; its dimensions, area and the nature of the land itself can be taken as identical to the site. It must be regarded as the critical sale. It occurred some six and a half months prior to the relevant date. Mr Simpson advised that at the time of sale the residence had been renovated internally and painted externally. A swimming pool was constructed in the rear yard. It was agreed that the real estate market, generally, peaked in late 2003 and declined during 2004. Accordingly, the Land Value of the site should be less than the $1,100,000.00 deduced by Mr Barden in his analysis of this sale.

8 Sales 3 and 4 are of two parcels of land each with an area some 115 m2 less than the site described as “inferior land and location”. I note that both sales occurred on 4 September 2004 some 2 months after the relevant date when the residential market had declined.

9 Mr Simpson maintained that sales 5 and 6 were located in the suburb of Mosman and not Cremorne; it appears that Spoffoth Street divides these two suburbs. Mr Simpson’s point was that values are higher in Mosman compared with Cremorne. Land areas are almost the same as the site with the sales occurring in September and November 2004.

10 Sale number 2 I find to be of little assistance in arriving at the Land Value of the site as it is almost double the area of same making comparison subjective.

11 Mr Simpson based his contended Land Value of $600,000.00 on a comparison between the Respondent’s 1 July 2003 Land Value of $639,000.00 and movement in Cremorne median prices as shown in part of report produced by Australian Property Monitor for 2002/2005.

Findings

12 Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 states that “On an appeal the Appellant has the onus of proving the Appellant’s case”. Mr Simpson’s evidence did not provide a reliable basis to challenge the conclusions reached by Mr Barden to suggest that the Land Value assigned to the site should be overturned.

13 As I have already noted, I consider that sale number 1 is the critical sale which needs some adjustment to the deduced Land Value to reflect the downturn in the market in the six and a half month period following the date of sale. The reduction from $1,100,000.00 to the Land Value assigned of $939,000.00 is 14.6% which, in my opinion, more than adequately reflects the change in the market.

14 Mr Barden’s analysis of sales 3, 4, 5 and 6 confirms, in my opinion, the Land Value assigned to the site.

15 The Orders of the Court:-

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Land Value of $939,000.00 as at the Base Date of 1 July 2004 for the property Lot 23 DP 975684 known as 7 Claude Avenue, Cremorne is confirmed.

3. No Order is made as to costs.

4. The Exhibits are returned.

___________________

E Craig Miller
Acting Commissioner of the Court
ljr