SPANJICH and VALUER GENERAL - [2009] WASAT 204

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION: SPANJICH and VALUER GENERAL [2009] WASAT 204

MEMBER: MR P McNAB (MEMBER)
MR D LIGGINS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2009

FILE NO/S: DR 406 of 2008

BETWEEN: IVAN SPANJICH
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Unimproved value - Two vacant 'Special Rural' lots in close proximity - Lots subject to poultry farm buffer zone - Related caveats affecting land - Potential Aboriginal heritage and flood issues - Tentative potential zoning changes - Whether unimproved value affected by any of these restrictions - Significant variation of expert opinion - Tribunal varying valuation for one of the lots because of detriment factors - Application for costs refused

Legislation:

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Shire of Kalamunda Local Planning Scheme No 3
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87(1)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 70A
Valuation of Land 1978 (WA), s 33

Result:

Review successful in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J Steenhof
Respondent: Mr M Palandri (Representative)

Solicitors:

Applicant: Cornerstone Legal
Respondent: Valuer General's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Big Country Australia Pty Ltd and Shire of SerpentineJarrahdale [2006] WASAT 10
Robertson and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 213
Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd and ValuerGeneral [2006] WASAT 215
Weld Club Trustees and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 256
Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

This was a review of the valuation, as at 1 August 2006, of the unimproved value of two lots of 'Special Rural' land in the Shire of Kalamunda. The two valuers in the case held significant differences of opinion as to the value of each of the lots.
Central to their differences of opinion were the extent of the detriment arising out of a poultry buffer zone connected to a broiler farm situated on an adjoining property; the associated caveats registered by the Shire on both titles; and a flood plain and an associated Aboriginal heritage constraint applicable to Yule Brook, a waterway extending across the rear of both properties.
The Tribunal agreed that those factors materially affected the smaller of the lots but that the Valuer General's valuation of the larger lot was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The Tribunal therefore varied the unimproved value of the smaller of the lots but otherwise affirmed the decision under review.
A costs application was also sought on the basis that the Valuer General had acted unnecessarily 'defensively' and had neglected to adequately factor in the constraints on the land referred to. The application was refused on the basis that the applicant had only been partly successful in its application for review. In any event, there was in the Tribunal's view nothing exceptional or unreasonable in regard to the general conduct of the respondent and its officers warranting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SPANJICH and VALUER GENERAL

Details

AGLC: Spanjich and Valuer General [2009] WASAT 204
Case: [2009] WASAT 204
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spanjich and Valuer General involved two vacant lots designated as 'Special Rural', situated near a poultry farm buffer zone. The dispute arose regarding the unimproved value of these lots, which were subject to caveats relating to potential Aboriginal heritage and flood issues, as well as tentative zoning changes. The Tribunal had previously varied the valuation for one of the lots due to certain detriment factors. The court was required to determine whether the unimproved value of the land was affected by these restrictions and whether the Tribunal's decision was correct. The court also needed to consider the significant variation in expert opinions on the matter and whether the applicant was entitled to costs.

The court considered the evidence and expert opinions presented, particularly focusing on the impact of the poultry farm buffer zone, the caveats, and the potential zoning changes on the unimproved value of the land. The court acknowledged the variation in expert opinions but found that the Tribunal's decision to vary the valuation for one of the lots was supported by the evidence. The court held that the restrictions and potential issues did affect the unimproved value of the land and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable. The court also dismissed the application for costs, finding that the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the Valuer General, affirming the Tribunal's decision to vary the valuation for one of the lots due to the restrictions and potential issues affecting the unimproved value of the land. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and that the applicant was not entitled to costs. This case highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining the unimproved value of land and the role of expert opinions in such assessments.

Orders