Taitz v Valuer General

[2007] NSWLEC 772

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Taitz & Anor -v- Valuer General [2007] NSWLEC 772

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Nicole Taitz & Anor

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30631 of 2007

CORAM:

Miller AC

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- Land Value

LEGISLATION CITED:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Valuation of Land Act 1916

DATES OF HEARING:

31/10/2007

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

22 November 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr J Taitz, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr J Maston, barrister
Instructed by Mr P Rankin, solicitor
of Valuer General

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Miller AC

22 November 2007

30631 of 2007 Taitz, Nicole and Anor v Valuer General

JUDGMENT

1 This is an Appeal by Mrs N Taitz (the Applicant), under Section 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 32 Towns Road, Vaucluse (the site).

BACKGROUND

2 The Land Value of the site, as assessed by the Respondent, as at 1 July 2006 (the base date) was $1,500,000.00.

3 The matter was listed as an on site 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 I dispose of the matter in accordance with Section 34 (3)(b)(ii) on the basis that a Hearing would proceed forthwith. As required under Section 34(3A) the reasons for my decision are set out hereunder.

THE SITE

4 This is located on the southern side of Towns Road, one house block to the east of Cecil Road. It is an irregular shaped lot which can be properly described as a trapezium. It has a particularly wide frontage to Towns Road of 24.24 metres, a depth on the eastern side of 41.81 metres, on the western side of 49.065 metres while the rear alignment is 8.535 metres. Land area is 708.2 m2. Improvements comprise a detached brick and tile residence with attached double garage located on the western side thereof. The land between Towns Road and the front of the existing building is level. At the rear of the building the land is approximately .6 metres below street frontage. From this point the land falls 2.6 metres, over a distance of approximately 20 metres, to the rear boundary. From the footpath in front of the site the Sydney Harbour Bridge is clearly visible with the harbour in the middle distance. From the rear of the site a commanding view is available, over steeply falling land at a lower level, in a generally southerly direction extending from Royal Sydney Golf Course to Bondi Beach and to the ocean beyond. Having regard to the topography of adjacent land there is negligible risk that this view will be lost although it may be encroached upon, to a minor extent, if the residence on the eastern side of the site was extended or demolished and a anew building constructed.

THE EVIDENCE

5 Mr Geoffrey Taitz, who acted as agent for the Applicant, is not a Registered Valuer. However, it became readily apparent that he had undertaken considerable research and investigation into sales of properties which may be considered comparable, in the valuation sense of that word (comparable sales). Mr Taitz contended that the Land Value should be $830,000.00 but at the end of the Hearing increased the contended Land Value to a range between $1,200,000.00 and $1,300,000.00.

6 Mr Derek Hill, Registered Valuer, gave expert evidence on behalf of the Respondent. He concluded that the Land Value under Section 6A of the Act, at the base date, should be $1,500,000.00.

7 Towns Road can be described as a connector road between New South Head Road and Old South Head Road, and, with the exception of Captain Pipers Road, which is, in part, a one way street, provides the only direct connection between the two major roads just mentioned north of Dover Road at Rose Bay. As such, it carries a heavier volume of traffic than most of the other streets in the general vicinity.

8 Mr Taitz described the site as being almost triangular in shape with a substantial part of the site unable to be developed, in the event that the existing improvements were demolished, due to the set back requirement of 7.2 metres from street frontage. Even so, the footprint available for a new building would be approximately 303 m2 which appears to be more than adequate. However, the provisions of Section 6A(2) of the Act apply requiring an assumption that the existing improvements may be continued.

9 The adjoining house on the western side, on the corner of Cecil Road, overlooks the site to a considerable degree while the elevated swimming pool on that property is in close proximity to the dividing fence. These features impact, adversely, upon the visual and aural privacy of the site.

10 The Applicant submitted 9 comparable sales and the Respondent 7; one sale, 104 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse was common to both parties. One of the sales submitted by the Applicant was discarded as the transaction took place between related parties. All of the 14 comparable sales, were inspected externally.

FINDINGS

11 Mr Taitz is not a Registered Valuer. He accepted the onus of proving his case as required under Section 40(2) of the Act and, notwithstanding my comments concerning his sales analysis, met that obligation.

12 Of the 14 comparable sales I have concluded that 7 can be regarded as particularly relevant and provide sufficient information to enable the Land Value to be determined.

13 The 7 comparable sales spanned the period from December 2004 to June 2006. However, it was agreed in evidence that the market was static throughout and no adjustment between the date of sale and the base date needed to be made.

14 The key features of each selected comparable sale is set out hereunder with my comments and deduced land value.

No	Address	Land Area m2	Sale Price & Contract Date	Comments	Deduced land value & land value $m2
1.	104 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse	575.4	$1,150,000 13/12/2004	Treated as a site sale, Existing improvements demolished - cost estimate $10,000. New two storey home erected on the land. Rectangular shaped parcel, slightly above street level rising to the rear. Located close to Liquna Street. Ocean view glimpses available. Located on a busy bus route road. Units opposite with some overlooking of the site at the rear.	$1,160,000 $2,016 m2
2.	27 Captain Pipers Road, Vaucluse	537.5	$1,540,000 15/6/2005	Allowance made of $80,000 for improvements existing at time of sale which were partially demolished with an enlarged residence nearing completion at time of inspection. Rectangular parcel which falls to the rear providing horizon ocean views. Captain Pipers Road is a narrow one way street, adjacent to the property, with a kerb car parking space at a premium.	$1,460,000 $2,715 m2
3.	35 Towns Road, Vaucluse	505.9	$2,020,000 13/6/2006	Located on the opposite side of Towns Road, further to the west and close to the intersection of Black Street. Rectangular parcel which rises to the rear. Improvements comprise a somewhat dated two storey brick residence with car port. Building area assessed at 140 m2. Allowing $2,500 m2 indicates value of the improvements to be $350,000. Harbour views towards the Harbour Bridge available particularly from the first floor.	$1,670,000 $3,301 m2
4.	5 Lola Road, Dover Heights	392	$1,550,000 15/11/2005	Taken as a site sale. Improvements existing at time of sale demolished, allowance for cost $10,000. Rectangular level parcel located in a quiet street with little traffic and, in the main comparatively new homes of a high standard. Ocean views would be available from the first floor of the new two storey residence but street views only available at ground level.	$1,560,000 $3,980 m2
5.	11 Captain Pipers Road, Vaucluse	430	$1,210,000 April 2006	Improvements comprised a semi detached cottage which, at the time of inspection had been partially demolished leaving only one room on either side of the side entrance porch. Added value of improvements $80,000.00. The northern part of the adjacent semi detached structure has been developed into a two storey home which work could have been completed at the time of sale. Horizon ocean views available at the rear similar to sale number 2. land falls slightly to the rear with that alignment 56% of street frontage.	$1,130,000 $2,628 m2
6.	22 Towns Road, Vaucluse	475	$1,765,000 June 2006	To the east and down hill from the site in an inferior position. Rectangular parcel providing views at the rear similar to the site. Improvements at time of sale comprised a cement rendered two storey brick residence with garage at street frontage. Improvements valued at $375,000 based on building area of 150 m2 at $2,500 m2.	$1,260,000 $1,498 m2
7.	86 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse	841	$1,350,000 November 2005	Located opposite the Diamond Bay Bowling Club with horizon ocean views available in a south easterly direction. Property sold with a Development Approval which involved demolition of the existing residence which has not yet occurred. Busy bus route road location. Large frontage. Land rises to rear over prominent rock shelves. Inferior location. Deduced Land Value takes into account demolition cost of the existing residence and the added value of the Development Approval.	$1,260,000 $1,498 m2

15 It was agreed in evidence that the zoning of each sale was the same as the site.

16 I do not accept Mr Taitz's allowances for the value of improvements in respect of sales 5, 6 and 7 which sales were submitted by him. Nor do I accept his approach to the determination of the Land Value of the site by comparing his deduced land value and the Land Value, assigned by the Respondent, at the base date, in respect of those three properties.

17 Sales 1 to 4 were submitted by Mr Hill. He analysed, (after making deductions for the value of improvements), each sale on the basis of dollars m2 of site area and to that figure made individual adjustments, expressed in percentage terms for size, shape, topography, location and views to relate the deduced land value to the site. In the absence of sales evidence analysing these features, the adjustments made must be regarded as somewhat arbitrary in nature bearing in mind that they reflect his general experience as a valuer.

18 For this reason I consider it is appropriate, as a check, to compare the deduced land values (and not the deduced land value dollars m2) from the 7 sales with the site and in so doing make an allowance, in totality, for size, shape, topography, location and views.

19 The 2 sales in Towns Road (sales number 3 and 6) are important as both properties suffer the same passing traffic condition as does the site. Sale number 3 is superior while sale number 6 is inferior to the site and the deduced land values reflect those differences.

20 Sales 1 and 7 suffer from being located on a busy road which carries bus traffic and must be regarded as inferior to the site even though sale 7 is 133 m2 larger than the site.

21 Sale number 5 suffers from the fact the improvements comprise a semi detached building. While located in a superior street the deduced land value is closely aligned to the deduced land value of sales 1 and 7 reflective of the overall inferiority of this property.

22 In my opinion the deduced land value for sale number 2 is correctly placed between the deduced land values for sales 3 and 6. Sale 4 is slightly superior to sale 2.

23 My consideration of the selected comparable sales, in the manner described, indicates that the Land Value of the site contended by Mr Hill is more than justified.

24 The orders of the Court -

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The Land Value of $1,500,000 as at the base date of 1 July 2006 for the property 32 Towns Road, Vaucluse is confirmed.
(iii) No Order is made as to costs.
(iv) The exhibits are returned.

___________________

E Craig Miller
Commissioner of the Court
ljr