Watson and Anor and Valuer*General

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION:   WATSON & ANOR and VALUER­GENERAL [2006] WASAT 224

MEMBER:   MR P McNAB (MEMBER)

HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED          :   7 AUGUST 2006

FILE NO/S:   DR 368 of 2005

BETWEEN:   DONALD WATSON

TATIANA WATSON
Applicants

AND

VALUER­GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land – Gross rental value – Retirement village – Land held as undivided share – Restrictions on sub-lease and disposal – Applicant did not call expert evidence – Hypothetical landlord and tenant to be assumed – Allowance for communal facilities – Use of term hereditament – Assumptions and approach of expert valuer – Application dismissed – Words and phrases "hereditament"

Legislation:

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1)

Result:

The application for review is dismissed
The decision under review is affirmed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants:     Self­represented

Respondent:     Mr M Palandri (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicants:     Self-represented

Respondent:     Valuer General's Office

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

Charles Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer General (2000) 25 SR(WA) 297

Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294

JB Investments Pty Ltd and Valuer‑General [2006] WASAT 55

Port of London Authority v Orsett Union Assessment Committee[1920] AC 273

Rowles and Valuer‑General [2005] WASAT 325

Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: 

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1. This application for review concerned the proper approach to the valuation of a home in a retirement village.

2. The property was individually valued and the total valuations were aggregated to achieve a total Gross Rental Value.

3. The applicants, Mr and Mrs Watson, objected to the valuation, firstly because it failed to take into account the restrictions on sub‑leasing and the like imposed upon owners in the village, and secondly because the valuer included an amount representing the amenity of certain exclusive facilities, such as a swimming pool for which they paid a monthly fee.  The applicants also argued that the Valuer‑General had classified their home as an "hereditament".  They submitted that, their interest in land was not capable of such a classification.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the law and practice of valuation in this area and concluded that each of the grounds of objection was misconceived.

5. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Introduction

1. This is the review of a determination of the Gross Rental Value (GRV) of certain land, namely a double storey home in a retirement village in the north of Perth.

2. The applicants are Mr and Mrs Watson (the applicants) who made objections to the Valuer‑General.  These objections were referred to the Tribunal in 2005 under the mechanism provided for by the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (VL Act).

Subject land

1. The subject land is Lot 1300 on Diagram 10061, located at 19 The Rise, Mindarie, in the City of Wanneroo (subject land).

2. The subject land is one of 70 units in the "Harbourside Retirement Village".  The subject property was, at the relevant…