Woodley v Valuer General

[2005] NSWLEC 693

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Woodley v Valuer General [2005] NSWLEC 693

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Graeme E & Kathleen D Woodley

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30413 of 2005

CORAM:

Bly C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- View - access - privacy

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916

DATES OF HEARING:

13,15 and 16/12/2005

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

12/16/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

12/16/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G Woodley, self represented

RESPONDENT
Ms A Pearman, barrister
Instructed by Ms C Valentine, solicitor
Of: Crown Solicitors

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

16 December 2005

30413 of 2005 Graeme E & Kathleen D Woodley v
Valuer General

JUDGMENT

This decision was given extemporaneously.

It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

1 This is an appeal against the unimproved land value assessed by the Valuer General for lot 1 DP245023 being land in the village of Sandon River on the North Coast of New South Wales. At base date 1 July 2004 the land value was assessed as $450,000.

2 The property has an area of 663.9 sq m, it is fairly level and developed with a weatherboard dwelling. Electricity and telephone services are available, television reception is also available. Water and sewerage services are not available. There is no patrolled surf beach nearby; there is a pier for boats and the locality is plainly desirable for fishing and boating.

3 The property has expansive views of the river mouth, island and ocean beyond the Crown land that separates the site from the river’s edge. Access to the beach and the river is available across this Crown land and down an eroded cliff face of heights varying between 1 and 3 m.

4 Sandon River Village is located approximately 60 km from Grafton and roughly halfway between Brooms Head and Minnie Water. Access from Brooms Head to Sandon River Village is via a gravel road to a camping ground on the north side of the river. A boat is then required to cross the river at this point where it is about 50 m wide and subject to rip tides.

5 Access to the village from Minnie Water is available via two alternate routes. The first involves travel along about 11 km of beach followed by about two km of bush track. This route is only available one hour either side of low tide. The second alternative involves about 13 km of mainly sandy track through the national park with locked gates. Both routes require four wheel drive vehicles.

6 The site is included in the village zone under Ulmarra Local Environmental Plan 1992 wherein dwelling houses are permissible with development consent. Council also has an interim height control policy setting a maximum building height of 9 m. Other council controls effectively limit the density of development that can occur on sites in the village because of the need for on site sewage treatment and effluent disposal.

7 Mrs B Chapman, a certified practising valuer, provided evidence for the respondent that supports a land value of $525,000, although her analysis of the property sales that I conclude are the most comparable, would seem to support a figure of almost $550,000. In turn this valuation supports the advised land value of $450,000. Her analysis and valuation was made pursuant to s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

8 Mr G Woodley, one of the two applicants, appeared and provided evidence in support of his contention that the land value should be $280,000.

9 Mrs Chapman provided evidence of property sales in Brooms Head, Wooli, Minnie Water, Angourie, Yamba and Palmers Island. Mr Woodley provided evidence of property sales in Wooli, Brooms Head, Minnie Water, Angourie and Sandon River. All of these sales involve developed properties and allowances were made for the value of the improvements thereon.

10 At the request of the Court Mrs Chapman and Mr Woodley nominated three sales which they considered were the most comparable to the subject property. Mr Woodley nominated two properties in Grevillea Parade Minnie Water and one in the Sandon River Village. Mrs Chapman nominated three properties in Ocean Road Brooms Head.

11 Having inspected all six of these properties, I have reached the conclusion that the two most comparable sales that will assist me in determining an appropriate land value for the subject property, are the properties at 21 and 31 Ocean Road, Brooms Head.

12 I do not accept that the sale of the property at Lot 16, Sandon River, is appropriate, this being a sale between family members. I have reached this conclusion notwithstanding the valuation prepared by a registered valuer that formed the basis for the $400,000 sale price. The valuation for this property states that it was done for the purposes of stamp duty. Of particular concern in relation to this valuation is the fact that the same valuer valued lot 6 in Sandon River at $500,000 about seven months later despite this lot being clearly inferior, especially in terms of views. I inspected both of these lots.

13 I also do not accept that the sales of properties in Grevillea Parade, Minnie Water, and the sale of 57 Ocean Road, Brooms Head, are appropriately comparable. These properties have significantly elevated positions by comparison with the subject property. The Grevillea Parade properties can also be distinguished having a significantly different character, not only in terms of the buildings erected thereon but also the surrounding area. Access to the beach is also significantly different for these three properties.

14 This leaves the two close by properties at 21 and 31 Ocean Road Brooms Head as the most comparable sales despite the differences between these properties and the subject land. These differences are capable of being taken into account and this has been done by both Mrs Chapman and also Mr Woodley in Exhibits 2 and C. I have considered the analysis of these properties in both of the exhibits and taking into account the expertise of Mrs Chapman, I accept her adjustment for sale price to base date for the reasons she gave. I also accept her adjustments for the added value of improvements having seen both of the buildings involved.

15 Mr Woodley mainly disagreed with Mrs Chapman’s adjustments to the sales on the basis of a number of disadvantages suffered by the subject site by comparison, including access to the site from nearby towns and villages, building costs associated with site access, the quality of available views, privacy and the availability of services and facilities within Sandon River.

16 In relation to access to the site I accept that the adjustment made by Mrs Chapman, and as initially accepted by Mr Woodley, as being correct. Whilst the village is difficult to access this produces benefits that should not be disregarded. In particular, for the most part, the village comprises a peaceful locality.

17 Whilst Mrs Chapman included increased building costs in the context of accessibility, I accept that greater weight should have been given to this factor. Additional weight could also have been given to the consequences of the difficult access in relation to shopping facilities. I accept that the views from the Ocean Road properties are better than those available to the subject property as allowed for by Mrs Chapman taking into account that those properties are closer to the water’s edge. It is also possible, but in my view there is not a high likelihood of this, that the public reserve in front of the subject property could be developed with public facilities associated with the reserve. Overall an increased allowance would be appropriate. The matter of the comparable privacy of the Brooms Head properties and the subject property is, in my opinion, little different and should not attract any adjustment.

18 Clearly the services and facilities available in Sandon River are significantly less than those available in other nearby villages, including Brooms Head. Of particular significance is the absence of a garbage service and greater weight should have been given to this. Conversely the close proximity of the Ocean Road properties to the water’s edge and the risk of erosion/landslip is significantly greater than would be the case for the subject property and a greater allowance than indicated by Mrs Chapman is warranted.

19 Finally, it seems to me, taking into account the fact that properties in Sandon River seldom come on to the open market, the scarcity allowance adopted by Mrs Chapman should have been increased. Despite its disadvantages I accept her contention that this is a highly desirable location having benefits of isolation, peace and quiet.

20 Overall I am satisfied that the adjustments applied by Mrs Chapman to the two sales at Brooms Head are not quite correct. I am nevertheless satisfied that, taking into account appropriate adjustments, the deduced land value of the subject property would still be in excess of $450,000. In these circumstances I have not been persuaded that the land value of $450,000, as contended by the Valuer General, should be disturbed.

21 It is therefore the decision of the Court that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 , the land value of Lot 1 DP 245023 being land in the village of Sandon River is determined to be $450,000 at base date 1 July 2004.

3. The exhibits are returned.

___________________
T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
Rjs/ljr