Anderson v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 151

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Anderson v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 151

APPLICANT Alec Anderson, Hugh Anderson and Murray Anderson

PARTIES : RESPONDENT Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S) : 31059 of 2004

CORAM: Nott C

Valuation of Land :- land value of a parcel of land without lawful access KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land Act 1916, s 37 LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K

DATES OF HEARING: 22/03/05 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/22/2005

APPLICANT Mr A Anderson, one of the applicants

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr A Pickles, barrister SOLICITOR Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

22 March 2005

31059 of 2004: Alec Anderson, Hugh Anderson and Murray Anderson v Valuer-General

JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 in respect of the land value of Lot 1 DP 201644 at No.69 Amos Lane, Bundanoon, as at 1 July 2003. The Valuer-General originally determined the land value as at that date to be $201,000. Upon considering the applicant's objection that the value was too high because the subject land is landlocked and does not have formal legal access to a public road, the Valuer-General amended the valuation to $180,000. The land value formerly determined as at 1 July 2000 was $45,000. 2 At the hearing Mr A Anderson, who is one of the three tenants-in-common who own the subject land, appeared in person and gave evidence on behalf of the owners. Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by registered valuer Mr P Gardner. 3 The evidence from Mr Gardner indicates by reference to comparable sales that the value of the subject land, assuming that it had lawful access, would be $240,000. However, I indicated that I had some reservations about some of the adjustments that were made to the comparable sales, particularly for topography and location and because five of the six comparable sales involved sewered land and the subject land was unsewered. 4 After a short adjournment the parties agreed as a compromise that the starting point for ascertaining the land value of the subject land would be $201,000 assuming that the subject land had lawful access. 5 The issue then was: what deduction from the $201,000 should be made on account of the fact that an intending purchaser would take into account the need to obtain a formal right-of-way to the closest public road, Amos Lane. 6 In considering what deduction should be made, Mr Gardner gave two alternatives. First, a purchaser could negotiate and come to an agreement with the owner over which the right-of-way would be granted, namely Canhill Pty Ltd, in which case Mr Gardner was of the opinion that $25,000 should be allowed to cover matters of uncertainty and costs involved in coming to such an agreement. 7 Secondly and alternatively, if the land had to be acquired pursuant to s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, Mr Gardner was of the opinion it would be reasonable to allow $42,000 made up as follows: compensation for the land, $10,000; cost of legal proceedings, $20,000; and an amount for the greater risk associated with this process, $12,000. Deducting the $42,000 from the earlier-mentioned figure of $201,000 the land value would be $159,000.