Oriental Bar Pty Limited v Valuer-General [2015] NSWLEC 59

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Oriental Bar Pty Limited v Valuer-General [2015] NSWLEC 59 Hearing dates: 10-12 September, 24-26 November 2014 Decision date: 17 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pain J Decision: See paragraph 102 Catchwords: VALUATION – appeals – valuation of lands to which heritage restriction applies – use of lands for hotels – comparable sales method of assessing land value applied – appropriate highest and best use to inform selection of comparable sales Legislation Cited: City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 Valuation of Land Act 1916 s 4, s 6A, s 14G, s 40 Texts Cited: Rawlinsons Construction Handbook (30th ed 2012) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Oriental Bar Pty Limited (First and Second Applicants) Michael James Courtney and Ors (Third and Sixth Applicants) Surfside Pty Ltd and Ors (Fourth and Fifth Applicants) Valuer-General (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr I Hemmings SC with Ms A Pearman (Applicants) Mr R White (Respondent) Solicitors: Hatzis Cusack Lawyers (Applicants) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 30010-14 of 2014 , 30339 of 2014

Judgment

Appeals against valuation of lands 1. Three Applicants have commenced six appeals against the Valuer-General's determination of land values under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the VL Act). The three properties the subject of the appeals are 701 George Street, Haymarket (Mountbatten Hotel); 198-200 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills (Triple Ace Hotel); and 358-387 Sussex Street (Star Hotel). The appeals concern base dates in 2010 and 2012. I thank Acting Commissioner Parker for his assistance in this matter. 2. The Court's powers on appeal are to (a) confirm or revoke the decision to which the appeal relates; (b) make a decision in place of that decision; or (c) remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in accordance with the Court's finding or decision. In conducting the appeals the Court has received evidence from expert valuers and will make a determination based on the evidence given in the appeal. The Court went on a view of the three subject sites and the principal comparable sales referred to in the valuers' evidence. 3. Mr Roberts valuer is instructed on behalf of the Applicants. Based on his evidence the Applicants submit the land values in all six appeals should be lower than the Valuer-General's determination of land values, not least because the Valuer-General used an incorrect estimate of the gross floor areas (GFA) for all three properties. Mr Hill valuer is instructed by the Valuer-General. Mr Hill has concluded the appropriate land values are higher than the Valuer-General's determination. Notwithstanding Mr Hill's conclusions, the Valuer-General does not contend that the land values determined under the VL Act should be higher than the issued land values. Instead, the issued land values should be confirmed. The parties agree the subject properties are heritage restricted under an environmental planning instrument (EPI) within the meaning of s 14G(2) of the VL Act so that the valuation is subject to the heritage restriction provisions in the VL Act. The parties also agree that the Court should consider the 2012 base date valuations only and any findings will be applied by the parties to the 2010 base date valuations where appropriate.