Held, affirming and varying the decisions under review:

• The values arrived at by the expert were the correct values at the relevant time, and the relevant decisions should be affirmed and varied to reflect her opinions;
• In application 2021/SA004178, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review with respect to the notional capital value and varies the decision under review with respect to the notional site value to decrease the notional site value to $385,000;
• In application 2021/SA003871, the Tribunal varies the decisions under review to increase the capital and site value to $750,000;
• In application 2021/SA003870, the Tribunal varies the decisions under review to increase the capital and site value to $720,000.

Administrative Review - Valuation of Land Act 1971 - Decision by Valuer-General upon an objection - General valuation of land within the state

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 34, s 37

Valuation of Land Act 1971 s 5, s 22A, s 25, s 25C

Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Valuer-General [2008] SASC 169; 101 SASR 110

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) s 37(1)(b)

1. This decision relates to three separate applications brought by Mr Bosnakis for review of decisions made by the respondent in relation to three different parcels of land. In each case the decision Mr Bosnakis takes issue with ascribed particular values to the relevant parcel of land. The values arrived at by the respondent are applied for rating and taxing purposes and in each case, Mr Bosnakis contends that the relevant value should be lower.
2. Application 2021/SA004178 pertains to land located at 100-104 Brougham Drive, Valley View in South Australia and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5602 Folio 44. The registered proprietors are Mr Bosnakis and his wife, Helen Bosnakis as joint tenants. The respondent determined that as at 1 January 2021 (and therefore for the following financial year), this land had notional site and capital values of $475 000 and $720 000 respectively.
3. Application 2021/SA003870 pertains to land located at 601 Greenhill Road, Burnside in South Australia and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5774 Foilo 807. The registered proprietor is "601 Greenhill Road Pty Ltd". The respondent determined that as at 1 January 2021 (and therefore for the following financial year) this land had site and capital values of $670 000 and $680 000 respectively.
4. Application 2021/SA003871 pertains to land located at 603 Greenhill Road, Burnside in South Australia and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5546 Folio 136. The registered proprietor is "603 Greenhill Road Pty Ltd". The respondent determined that as at 1 January 2021 (and therefore for the following financial year), this land had site and capital values of $600 000.
5. Each of the above decisions was made by the respondent following an objection by Mr Bosnakis pursuant to s 25(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 (VOL Act) and the Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to review each decision pursuant to s 25C of the VOL Act. That provision modifies the operation of s 34 of the SACAT Act with the result that the Tribunal's review of the relevant decisions is to be de novo, without any need to give weight to the respondent's decisions.
6. In the event, none of the other registered proprietors have taken part in the proceedings. However, given the close relationship I understand exists between Mr Bosnakis and the other owners, I am satisfied this is unlikely to have resulted in any unfairness to the other owners.

1. The meanings of the terms "site value" and "capital value" are defined in section 5 of the VOL Act as follows:

"capital value" of land means the capital amount that an unencumbered estate of fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realise upon sale, but if the value of the land has been enhanced by trees planted on the land (other than commercial plantations), or trees preserved on the land for the purpose of shelter or ornament, the capital value must be determined as if the value of the land had not been so enhanced; > > "site value" of land means the capital amount that an unencumbered estate in fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realise upon sale assuming that any improvements on the land, the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of valuation, had not been made; for the purposes of this definition - > > (a) "improvements" means -

(i) buildings and structures (but not including structures in the nature of site works); and

(ii) wells, dams and reservoirs; and

(iii) the planting of trees for commercial purposes;

Each of the decisions under review relating to 100-104 Brougham Drive also involve the application of s 22A(1)(c)(ii) and (2) of the VOL Act, which relevantly provides:

(1) The owner of land is entitled to the benefit of this section in respect of the valuation of land by a valuing authority if -

(c) the value of the land is, in the opinion of the relevant valuing authority, enhanced by -

(i) an existing division of the land; or

(ii) a potential for division of the land; or

(iii) a potential for use of the land otherwise than in the manner referred to in the relevant subparagraph of paragraph (b).

(2) Where a valuing authority is satisfied that a person is entitled to the benefit of this section it may, and must at the request of that person, value the land as if the existing division or potential for division or use referred to in subsection (1)(c) did not exist and any such valuation will operate for the purposes of any rating or taxing Act under which rates, taxes or imposts are levied or imposed on the land on the basis of the valuations of that valuing authority.

1. Each of the above definitions relating to "capital value" and "site value" require consideration of what "capital amount an unencumbered estate of fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realise upon sale". The Full Court of the Supreme Court has explained that this involves consideration of:

"a market valuation of an estate of fee simple, the highest estate in land known to the law, and one which allows the greatest possible lawful exploitation and use of the rights represented by that estate. The valuer must therefore identify the highest and best lawful use of that land".[1]

1. With respect to all of the decisions under review, the respondent relies primarily on the expert reports of Ms Rachel Elliott, a certified practising valuer and the Chief Valuer of Land Services SA. In her first report, filed with the Tribunal on 10 August 2022, Ms Elliott gave a notional site value for this property of $385 000 and a notional capital value of $720 000, with the site value being $90 000 less than the value given in the decision under review (which was based on a previous valuation by a different valuer, Mr Eldridge). The values she attributed were based on the highest and best use being a single residential property holding, consistent with its current use.[2] With respect to the site value, Ms Elliott had regard to comparable sales data and the characteristics of the site. She explained that she considered the lower value of $385 000 "adequately recognises the impact of the inundation together with the remnant bitumen particles that have been washed on to the site".[3] With respect to the capital value, she also had regard to comparable sales data as well as the age and standard of the existing dwelling and characteristics of the site.[4]
2. Ms Elliott also completed a supplementary report of 16 September 2022 in which she was asked to address a number of issues raised by Mr Bosnakis, including the presence of contaminants. In this report she addressed Mr Bosnakis' questions in relation to contaminants including herbicides, bitumen, asbestos, oil and grease. She confirmed that in her view, any contaminants were not present in levels which would require particular action or management and these therefore had a negligible impact on the value of the property and did not require any adjustment to be made.[5]
3. Ms Elliott also gave oral evidence at the hearing and the respondent also relies on that evidence, which was consistent with her written reports.
4. In his written and oral submissions, Mr Bosnakis raised a number of issues with the property which he contended should lead to lower values being attributed to it. In particular, he referred to water inundation during heavy rain leading to landslides, constant blockage of the sewer, the poor condition of the house and the fact that pavers and concrete needed to be reinstated on the driveway due to landslide and tree root damage. In his written submissions handed up at the hearing he contended "To rectify the land would be extremely costly and greater than the valuation".[6] However, it is apparent from both her reports that Ms Elliott took each of these matters into account in arriving at her values, including the very poor condition of the house.[7]
5. In his written submission, Ms Bosnakis contended that:

"The cost to repair all the huge problems will be extremely costly and Ms Elliott has not allowed enough deductions for all that is required that needs to be done and cannot be compared to other properties on the market which are in a superior condition".[8]

However, as she confirmed in her oral evidence, Ms Elliott considered the highest and best use of this property was as a single residential property holding. She further explained that she approached a valuation of this kind by assessing what buyers would be prepared to pay for the property in its existing state or current condition. Taking that approach, it was unnecessary for her to attempt to assess what costs a buyer may encounter in making repairs or improvements to the house or property more generally.

1. Mr Bosnakis also contended that "to rectify the two blocks along the side of the house would cost more than the valuation and totally unsuitable for building in its current state". However, the respondent has pointed out that in valuing the land, it is necessary to ignore any potential for sub-division. The respondent also submits there is no evidence before the Tribunal to support Mr Bosnakis's contention that the land is "totally unsuitable for building".[9]
2. In addition, Mr Bosnakis relied on a Soil Report prepared by Mr George Hatzi, of Earth Testing Services dated 6 October 2022. Mr Bosnakis submitted that this report confirmed the extensive amount of fill and contaminants on the land and contended "it is impossible to build on uncontrolled fill and contaminants".[10] However, Mr Hatzi gave evidence at the hearing during which he conceded that none of the substances found in the soil were unusual or surprising for an Adelaide property. Ms Elliott also made clear in the course of her evidence that she was entirely unsurprised by the results of the soil testing, which was consistent with what she would expect to find in the soil at similar properties. Although she did not have access to the soil testing report at the time of preparing her reports, this did not change her opinions.

1. Ms Elliott has also provided initial valuation reports and supplementary reports for each of these properties. In her initial report for 601 Greenhill Road, she assessed both the site and capital value at $720 000. She assessed the highest and best use of the property as being a development site for a single dwelling having regard to the very poor condition of the existing dwelling. She had regard to comparable sales data and the characteristics of the property, noting that in the context of the relevant market, demolition costs would be insignificant compared with the overall project cost.
2. In her supplementary report of 16 September 2022, Ms Elliott was asked to address the same issues relating to contaminants raised by Mr Bosnakis with respect to the Valley View property. She gave a similar answer to that given in relation to the Valley View property, confirming that in her view there were no contaminants present that would have any impact on the value of the property.
3. With respect to 603 Greenhill Road, in her initial report Ms Elliott assessed both the site and capital value at $750 000. She formed the same view with respect to the state of the existing dwelling as she did for 601 Greenhill Road, with the result that she regarded the highest and best use to be as a development site for a single dwelling.[11] Again, she had regard to comparable sales data and the characteristics of the property and made the same observation with respect to demolition costs. In her supplementary report, she reached the same conclusion with respect to contaminants as she did in relation to the 601 Greenhill Road property.
4. With respect to these properties also, Mr Bosnakis raised a number of matters which he contended had not been adequately taken into account and should lead to lower values being attributed. He pointed out that the properties are on a busy main road with "heavy trucks coming and going to the quarry, high traffic movement and high noise and fumes pollution". He also referred to difficulty accessing the driveways as well as debris, water problems and the lack of storm water management. However, as the respondent points out, all these issues were identified and taken into account by Ms Elliott in attributing the values she has arrived at. She also confirmed this during her oral evidence. Mr Bosnakis also contended that "removal of trees, any contaminants etc should be taken into account". However, Ms Elliott has taken into account surface debris on the properties and addressed the issue of contaminants in her supplementary report as well as in her oral evidence.
5. In addition, Mr Bosnakis relied on the cost of demolishing the existing buildings on each property, contending that demolition costs must be taken into account as "all liabilities and costs which affect the valuation and decrease the value".[12] He relied on a quote from 2015 (the McMahon quote) contending demolition costs would be higher now, and also asserted that this quote did not allow for the cost of asbestos removal. However, as is apparent from the McMahon quote, it does make allowance for asbestos removal.[13] In any event, as she confirmed during her oral evidence, Ms Elliott took into account the cost of demolition with respect to each property, albeit in her assessment this could only be done in broad terms, consistently with the manner in which the market would assess the likely costs involved, given buyers were unlikely to have specific current information about these costs. In her assessment, the cost of demolition was likely to be insignificant relative to the overall cost of building a new dwelling on either site.
6. Mr Bosnakis also relied on the topography of each property, contending they each "have a significant steep slope off the road and are in a hole". However, Mr Elliott has taken account of these issues. In her report on 601 Greenhill Road she noted the "moderately steep fall", and with respect to the 603 Greenhill Road she noted the property:

"is low set below road level, and has a moderate fall towards the rear boundary, together with a natural rise from east to west along Greenhill Road.....the development of the property immediately to the east has involved substantial filling of that site, and as a result the eastern boundary or the subject property is heavily retained.[14]

7. She also noted in her reports that the values she arrived at sit:

"below the rates indicated by the sales evidence ... which is considered reasonable, accounting for the larger site proportions and inferior topography".[15]

8. Mr Bosnakis also referred to the presence of herbicides and pesticides in the soil as well as other contaminants having washed on to the properties. He again relied on soil testing undertaken by Mr Hatzi at these properties, contending "I believe that the soil should be removed, and clean control fill be brought in". However, Ms Elliott explained in her supplementary reports and confirmed during her oral evidence that she would expect to find these substances in the soil of many street-front properties. She was unsurprised by their presence, which did not affect her opinions.
9. In his written submission, Mr Bosnakis also argued that the Tribunal should assess both the capital and site value of 601 Greenhill Rd to be $480 000 and the capital and site value of 603 Greenhill Rd to be $490 000, being the values arrived at by agreement in 2016. He contended that at that time the properties were in much better condition than they are now. However, the respondent submitted it was common knowledge that property prices in Adelaide had risen considerably in the last seven years. Further, the condition of the dwellings is irrelevant given the sites have both been valued as development sites.

1. In reliance on Ms Elliott's reports, the respondent submits that, with respect to the Brougham Drive property, I should affirm the decision under review with respect to capital value and vary the decision under review to decrease the notional site value to $385 000. On the same basis, the respondent submits that I should vary the decisions under review for 601 Greenhill Road to increase both the capital and site value to $720 000. Again, based on Ms Elliott's evidence, the respondent also submits I should vary the decisions under review with respect to 603 Greenhill Road to increase both the site and capital value to $750 000.
2. Having carefully considered all of the evidence and contentions, I have concluded that in each case these submissions are well supported by the evidence. Other than with respect to the reduction in value which is favourable to Mr Bosnakis, Ms Elliott's valuations are consistent with the previous valuations of Mr Eldridge. In my view, she has also satisfactorily addressed all the issues and concerns raised by Mr Bosnakis and I accept her evidence that none of these constitute a valid reason to adjust the values arrived at in her reports.
3. If Mr Bosnakis had sought to adduce evidence from a different qualified valuer who arrived at significantly lower values for one or more of the properties, his case would probably have been stronger. However, on the basis of the evidence before me and in the absence of any contrary expert evidence, I accept the well supported expert opinions provided by Ms Elliott. I am satisfied that the values she has arrived at were the correct values at the relevant time, and that I should affirm and vary the relevant decisions to reflect her opinions.

1. In application 2021/SA004178 relating to 100-104 Brougham Drive the Tribunal:

(a) affirms the decision under review with respect to the notional capital value for the financial year 2021- 2002; and

(b) varies the decision under review with respect to the notional site value for the financial year 2021-2022 to decrease the notional site value to $385 000.

2. In application 2021/SA003871 relating to 603 Greenhill Road the Tribunal:

(a) varies the decision under review to increase the capital value to $750 000; and

(b) varies the decision under review to increase the site value to $750 000.

3. In application 2021/SA003870 relating to 601 Greenhill Road the Tribunal:

(a) varies the decision under review to increase the capital value to $720 000; and

(b) varies the decision under review to increase the site value to $720 000.

1. A Directions Hearing will be listed to address any costs application which may be made by the respondent.

[1] Trust Company of Australia v Valuer-General [2008] SASC 169; 101 SASR 110, [109].

[2] Elliott Valley View First Report p 8.

[3] Elliott Valley View First Report p 15.

[4] Elliott Valley View First Report p 17.

[5] Elliott Valley View Supplementary Report, p 5.

[6] Mr Bosnakis Valley View Submission, p 1.

[7] Elliott Valley View First Report, pp 10, 14, 17.

[8] Mr Bosnakis Valley View Submission, p 3.

[9] Respondent's Outline of Argument, [19].

[10] Respondent's Outline of Argument, p 1.

[12] Mr Bosnakis Greenhill Road Submission, p 1.

[13] Section 35 Documents in 2021/SA003870, p 16.

[15] Elliott First 601 Report and First 603 Report, pp 12-13.