Dokas v Valuer General

Dokas v Valuer General - [2017] NSWLEC 32 - NSWLEC 2017 case summary — Zoe

[4]

The evidence

Evidence was given in the proceedings by Mr Dokas. Mr Dokas was permitted to speak from the Bar Table, rather than being required to enter the witness box. After explaining to him the difference between evidence and submissions, and that I would have regard to what he told me as evidence or submissions as relevant (without him needing to worry about the difference between the two), Mr Dokas spoke to me, separately, concerning each of the properties, to explain his concerns to me.
I observe that it is clear that Mr Dokas objects to the significant increases in the statutory value that have been determined by the Valuer General for each of his properties because he considers that, for each property, the resultant increase in rates charged by his local council is unjustified, given what he considers to be the limited services provided to him by the Council. With respect to his investment property at 1 Bonanza Parade, he objects to the increases in land tax that have flowed from the increased statutory valuation of that property.
Mr Dokas explained the financial pressures he was under as a consequence of these increased rates and taxes and the impact that he felt that this was having on his ability not only to provide for himself, but also to make provision for younger generations of his family out of what he has earned during his years of hard work, prior to retirement. Whilst I understand (and sympathise with) his concerns, the task which I must undertake is to assess his objections to these valuations, strictly, by applying the provisions of the Act. I do not have any ability, within the legal framework applying to this Court in cases such as this, to make adjustments for individual social circumstances, no matter how well-deserving they might be.
The Valuer General provided evidence by Mr Hill, a registered valuer, concerning each of Mr Dokas' objections. Mr Hill prepared a separate expert Statement of Evidence concerning each of Mr Dokas' properties. Each of his Statements of Evidence was in the conventional form involving identification of what Mr Hill considered to be relevant sales comparable, in his first report, to 225 The Grand Parade, Monterey and, in his second report, to 1 Bonanza Parade, Sans Souci. Each of his reports set out the details of each of the development site sales he considered was comparable to 225 The Grand Parade (in his first report) and 1 Bonanza Parade (in his second report).
Mr Hill, in each report, undertook a conventional, comparable valuation analysis, setting out the attributes of each of the comparable sales when analysed to provide a proper valuation basis of deriving an analysed rate per square metre to be applied to 225 The Grand Parade or for 1 Bonanza Parade as appropriate. This analytic process, in each instance, is discussed further later in this decision.
Mr Hill also gave oral evidence in court concerning each of Mr Dokas' properties and the comparable sales Mr Hill had relied upon.

[7]

Introduction

In addition to Mr Dokas' general concerns, earlier described, concerning the impact that the increased statutory valuations would have on him, Mr Dokas also raised a number of more detailed matters concerning the valuation factors he considered were of importance relating to this property.
Before turning to them, it is appropriate to note a number of attributes of this site. The site is zoned R3 under the local environmental plan applying to the site. This zoning permits, amongst other forms of development, the erection of villas and townhouses. Mr Dokas has had such a development erected on his site. However, the Act requires the site to be valued on the basis of the underlying value of the bare land and not having any regard to the nature of the development erected upon it. This is because of the terms of s 6A(1) of the Act: 6A Land value (1) The land value of land is the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona-fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other than land improvements, and made or acquired by the owner or the owner's predecessor in title had not been made.
This site has, on the Valuer General's calculation, an area of 847 square metres. It will be necessary, later, to consider the site area further, as Mr Dokas contends that the Valuer General's calculation of the site area is incorrect.
This site has three street frontages, they being to Bonanza Parade, Russell Lane and Bonanza Lane. The long axis of the site is generally oriented in a north-south direction. To the west, across Russell Lane, is the rear of the local strip-shopping centre running along Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci. Across the laneway to the south-west, in the rear of one of the commercial premises facing Rocky Point Road, is erected a mobile telecommunications base station tower.
Finally, it is appropriate to note that, along the western, Russell Lane boundary of Mr Dokas' property, he has been obliged by the local council, as part of its development approval for his townhouse and villa development on this site, to set the fenceline of the development back one metre from Russell Lane and construct, along this strip, a one-metre wide concrete pedestrian pathway.

[10]

The site area of 1 Bonanza Parade

The Valuer General's dimensioning of the site records the western boundary (that is the frontage to Russell Lane) as being 51.1 metres long. This dimension is some four metres longer than the dimension adopted by the Valuer General for the eastern boundary of the property. Mr Dokas contends that, relying on a drainage plan prepared for his villa/townhouse development, the two dimensions should be equal and that, as a consequence, the area of the site should be reduced, for this factor, to 800 square metres.
Although Mr Hill indicated, when asked to examine the drainage plan, that he did not accept the accuracy of the dimension relied upon by Mr Dokas (as the plan was not a survey-based one), I consider it appropriate for this analysis to take Mr Dokas' case at its highest. I therefore assume, solely for the purposes of this decision (and without needing to confirm that Mr Dokas' complaint about this dimension is accurate), that an area adjustment, for this factor, of a reduction to 800 square metres would be appropriate.
Mr Dokas then suggested that the area of the site, for valuation purposes, should be reduced by a further allowance of a little more than 50 square metres to take into account the excision (as he regards it) from his land of the area he was required to dedicate as the one-metre wide concrete pedestrian pathway along the Russell Lane frontage of his property.
Again, without needing to decide whether such a deduction is legally mandated, I propose to consider the total site area calculation for Mr Dokas' objection on the basis that these two deductions should be made from the Valuer General's calculated site area of 847 square metres. Doing so, for the limited purposes of assessing the validity of Mr Dokas' objection on this basis, would have the area of the site to be regarded as 750 square metres.
Applying Mr Hill's analysed value of $1,900 per square metre to a notional site area of 750 square metres, the analysed value for Mr Dokas' site would be $1,425,000, a value still significantly greater than the Valuer General's statutory valuation of $1,220,000 for the base date of 1 July 2015. It would be even greater than the value for which Mr Dokas contends of $907,000.
For the reasons which I explain later, I am satisfied that Mr Hill's analysed value of $1,900 per square metre for 1 Bonanza Parade is accurate. As a consequence, even making the assumptions Mr Dokas asks me to make concerning inaccuracies in the Valuer General's calculation of the area of the site, his objection on this basis would still fail.
As a further consequence, for the purposes of further discussion of the Valuer General's valuation of 1 Bonanza Parade as being $1,220,000 at 1 July 2015, the lowest value on the basis of Mr Hill's $1,900 per square metre and Mr Dokas' proposed site area of 750 square metres, still results in a value that is $205,000 higher than the Valuer General's statutory valuation.
It is in this context that I turn to consider the other objections that are raised by Mr Dokas. I do so without needing to decide whether or not Mr Dokas' site area calculation is correct or not.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (26 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (5)