Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 310
The correct method for valuing heritage restricted land under s 14G is to assess the land as if the only permitted use is its current use with the existing improvements, to compare the net effective rental achievable for a hypothetical new, modern building as at the valuation date with the rental achievable for the actual heritage building at the same date, and to adjust the s 6A(1) land value by the rental differential percentage, adding agreed land improvements.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Merit Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeals allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['heritage Restricted Land' 'land Valuation Methodology' 'valuation of Land Act 1916 S 14 G' 'planning Instruments' 'rental Differential Adjustment']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Merit Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['How should the land value of heritage restricted land be determined under s 14G of the Valuation of Land Act 1916?' 'What is the proper method for adjusting land value based on the rental differential between a new modern building and a heritage building in its actual condition?' 'What impact do building design efficiency and land improvements have on valuation?']
Ratio Decidendi
The correct method for valuing heritage restricted land under s 14G is to assess the land as if the only permitted use is its current use with the existing improvements, to compare the net effective rental achievable for a hypothetical new, modern building as at the valuation date with the rental achievable for the actual heritage building at the same date, and to adjust the s 6A(1) land value by the rental differential percentage, adding agreed land improvements.
Court Disposition
appeals allowed
Orders
- ['The appeals are allowed.' 'The land value in accordance with s 14G of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 is determined as $35,563,000 at 1 July 2005 and $36,260,000 at 1 July 2006.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment