Verran v Valuer-General [2018] NSWLEC 1086
Comparable sales evidence establishes the land value, and minor non-compliance with development standards does not prevent dual occupancy use. Statistical or percentage increase methods are not appropriate. The issued value is conservative and not altered by easements as comparable properties have similar constraints.
- Parties
- Applicant: Garry John Verran; Respondent: Valuer-General
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under S.37 Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Land Valuation, Comparable Sales, Dual Occupancy Development, Statutory Easement, Development Control Plan, Land Use Zoning
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Garry John Verran
Applicant
Valuer-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.37 Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether land value of 16 Reginald Avenue, Belmore as determined by Valuer-General was correct
- 2 Whether highest and best use for dual occupancy development applies
- 3 Impact of statutory easement (sewer main) on land value
Ratio Decidendi
Comparable sales evidence establishes the land value, and minor non-compliance with development standards does not prevent dual occupancy use. Statistical or percentage increase methods are not appropriate. The issued value is conservative and not altered by easements as comparable properties have similar constraints.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The decision of the Valuer-General determining the Land Value of 16 Reginald Avenue, Belmore (Property Number 1436511) to be $937,000 for the base date 1/7/2016, is confirmed.
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