Owner’s challenge to his unit’s council valuations dismissed; $525,000 improved value confirmed (VCAT, 2026)

What happened

The property is Unit 4 at 16 Wantirna Road, Ringwood. It is a semi-detached brick veneer unit built around 1978 with two bedrooms, one bathroom and an attached garage. It is one of four single-level strata units on a larger site of 1,235 square metres, zoned General Residential (Schedule 1) with a Significant Landscape Overlay, and with a 1.22 metre drainage easement along the western boundary. During 2023 and 2024 the unit was renovated inside, with a new kitchen, new bathroom, new carpets, air conditioning and painting. The garage had suffered structural failure of a brick boundary wall and needed repairs, including roof repairs, and was the subject of a council building notice first issued on 3 September 2020.

Maroondah City Council issued a rates and valuation notice on 30 July 2024. On 8 September 2024 the owner lodged an objection on the ground that the valuations were too high. At that point the figures were a site value of $400,000, a capital improved value of $550,000 and a net annual value of $27,500. "Site value" is what the land alone would be worth if the buildings had never been built; "capital improved value" is what the land and buildings together would sell for; "net annual value" for a residential unit is five per cent of the capital improved value.

The valuer then found an error in the recorded land size and issued a supplementary valuation with a return date of 1 July 2024, which cut the site value from $400,000 to $350,000 and left the other two figures unchanged. After reviewing the objection, the valuer issued a notice of recommendation to the Valuer-General dated 7 November 2024 recommending a site value of $312,500, a capital improved value of $525,000 and a net annual value of $26,250. The Valuer-General confirmed those adjustments on 23 January 2025.

On 17 February 2026 the owner applied to VCAT to review that decision under section 22 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic), again on the ground that the valuations were too high. The matter was heard in person at VCAT Melbourne over two days on 1 and 2 June 2026 before a Deputy President and a Member, with the owner appearing for himself and counsel appearing for the Valuer-General. Reasons were given on 30 September 2026.

What each side wanted

The owner contended for a site value of $200,000 and a capital improved value of $425,000, with the net annual value not in contention. He argued that at 1 January 2024 the unit was under renovation and uninhabitable and the garage was still under structural repair, so it could not be compared with habitable, occupied units; that his purchase in March 2023 of a 50 per cent tenant-in-common interest from the other co-owner, sold by State Trustees acting for his father, was an arm's length sale of the very property being valued and so had to take primacy over any theoretical valuation; that a valuer has a duty to act conservatively; that the four existing units, the strata plan and the multiple owners meant the land was not comparable to vacant development sites; and that the site value should be worked out by starting from the capital improved value and deducting the buildings, using insurance replacement figures. The Valuer-General argued that the half-share sale should be given no weight in the market analysis, that the valuer's methodology was lawful, and that assessing site value is a hypothetical exercise required by the definition in section 2(1) of the Act, relying on a valuation report and the evidence of a certified practising valuer who put the site value at $350,000 and the capital improved value at $525,000.

What the tribunal decided

VCAT affirmed the decision of the Valuer-General Victoria to confirm the recommended adjustments to the site value, capital improved value and net annual value.

The valuation details as at 1 January 2024 were confirmed as a site value of $312,500, a capital improved value of $525,000 and a net annual value of $26,250. No money was ordered to be paid by either side.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the state of the property, the Tribunal found the owner's material ambiguous and, in places, contradicted by the evidence. His submissions suggested the renovation works were done in "late 2024 early 2025", but the valuer produced internal photographs showing the unit advertised for lease in October 2023 with the internal renovations complete. On the garage, the owner said in oral submissions that the roof structure was repaired in "2025 sometime", yet satellite photographs the Tribunal found during the hearing showed a new metal deck roof fixed to the garage some time before February 2024, and the owner could not explain what roof structure work would be done after cladding was already on. The Tribunal concluded the unit was complete and fit to live in some months before 1 January 2024, and that the garage repairs were largely complete. It noted that for capital improved value the date that matters to the physical condition of the buildings is the date of return, here 1 July 2024, under section 13DC(5) of the Act.

On the sale, the Tribunal held that buying a 50 per cent tenant-in-common interest is not a sale of the property itself. Such shares have a very limited pool of buyers and uncertain market outcomes, because a buyer must reach agreement with the existing co-owner about who occupies the property, whether they live there together, how maintenance is handled and what happens if one wants to sell. The price had been set by a desktop valuation done about 12 months before the relevant date, and the unit was unrenovated at the time. The Tribunal also said it is unsound valuation practice to rely on one comparable sale, because individual transactions reflect the particular circumstances of the people involved; valuers use a workable set of sales to find the market pattern and spot sales that are out of line. On the evidence, extrapolating the half-share price produced a figure out of line with market levels, so the transaction was not a reliable indicator of value.

On method, the Tribunal identified three errors in the owner's reasoning about site value. The definition in section 2(1) requires the valuer to assume "that the improvements (if any) had not been made", so the four existing units are treated as never having existed and cannot be an economic barrier to redevelopment. The definition also assumes a hypothetical sale by a genuine, willing seller rather than a sale by the actual owners, so fragmented ownership does not reduce the value. And the existing strata plan is no constraint, because a buyer could discard it and commission a new one. Using insurance replacement cost as a substitute for the value added by the buildings was rejected on the established point that cost does not necessarily equal value. Section 5A requires every relevant matter to be taken into account and, for sales of other land, regard to be had to timing, terms and comparability. The valuer had put forward 12 sales of comparable small-unit development sites ranging from $1,043 to $1,431 per square metre, with the four most comparable between $1,176 and $1,376, against his adopted rate for the subject land of $1,012 per square metre, which the Tribunal accepted was at the very low end. On capital improved value, the adopted figure equated to $6,280 per square metre of building area against the owner's $5,083, and the only comparable sale below the adopted rate was another unit in the same complex sold more than five years before the relevant date in only fair condition. The Tribunal found the valuer's evidence thorough, clear and responsive, accepted that the valuations were not too high, and affirmed the decision.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position and think your council rates notice overstates the value of your property, this decision shows how the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) definitions drive the exercise. Site value is a hypothetical figure: the Tribunal must assume the buildings on the land were never built, and assume a genuine, willing seller. That means arguments about what the existing buildings, the strata plan or the attitudes of co-owners would do to a real sale carry little weight, because none of those things form part of the statutory assumption.

The decision also shows how valuation evidence is weighed. A single transaction, even one involving the property in question, does not automatically set the value, and a share in a property is treated as a different thing from the property itself. A set of comparable sales, analysed on a common basis such as dollars per square metre, carried the day here. Where a party's description of the property's condition conflicted with photographs and dated satellite imagery, the Tribunal preferred the documentary evidence, and it was alert to the fact that the relevant date for the condition of the buildings was the date of return rather than the date the objector had assumed.

In disputes with a government body or authority over a decision like this, people usually start with the written objection or complaint that the relevant scheme provides for, setting out the grounds and the figures they say are correct, and only then apply to the tribunal for review if the decision is confirmed.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a VCAT application. More decisions: VCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: Rolfe v Valuer-General Victoria [2026] VCAT 791 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.