LAND COURT BRISBANE 2 December
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[1997] QLC 189 LAND COURT BRISBANE 2 December 1997 Re: Determination of Compensation - Resumption for Future Road Requirement purposes under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act 1991 - Ref. A96-24. Parkside Development Pty Ltd v. Director-General, Department of Transport (now Department of Main Roads) (Hearing at Townsville) J U D G M E N T By agreement under the provisions of Section 15 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, the respondent Director-General, Department of Transport, resumed on 25 March 1994, certain lands with an aggregate area of 9.2686 hectares from the claimant Parkside Development Pty Ltd (Parkside) in the County of Elphinstone, Parishes of Ross and Coonambelah, for Future Road Requirement purposes. The real property descriptions and areas of the lands resumed are: (a)an area of 3.875 hectares being the whole of Lot 101 on Plan 860270 contained in Certificate of Title Volume N1504, Folio 244; (b)an area of 8,966 square metres being the whole of Lot 102 on Plan 860270 contained in Certificate of Title Volume N1504, Folio 244; and (c)an area of 4.497 hectares being the whole of Lot 12 on Plan 860271 contained in Certificate of Title Volume N788, Folio 103. While the Proclamation describes the resumed parcels as separately surveyed lots, they are in reality part of two larger parcels of land owned at Proclamation date by Parkside and which were then described as Lot 2 on RP 724190, Parish of Ross, containing an area of 22.5671 hectares and the balance of Lot 100 on RP 812595, Parish of Ross, containing an area of 61.8816 hectares. From this it can be seen that the aggregate area of the parcels from which the resumed land was taken was 84.4487 hectares. Lot 2 is free of detrimental encumbrances, while Lot 100 is encumbered by a power transmission line easement and several easements for drainage purposes. The parent parcels of land are situated within the City of Thuringowa lying within the established low density residential suburb of Condon, about 11.5 kms south west from the Townsville City Centre. They are located at the closest point within 500 metres of "The Willows" regional shopping centre and Thuringowa Central Post Office. The parcels comprise 2 level coastal forest country - free from flooding, and are generally unimproved vacant residential in-globo land except for the full development of Stage 10 of "The Palms" residential subdivision which included roadworks, sewerage, water reticulation, power and subdivisional earthworks for sixteen (16) subdivided lots. The land was resumed as part of the land which was required as a corridor for what is described as the Townsville By-Pass Road, and effectively severs the aggregate parent parcel so as to leave a northern severance area of 18.07 hectares (described as Lot 11 on RP 860271) and a southern severance area of 57.11 hectares (still balance of Lot 100 on RP 812585). In so far as it directly affects the retention areas, the proposed By-Pass Road involves the construction of a major interchange with Upper Ross River Road (on the eastern boundary of the parent parcels), an overpass over the existing Upper Ross River Road, a two-lane bridge across the Ross River and a Road Connection through to Angus Smith Drive. Part of the northern retention area, described in evidence as a mushroom shaped lot containing 8501 square metres is located in the east of the severance close to and accessed from Upper Ross River Road and severed from the balance area by the resumption, will be adjacent to and surrounded by clover-leaf style access ramps at the major intersection. On 3 June 1996, the claimant Parkside filed a claim for compensation in the Land Court registry dated 5 May 1994, in the sum of $1,958,775 which is made up as follows: Land $ 770,920 Improvements NIL Disturbance $ 20,800 Injurious Affection $1,167,055 TOTAL CLAIM $1,958,775 At the outset of the hearing of the matter, Counsel for the claimant Parkside sought and was granted leave to amend the claim for compensation to $1,473,742.69 made up as follows: Land, injurious affection and severance $1,263,000.00 Disturbance $ 210,742.69 TOTAL CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION $1,473,742.69 The claim for disturbance was further amended, as the evidence of the claimant unfolded, to a sum of $213,839.69. More about this aspect of the claim later in this judgment. The amended claim for compensation in the sum of $1,263,000 for land, injurious affection and severance is based upon an assessment of compensation made by practising Registered Valuer Geoffrey William Eales. To indicate the extent of the dispute in so far as compensation for loss of land is concerned, another practising Registered Valuer Bernard James Duncan, who was called in evidence by the respondent Constructing Authority, assesses compensation, exclusive of that for disturbance in the sum of $535,000. Both valuers used the "before" and "after" method of valuation, which is widely recognised and accepted as being the most suitable method when the valuation task at hand is to assess compensation for the partial taking of land, especially as it results in a compensation assessment which includes compensation, if any, for injurious affection and severance. 3 Mr Eales assesses compensation having regard to the effect of the resumptions on each of the parent parcels. He values Lot 2 on RP 724190 (called during the case "Riverside North" Estate) before resumption in the sum of $1,543,500 and after resumption in the sum of $1,051,500. He values balance Lot 100 on RP 812595 (called during the case "The Palms" Estate) before resumption at $2,436,000, and after resumption in the sum of $1,665,000. His assessed compensation for the loss of land, severance and injurious affection is then calculated as: Loss in value of "Riverside North" Estate $ 492,000 Add Loss in value of "The Palms" Estate $ 771,000 TOTAL CLAIM FOR LOSS OF LAND, INJURIOUS AFFECTION AND SEVERANCE $1,263,000 Mr Duncan has assessed compensation for the resumption on the basis of its effect on the value of the parent parcels as a whole. He values the aggregate parent area of 82.5 hectares, along with 16 developed residential lots in "The Palms" estate, prior to resumption in the sum of $4,215,000 and the retention area of 73.23 hectares, along with the 16 developed lots, post resumption, in the sum of $3,680,000. It is from these valuations he derives his compensation assessment using the "before" and "after" method of $535,000. It is, I think, helpful if I here indicate the zonings of the parent parcels, and that of the retention areas, which are relevant under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme for the City of Thuringowa, which was gazetted on 20 October 1988, and which, the evidence suggests, was under review at the date of gazettal of the "Parkside" resumptions. Lot 2 on RP 724190 was zoned "Residential A" while the balance of Lot 100 on RP 812595 was zoned in part "Residential A" and in part "Residential B". The total area of the parent parcels zoned "Residential A" was 43.24 hectares, with 41.21 hectares zoned "Residential B". Subsequent to the resumption, 18.07 hectares of the retention area (being the whole of the northern severance - "Riverside North") - was zoned "Residential A". The southern severance retention area ("The Palms" Estate) was zoned as to 13.95 hectares "Residential A", and 41.21 hectares "Residential B". In addition to these in-globo lands, the 16 developed residential lots referred to in Mr Duncan's valuation with an aggregate area of 1.95 hectares were, of course, zoned "Residential A". The hearing of the matter was lengthy, occupying 13 sitting days, and the issues complex. The complexity was brought about mainly by the valuers using different methods of valuation. Mr Eales used the valuation method in both of his "before" and "after" compensation assessments of hypothetical residential subdivision, whereas Mr Duncan's method was to value the land both "before" and "after" using a value per unit area (hectare) method related to in-globo sales evidence. Mr Duncan did produce a valuation of the parent parcels and the retention areas using a hypothetical residential subdivision method, but discarded it since it produced an off-line (low) compensation assessment when compared with that derived from his in-globo valuations. It is also appropriate to indicate here that Mr Eales gained comfort for his before valuation on the hypothetical residential subdivision method by 4 comparison with "in-globo" sales evidence. Apart from the valuers, numerous witnesses were called and it is perhaps useful if I now indicate who they were. The claimant called: Russell Richard Clarke - a practising Civil Engineer and Associate Director of Cardno and Davies Queensland Pty Ltd, Consulting Engineers Anthony Russell Brown - a practising Acoustical Engineer and Principal Consultant, Ron Rumble Pty Ltd Timothy Dunstan Brazier - a practising Licensed Surveyor of Brazier and Motti, Licensed Surveyors and Town Planners Marcus David Williams - Manager of Tropical Homes Pty Ltd (a related home constructing company of the claimant, Parkside Development Pty Ltd). Ian Cramb Hamilton - a practising Civil Engineer and Director, Cardno and Davies Queensland Pty Ltd, Consulting Engineers Eric John Keenan - the Financial Controller/Company Secretary of the Parkside Group of companies, and Wilfred Anthony Tapiolas - a Director of Parkside Holdings Pty Ltd. The respondent Director-General called: Peter Ernest Honeycombe - Director of The Honeycombe Group of companies John Jack Rowlands - a Licensed Surveyor of Rowlands Surveys Pty Ltd Phillip Alexander George Dance - a Consultant Town Planner Frederik Hendrik Kamst - a Scientist specialising in Environmental Acoustics Robert Arnold Henwood - Director of Planning Services for the City of Thuringowa Leslie Cecil Johnstone - a Civil Engineer and a Principal of the firm LC Johnstone and Associates Pty Ltd Colin Bruce Horman - a professional Traffic Engineer, and Roger Humphrey Brameld, a professional Engineer specialising in Traffic Engineering and Land Development.