| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
VALUATION, COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST
S ECI 2019 03378
| PATRICK WILLIAM CROWE | Applicant |
| v | |
| HEAD, TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA | Respondent |
S ECI 2019 03383
| PATRICK WILLIAM CROWE and WENDY LORRAINE CROWE | Applicants |
| v | |
| HEAD, TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Richards J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4–6, 27 November 2020 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 15 April 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Crowe v Head, Transport for Victoria |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 180 |
---
LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION – Claim for compensation for farm land compulsorily acquired for Drysdale Bypass – Land acquired in 2018 – Bypass first proposed in 1975 – Requirement to disregard any decrease in the market value of the land acquired arising from the proposal – Dispute as to whether subject land would have been zoned for residential use but for the Bypass proposal – Separate questions as to hypothetical zoning of subject land – Approach to determining separate questions – Significance of planning history and expert planning evidence – Opinions of respondent’s planning experts preferred – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic), s 43(1).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicants | Ms L Hannon QC with Ms JMF Trewhella | Whyte Just & Moore |
| For the Respondent | Mr S Goubran QC with Ms X Teo | Russell Kennedy |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Legal framework........................................................................................................................... 2
Drakes land and Murradoc land................................................................................................. 5
Drysdale planning history........................................................................................................... 8
1960 – Interim Development Order.................................................................................. 9
1974 – Rural Area Planning Policy.................................................................................... 9
1975 – Geelong Regional Interim Development Order................................................ 11
1980 – Drysdale Bypass Study......................................................................................... 11
1981 – Drysdale Bypass Summary Report: Location Investigation........................... 16
1983 – Geelong Regional Planning Scheme Amendment 26....................................... 17
1983 – Adopted Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan.......................................... 21
1992 – Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan.......................................................... 29
2000 – New Format Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.............................................. 33
2007 – Jetty Road Urban Growth Plan............................................................................ 35
2007 – Rural Land Use Strategy....................................................................................... 37
2007 – Housing Diversity Strategy.................................................................................. 38
2010 – Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan.......................................................... 38
Subsequent developments............................................................................................... 41
Expert evidence........................................................................................................................... 45
Overview............................................................................................................................. 45
Brendan Rogers.................................................................................................................. 47
Sophie Jordan..................................................................................................................... 56
Andrew Clarke................................................................................................................... 69
Submissions................................................................................................................................. 76
Applicants’ submissions................................................................................................... 76
Authority’s submissions................................................................................................... 78
Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 80
Disposition................................................................................................................................... 86
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
In 2018, the Roads Corporation (the Authority)[1] compulsorily acquired farm land owned by Patrick and Wendy Crowe on the eastern side of Drysdale, on the Bellarine Peninsula, for the construction of the Drysdale Bypass. On 8 January 2018, it acquired all of the property at 40–50 Drakes Road (Drakes land), which was owned by Mr Crowe, and on 19 April 2018 it acquired part of the property at 117–139 Murradoc Road (Murradoc land), which was owned by Mr and Mrs Crowe. Mr and Mrs Crowe have claimed compensation for the land that was acquired, in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) (LAC Act). The amount of compensation to which they are entitled is in dispute,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Crowe v Head, Transport for Victoria and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] VSC 180
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine these questions by considering the planning history and expert planning evidence presented. It needed to assess the significance of this evidence in relation to the hypothetical zoning of the land. The court concluded that the opinions of the respondent’s planning experts were more reliable and should be preferred over those of the appellant. This conclusion was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the context of the planning history.
As a result, the court found that the market value of the land had decreased due to the bypass proposal, and this decrease had to be disregarded in calculating compensation. The appellant’s claim for compensation was accordingly reduced. The court’s reasoning and decision were grounded in the statutory requirements and the evidence presented, leading to a definitive outcome that favoured the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.