Gold Coast City Council v Dobson

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gold Coast City Council v Dobson [2014] QLAC 6

PARTIES:

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
(appellant)
v
TERRENCE DOBSON

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

LAC007-13

Land Court No AQL176-12

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 – 28 November 2013

THE COURT:

Peter Lyons J
PA Smith, Member of the Land Court

WL Cochrane, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT – PART OF LAND ACQUIRED – where the respondent owned a parcel of land, part of which was resumed by the appellant – where prior to resumption the respondent's land had potential for development for a mix of residential and non-residential purposes – where the valuer for the respondent determined compensation for the resumed land on the basis that the land would be developed according to the same mix of uses in the same proportion – where the valuer for the appellant assumed that the same amount of land was available for commercial uses both before and after resumption – where the valuer for the appellant thus determined compensation on the basis that the resumed land would only be developed for residential purposes – where the Land Court Member found that the prudent purchaser would wish to maximise commercial development and the planning authority would wish to maximise residential development on the remaining land – whether the Land Court erred  in adopting the approach of the valuer for the respondent – whether that adoption was inconsistent with other findings of the Land Court Member

REAL PROPERTY – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – where the valuer for the respondent adopted a "blended rate" of $275 per square metre to determine the value of the resumed land, assuming the land had been approved for development for both residential and commercial uses – where the sales of land relied upon by the respondent's valuer were not for mixed development – whether the Land Court erred in adopting the respondent's "blended rate" to determine the compensation for the resumed land

REAL PROPERTY – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT – MARKET VALUE – POTENTIALITIES – where the valuer for the respondent adjusted the value of the land by eight per cent to account for the time and expense of obtaining a development approval –  where the appellant submits that eight per cent is too low – where the appellant submits that the valuer for the respondent did not account for risk and therefore treated a development approval as a certainty rather than a potentiality – where the appellant submits that there was risk because of a potential challenge by a commercial rival – where there were a number of features of the location of the respondent's land which would make it difficult for…