Guiseppe Nominees Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council
[1993] QLC 19
•16 July 1993
|
LAND COURT,
BRISBANE.
16th July, 1993.
Re:Determination of Compensation -
Resumption for Environment (Protection of Bushland and Landscape Amenity) Purposes -
A92-66
Guiseppe Nominees Pty Ltd
v.
Brisbane City Council
J U D G M E N T
Falling for determination is compensation consequent upon the resumption by the Brisbane City Council on 29th May, 1992 of the whole of a parcel of land containing 6.055 hectares for the abovestated purpose. The land is more particularly described as Lot 699 on Plan S31294 County of Stanley, Parish of Enoggera, City of Brisbane and it is situated approximately 6kms west of the Brisbane Central Business District on the fringe of the existing well established residential suburb of Bardon. As a result of litigation in the Local Government Court (as it then was), the resumed land was rezoned from the "Future Urban" zone to the "Residential A" zone within the City of Brisbane Town Planning Scheme pursuant to an Order made by the Planning and Environment Court (as it now is) on 2nd March, 1992. The rezoning was made subject to certain conditions as contained within the Order which is in evidence in this case.
There is considerable dispute between the parties as to compensation entitlement. On 7th September, 1992 the claimant company served a notice of claim for compensation upon the respondent Brisbane City Council in the sum of $3,590,333 made up as follows:-
Land, Severance injurious affection and
disturbance $3,554,000
Valuation fees $ 10,300
Legal Fees $ 5,521.75
Engineers and Other Consultants $ 20,491.25
Total Claim $3,590,333
=============
Since Lot 699 was resumed in its entirety, I should say now that there is no component part of the claim for compensation which could relate to severance and/or injurious affection. Further, the claim for disturbance is limited to professional fees outlayed by the claimant in course of the preparation and lodgement of the claim for compensation.
During the hearing of the matter leave was sought by and granted to the claimant company to amend the claim for compensation to read as follows:-
Land $3,554,000
Valuation fees $ 10,900
Solicitors fees $ 7,610.82
Counsel's fees $ 600
Engineers fees $ 9,515
Town Planners fees $ 310
Total amended claim $3,582,935.82
=============
The extent of the dispute between the parties as to compensation entitlement is indicated by disclosing now that the respondent Brisbane City Council, prior to the hearing of the matter, valued the resumed land at $2,100,000.
Called in evidence by the claimant company was practicing registered valuer Anthony John Schutz. Mr Schutz has had considerable experience in subdivisional project evaluation (concept and financial viability), strategic planning, project management and marketing, and with a background of this experience, he recognises that the resumed land had considerable potential for residential subdivision within the "Residential A" zone. Mr Schutz describes the nature of Lot 699 as comprising an elevated undulating parcel with almost regular dimensions having frontages to two unmade public roadways. There is a 40 lot plan of subdivision which was approved by the Local Government Court, and Mr Schutz says that a number of sites in the plan afford outstanding views of the City of Brisbane. 25 of the lots (Lots 1-25) are approved for single-unit residential development and the remainder and generally larger 15 lots are group title parcels (Lots 26-40). Appended to this judgment is a copy of the approved plan of subdivision. Both the claimant company and the respondent Brisbane City Council acknowledge and adopt it as a basis for their respective valuations of the resumed land by a hypothetical development method. In addition, the plan denotes contour levels (AHD) and is of assistance in appreciating the elevation and aspect of the lots, particularly in respect of prospective view. The Court's attention was specifically drawn by Mr Schutz to the area of the resumed land which lies between the RL 110 AHD contour and the RL 135 AHD contour. These contour lines are marked on the appended plan.
Mr Schutz comments that some of the development adjoining the resumed land comprises established residential housing, with the balance (most of which was previously owned by the claimant company or related companies but which have been purchased by the Brisbane City Council for protection of the environment purposes) being, like the resumed land, in a natural bushland state.
Mr Schutz values the land on two bases. He uses what he calls a feasibility analysis (determined by hypothetical subdivision) method and a direct comparison method as englobo land with an adjoining englobo land sale. More about the sales data later. Mr Schutz's hypothetical subdivisional valuation exercise is:-
Gross realisation (40 lots - 25 single unit and 15
group title lots) $8,546,500
Less Selling Expenses
Agents Commission, Advertising &
Legals @ 5% $ 427,500
Nett Realisation $8,119,000
Profit and Risk 27.5% $2,233,000
Total Value of Project (on a cost basis) $5,886,000
Less Development Costs:
Including Council Fees, Bulk Earthworks,
Stormwater Drainage, Roadways, Sewer
Headworks and Construction, Water Headworks
and Construction, Council Rates, Professional
Fees, Body Corporate Establishment, Estate
Amenities, Contingency, Project Management,
Insurance, Finance Application Fees and Holding
Charges say $2,157,000
Value of In-globo land including Legal Fees
and Stamp Duty $3,729,000
Land Value after allowance for Legal Fees and
Stamp Duty $3,554,000
Land Value $587,000 per hectare
It is to be immediately observed that the calculation made by Mr Schutz for his profit and risk allowance is not correct. The profit and risk factor allowance in hypothetical development valuation exercises is to based not on the nett realisation figure but on the value of the project. On my calculation, an allowance of 27.5% for profit and risk factor based on the value of the project is $1,751,157. What Mr Schutz has calculated as a profit and risk allowance factor ($2,233,000) is an actual profit and risk allowance rate of 38%. Now notwithstanding the technical error made by Mr Schutz, he stands by his estimate of $2,233,000 for profit and risk, and accordingly I do not propose to add a figure of about $480,000 to the value of the project and accordingly about $450,000 to his valuation of $3,554,000 for the resumed land.
Mr Schutz's gross realisation values are obtained from the following schedule -Lot 1 - 875 m2 - Single Unit - $135,000 ($155/m2)
Lot 2 - 865 m2 - Single Unit - $134,000 ($155/m2)
Lot 3 - 860 m2 - Single Unit - $133,000 ($155/m2)
Lot 4 - 860 m2 - Single Unit - $133,000 ($155/m2)
Lot 5 - 935 m2 - Single Unit - $145,000 ($155/m2)
Lot 6 - 830 m2 - Single Unit - $128,500 ($155/m2)
Lot 7 - 855 m2 - Single Unit - $132,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 8 - 790 m2 - Single Unit - $126,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 9 - 790 m2 - Single Unit - $126,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 10 - 905 m2 - Single Unit - $145,000 ($160/m2)
Lot 11 - 760 m2 - Single Unit - $121,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 12 - 760 m2 - Single Unit - $121,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 13 - 885 m2 - Single Unit - $141,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 14 - 940 m2 - Single Unit - $150,500 ($160/m2)
Lot 15 - 965 m2 - Single Unit - $308,500 ($320/m2)
Lot 16 - 1000 m2 - Single Unit - $230,000 ($230/m2)
Lot 17 - 790 m2 - Single Unit - $134,500 ($170/m2)
Lot 18 - 925 m2 - Single Unit - $157,000 ($170/m2)
Lot 19 - 920 m2 - Single Unit - $156,000 ($170/m2)
Lot 20 - 880 m2 - Single Unit - $149,500 ($170/m2)
Lot 21 - 980 m2 - Single Unit - $166,500 ($170/m2)
Lot 22 - 935 m2 - Single Unit - $163,500 ($175/m2)
Lot 23 - 1040 m2 - Single Unit - $182,000 ($175/m2)
Lot 24 - 845 m2 - Single Unit - $156,000 ($185/m2)
Lot 25 - 945 m2 - Single Unit - $175,000 ($185/m2)
Lot 26 - 1500 m2 - Group Title - $262,500 ($175/m2)
Lot 27 - 1305 m2 - Group Title - $247,000 ($190/m2)
Lot 28 - 1125 m2 - Group Title - $213,500 ($190/m2)
Lot 29 - 1065 m2 - Group Title - $223,500 ($210/m2)
Lot 30 - 1650 m2 - Group Title - $371,000 ($225/m2)
Lot 31 - 1135 m2 - Group Title - $340,500 ($300/m2)
Lot 32 - 860 m2 - Group Title - $301,000 ($350/m2)
Lot 33 - 1140 m2 - Group Title - $353,000 ($310/m2)
Lot 34 - 980 m2 - Group Title - $318,500 ($325/m2)
Lot 35 - 1350 m2 - Group Title - $357,000 ($265/m2)
Lot 36 - 1040 m2 - Group Title - $327,500 ($315/m2)
Lot 37 - 1025 m2 - Group Title - $322,500 ($315/m2)
Lot 38 - 1050 m2 - Group Title - $346,500 ($330/m2)
Lot 39 - 1000 m2 - Group Title - $330,000 ($330/m2)
Lot 40 - 1135 m2 - Group Title - $380,000 ($335/m2)
Total Value of lots $8,546,500
Now the adjoining sale of englobo land to which Mr Schutz referred was of a "Future Urban" zoned parcel containing 1.9903 hectares situated at 24 El Paso Street, Bardon. It is described as Lot 4 on Plan RP90001 Parish of Enoggera and sold on 14th March, 1991 from Addstead Pty Ltd to The Brisbane City Council for $750,000 ($376,870/ha). Addstead Pty Ltd is a member of the Emanuel Group of Companies as is the claimant company in this case. Mr Schutz says that Lot 4 has similar topographical features as the resumed land but he points out that it is a much smaller site and Mr Schutz is of the opinion that it is more costly to develop as a residential subdivision, requiring rezoning and the provision of access since the existing access is via a private roadway extending from El Paso Street and which is a narrow and poorly maintained road being unsuitable to service any further subdivisional development. The subdivision of Lot 4 would also involve the extension of services prior to any development. Mr Schutz says that given the attitude of the respondent Council to residential development in this precinct as evidenced by the need for the appeal to The Local Government Court in respect of the resumed land to obtain a rezoning, then it can only be reasonably concluded that a similar appeal would have been necessary to secure rezoning of Lot 4 to "Residential A" to provide for its subdivisional development. Based on the costs involved in rezoning the resumed land, Mr Schutz believes that it would cost in the order of $200,000 to run a case for the rezoning of Lot 4 - or $100,400 per hectare. On this basis then, Mr Schutz contends that the sale of Lot 4 reflects an englobo "Residential A" zoned land value of $477,000 per hectare for that site. After giving weight to the additional subdivisional development costs for Lot 4, then Mr Schutz suggests that his englobo value of the subject land at the rate of $587,000 per hectare is supported by his assumed "Residential A" zoned value of $477,000 per hectare for Lot 4.
Mr Schutz has taken out a hypothetical subdivisional valuation exercise for Lot 4 on RP 90001. This is in evidence. The gross realisation for the 10 lots (which are proposed group title lots) is $2,270,000 (average value $227,000). Development costs are estimated at $1,660,000, and Mr Schutz calculates in his exercise that the profit and risk factor, based on a land cost of $750,000 and a rezoning cost of $220,000, is $496,500 - or 23%. It is to be noted that the cost of development works in his hypothetical subdivision exercise for Lot 4 is about $500,000 - $250,000 per hectare and $50,000 per lot. This compares with his allowance of $1,849,280 for development works in the subdivision of the resumed land - or $305,413 per hectare and $46,233 per lot. But of course, the subdivisional plan for the resumed land provides for 25 single unit lots and 15 of the higher valued group title lots whereas Mr Schutz's Subdivisional Plan for Lot 4 provides for all group title lots.
As for Mr Schutz's gross realisation values in his subdivisional valuation exercise, he relies upon a number of sales. Lot 1 on GTP 2416 containing 2,200 m2 situated at 63 El Paso Street, Bardon sold in July, 1991 for $185,000 ($84/m2). This site fronts and has access from a narrow private roadway extending from the end of El Paso Street. The lot affords no views to the City and overlooks a wooded gully with the contour falling quite sharply away from the road frontage in respect of the rear portion towards a gully. The most suitable area for residential building on this lot, being located in the front approximately 30% of the site, adjoins the private access roadway. Mr Schutz says the narrowness of the private road access does not allow for the collection of waste and refuse from individual properties within the estate in El Paso Street.
Lot 2 on GTP 2416 containing 3300 m2 and also situated at No. 63 El Paso Street, Bardon sold in September, 1990 for $170,000 ($51.50/m2). This lot also affords no City views and also overlooks a wooded gully. The most suitable area for building is in the front 25% of the site adjoining the private access roadway.
Lot 3 on GTP 2416 containing 3300 m2 also situated at 63 El Paso Street, Bardon sold in August, 1990 for $217,500 ($66/m2). This site has limited views to the City from the edge of the access road alignment and also overlooks a wooded gully with the contour falling quite sharply away from the road frontage. The most suitable area for residential building on this lot is also in the front 25% of the site.
Lot 80 on RP 842552 containing 541 m2 and situated at 24 Chiswick Road, Bardon sold in March, 1992 for $73,500 ($136/m2). This site was created by subdivision from a larger established residential site upon which an existing dwelling was located to one side of the block. It has a narrow frontage to Chiswick Road which is a relatively busy local thoroughfare forming part of a bus route. The dimensions of the site are slightly irregular with the dwelling located on the other lot created by subdivision being very close to the side boundary of the sold property. The site has no views, falls away from the roadway and is likely to prove difficult to develop.
A site at 20 Carmel Street, Bardon containing 473 m2 sold in January, 1992 for $95,000 ($201/m2). This parcel is a narrow lot created by subdivision and situated on the high side of the road. It affords no views and has been developed since sale with a small dwelling.
A parcel at No. 5 The Drive, Bardon containing 711 m2 sold in August, 1992 for $95,000 ($134/m2). This is a battle-axe type block having a narrow frontage to The Drive. It falls sharply away from the road frontage particularly in respect of the rear portion beyond the extension (the access driveway) and affords no views.
A site at 81 Lewin Street, Bardon containing 496 m2 sold in October, 1992 for $106,000 ($214/m2). This is a narrow lot created by subdivision from an established residential property. It has improvements in the form of an inground swimming pool and falls away from the road frontage. There are no views available and it is disadvantaged in a development sense by the close proximity of the dwelling on the adjoining block which forms part of the subdivision to create the sale lot.
No. 7 Fairseat Street, Bardon containing 662 m2 sold in August, 1992 for $205,000 ($308/m2). This lot was also created by subdivision from a larger holding. It has a narrow road frontage and falls gently away from the roadway. The site affords good views over the City which cannot be built out and although the width of the block to some extent limits the development options, Mr Schutz says it is nevertheless a highly sought after commodity in the suburb of Bardon.
Another site at 5 Fairseat Street, Bardon containing 635 m2 sold in September, 1992 for $210,000 ($331/m2). Mr Schutz says that this parcel was also created by subdivision from a larger holding. It has a narrow road frontage and falls gently away from the roadway. This site also affords good views over the City which cannot be built out and Mr Schutz says that although the width of the block to some extent limits the development options, it again is nevertheless a highly sought after commodity in the suburb of Bardon.
Tendered in evidence was a schedule prepared by Mr Schutz incorporating, amongst other material, the valuation of each of the subject 40 lots, their respective elevation (Height AHD), the slope and grade. In this schedule Mr Schutz has included his description of the individual sites, their aspect and views, and as suggested by senior counsel for the claimant company at the outset of the case, Mr Schutz's lot valuations take into account to a significant degree his impression about the advantages of Central Business District and City and Bay views available from many of the lots. A copy of this schedule is attached to this judgment and this avoids this text being unnecessarily congested with an individual description by Mr Schutz of each potentially subdivided lot. Suffice it to say that Mr Schutz regards Lot 15 and Lots 30 - 40 to be, by a wide margin, the most valuable lots in the subdivision due mainly to his appreciation of the views available from the sites coupled with their larger than normal size. In addition Mr Schutz stresses that the value of some of these lots is considerably enhanced by their adjacency to a green belt.
A series of professionally developed photographs depicting the views available, in many cases through trees which stand on the land, from various locations within the resumed Lot 699 are in evidence.
Mr Schutz stresses that lots such as those within the subject subdivisional plan would be a very desirable commodity being so close to the City and many with the key feature of significant views of the Central Business District.
Mr Schutz has allowed for, as part of his development costs schedule, the provision of a satellite dish and TV reticulation together with electronically operated security gates on the access point to the group title lots (nos. 26-40). He has so done as he considers the whole proposed project would have been a prestigious estate, and he has provided for underground TV services to eliminate unsightly TV antennas. Mr Schutz's advice to a developer would be to selectively clear the resumed land prior to its residential development so as to maximise the views available from the site.
The claimant company also called in evidence Eric Stephen Chase who has been selling real estate in the Paddington/Bardon area since 1981. Mr Chase is the principal licensee of Eldershire Pty Ltd trading as Raine and Horne Spring Hill/Paddington. He has inspected the resumed land and describes the views available from it as outstanding and those which occur in few if any other areas of Brisbane. He says the entire City of Brisbane can be viewed all the way out to the Bay. Mr Chase regards the view available from part of the subject land to be as good as those on offer from the lookout on the crest of Mt Coot-tha.
Mr Chase describes the steep nature of the resumed land as lending potential for a unique style of residential development since the end user could utilise the natural terrain for an innovative architecturally designed home in what he describes as a highly sought after position. Mr Chase says that the timbered nature of the land makes it very attractive. It has many trees measuring about 200 mm at breast height but these are to be preserved in any future site development except where roads are to be built.
Mr Chase says that the pricing of the individual lots in the proposed estate would involve consideration of the scarcity of vacant land on offer in the western suburbs within a 5 kms radius of the City and the size of each individual lot. He informed the Court that the average size of lots sold recently in the Bardon area is well below the lot sizes projected for the subject development, and suggests that the price average per square metre for lots sold in 1992 is much higher than that proposed by Mr Schutz. Mr Chase listed in a tendered statement details of many land sales which have taken place during 1992 in the suburbs of Bardon, Paddington and Red Hill. He highlights the following sales:-A 635 m2 site in Fairseat Street, Bardon sold on 5th September, 1992 for $210,000 or $330.70/m2
A 666m2 site also in Fairseat Street, Bardon sold on 25th August, 1992 for $205,000 or $307.80/m2.
A 1162 m2 site at 36 Tristania Drive Bardon, sold 14th December, 1992 for $185,000 or $159.20/m2.
A 405 m2 site at 70 Alma Street Paddington sold on 29th March, 1992 for $130,000 or $320.98/m2.
A 526 m2 site at 5 Brigalow Street Paddington sold 7th July, 1992 for $130,000 or $247.14/m2.
Mr Chase says these sale properties have views which he regards as being only half comparable with those available from the more elevated areas on the subject site. Lots in the proposed subdivisional development with lesser views ie. Lots other than 15, 16, 24, 25 and 27 - 40 have been valued by Mr Schutz at an average price of $162.73/m2 and Mr Chase points out that this value is well below the average value of $175.18/m2 for land sales in the year of 1992 in the vicinity of the subject land.
Mr Chase has not referred to any sale in the suburbs of The Gap, Chapel Hill, Mt Ommaney or Westlake as he regards these areas as being on the other side of Mt Coot-tha. He expressed the view that land sales in these areas are not to be considered in the same category as in the Bardon/Paddington area. Mr Chase believes that the projected sale price applied by Mr Schutz for each lot in the proposed subdivision would have been achievable if the project had been allowed to proceed before resumption by Council. Indeed he further says that the prices could have been raised slightly on the lower priced lots as they are generally below the market average value per square metre. He is of the opinion that if the project had been allowed to proceed, then it most certainly would have been one of Brisbane's most successful developments.
Mr Chase is in general agreement with Mr Schutz in so far as his description of the views available from each lot is concerned. He has walked the whole of the estate and describes some of the views as quite spectacular.
The respondent City Council called one witness in the case. He is registered valuer Philip Noel Rowland who is in its employ. Mr Rowland describes the topography of the resumed land as covering ridge/gully type terrain in the Mt Coot-tha foothills. It straddles the south and east facing section of a prominent hill, rising from RL 65 metres AHD in the south-eastern corner to the RL 157 metre AHD contour on an east-west ridgeline which enters the block on the western boundary about 60 metres south of the northern boundary.
Mr Rowland informed the Court that the resumed land is the subject of a vegetation protection order under the provisions of Chapter 22 of the Ordinances of the Brisbane City Council. The Order is dated 31st March, 1992 and accordingly just prior to the resumption date. The vegetation protected is of any nature existing on a particular area of land. The stated reason for the order is that the vegetation forms part of the original plant community and constitutes a valuable natural habitat. Clause 23(1) of the Ordinances provides that a person must not destroy or interfere with any vegetation to which a current vegetation protection order relates without the approval of Council. Clause 38 provides that the exercise by Council in good faith or any authority conferred upon it by ordinance does not give rise to a claim by any person for compensation.
Mr Rowland describes the subject property as presenting a large undeveloped block of land on the fringe of Brisbane in a suburban area. He, like Mr Schutz, considers it to be ripe for subdivision in accordance with the adopted subdivisional plan (as appended) and his valuation also is based on this subdivisional potential which he considers represents the highest and best use of the land. Mr Rowland confirms that 25 of the lots (Lots 1 to 25) are confined to the lower slopes on the south facing side of the ridge and that the group title lots (Lots 26-40) occupy the higher areas straddling a ridge. He also regards most of the group title lots as having significant viewscapes and unlike many of the lots (Nos 1 to 15), would enjoy both morning and winter sun.
Mr Rowland has had Council officers in the Department of Works, Water Supply and Sewerage examine a cost schedule to develop the proposed subdivision as prepared by the engineering firm of Bornhorst and Ward. This firm prepared the cost estimates relied upon by Mr Schutz. The respective costs are agreed by Council as being reasonable.
Mr Rowland has examined a number of lot sales to provide him with a basis for his valuation of the individual lots in his hypothetical subdivision valuation exercise. The sale lots generally fronted formed roadways much wider than the 5.5 metre roadway proposed for the subject development in February, 1992. This width of roadway allows for one parking lane and for one running lane, but not for two-way passing traffic.
During the course of his evidence, Mr Rowland varied somewhat the values he placed upon some of the potential lots after he became aware more precisely about the boundaries of the lots and the location of the internal designed roadway. A Brisbane City Council surveyor has recently pegged the boundaries of each alternate lot and Mr Rowland explained that the variations he had made in his valuation of some of the individual lots were made on the basis of this more precise information, particularly with regard to site contours and available views.
Mr Rowland is of the opinion that it would be desirable for the developer of the subject site to purchase a house property adjoining at No. 93 Gordon Road, Bardon for the removal of the dwelling to enable better presentation of the estate. He says the dwelling is far from attractive. Details of Mr Rowland's valuation of the resumed land on the basis of hypothetical subdivision are:-
GROSS REALISATION - 25 Freehold lots $2,540,000
- 15 Group Title Lots $3,130,000
$5,670,000
Plus Sale of No. 93 Gordon Road, Bardon land $ 82,500
$5,752,500
Less Selling Expenses - R.E.I.Q. Commission,
Legal Fees & Advertising -
allow 5% $ 287,625
NettT REALISATION $5,464,875
Less Profit and Risk Factor @ 30% $1,261,125
$4,203, 750
Less Development Costs
(1)As per schedule prepared by
Bornhorst & Ward and agreed by
Council Officers of the relevant
Departments $1,629,071
Plus -
(2) Deed Rezoning Costs $2,999
Titles Office Fees:
Freehold $2,064
Group Title $ 919 $ 5,982
$1,635,053
Plus -
(3) Development Interest Period
- Half of development time
of 16 weeks; Plus 8 weeks in
Titles Office for plan
registration and Issue of Title;
Plus interest whilst Development
Loan is paid out at adopted sale
rate of 1.5 sales per week.
@ 9.1% P.A. $ 60,364 $1,695,417
LAND AND INTEREST ON LAND $2,508,333
Less Interest
Period - Gazettal of rezoning - estimate
of 8 weeks from Court Order to Publication
- allow half of period - 4 weeks; Plus
Development Period, Plan Registration and
Issue of Title, Development Loan Payout
4 + 16 + 8 + 8.5 = 36.5 weeks Plus a period
of 11.9 weeks whilst land loan is paid out
@ 9.1% P.A. Interest $ 181,732
$2,326,601
Less Acquisition Cost of No. 93 Gordon Road
Bardon $ 154,000
$2,172,601
Less Rates for holding period
allow 1 year $ 6,538
Legal fees on purchase allow
half scale $ 5,434
Stamp Duty on Purchase
estimate $75,975 $ 87,947
Value of Land $2,084,654
Land Value adopted $2,100,000.
Mr Rowland says that his adopted value of $2,100,000 based upon the foregoing hypothetical subdivision method equates to an englobo rate of $347,000 per hectare. He says the most comparable englobo sale in terms of size shape and topography is that of Lot 2 on RP 56949, Parish of Tingalpa containing an area of 7.4308 hectares. This site is situated at 146 Scrub Road, Carindale and sold on 18th July, 1991 to the respondent Brisbane City Council for the same purposes as the subject land was resumed for $2,000,000 or $269,000 per hectare. This is a large hillside parcel zoned "Future Urban" with potential for a 61 lot subdivision (21 "Residential A" and 40 Group Title lots). Mr Rowland points out that it adjoins an established prestige residential area approximately 10 kms radius from the Central Business District and 14 kms by road. Mr Rowland considers the subject land to be superior to this sale property for reasons of proximity to the City and the available viewscape.
Mr Rowland values each lot in the proposed subdivision as follows:-Lot 1 - 875 m2 - $85,000 ($97/m2)
Lot 2 - 865 m2 - $85,000 ($98/m2)
Lot 3 - 860 m2 - $85,000 ($99/m2)
Lot 4 - 860 m2 - $85,000 ($99/m2)
Lot 5 - 935 m2 - $90,000 ($96/m2)
Lot 6 - 830 m2 - $85,000 ($102/m2)
Lot 7 - 855 m2 - $90,000 ($105/m2)
Lot 8 - 790 m2 - $92,500 ($117/m2)
Lot 9 - 790 m2 - $92,500 ($117/m2)
Lot 10 - 905 m2 -$95,000 ($108/m2)
Lot 11 - 760 m2 - $80,000 ($105/m2)
Lot 12 - 760 m2 - $85,000 ($112/m2)
Lot 13 - 885 m2 - $90,000 ($102/m2)
Lot 14 - 1170 m2 - $105,000 ($90/m2)
Lot 15 - 965 m2 - $250,000 ($259/m2)
Lot 16 - 1000 m2 -$130,000 ($130/m2)
Lot 17 - 790 m2 - $90,000 ($114/m2)
Lot 18 - 925 m2 - $105,000 ($114/m2)
Lot 19 - 920 m2 - $120,000 ($130/m2)
Lot 20 - 880 m2 - $90,000 ($102/m2)
Lot 21 - 980 m2 - $80,000 ($82/m2)
Lot 22 - 935 m2 - $120,000 ($128/m2)
Lot 23 - 1040 m2 -$130,000 ($125/m2)
Lot 24 - 845 m2 - $80,000 ($95/m2)
Lot 25 - 945 m2 - $100,000 ($106/m2)
Lot 26 - 1500 m2 -$150,000 ($100/m2)
Lot 27 - 1305 m2 -$160,000 ($123/m2)
Lot 28 - 1125 m2 - $150,000 ($133/m2)
Lot 29 - 1065 m2 - $190,000 ($178/m2)
Lot 30 - 1650 m2 -$340,000 ($206/m2)
Lot 31 - 1135 m2 - $300,000 ($264/m2)
Lot 32 - 860 m2 - $140,000 ($163/m2)
Lot 33 - 1140 m2 - $140,000 ($123/m2)
Lot 34 - 980 m2 - $160,000 ($163/m2)
Lot 35 - 1350 m2 - $200,000 ($148/m2)
Lot 36 - 1040 m2 - $200,000 ($192/m2)
Lot 37 - 1025 m2 - $200,000 ($195/m2)
Lot 38 - 1050 m2 - $240,000 ($228/m2)
Lot 39 - 1000 m2 - $260,000 ($260/m2)
Lot 40 - 1135 m2 - $300,000 ($264/m2)
Total Gross Realisation $5,670,000
Now Mr Rowland produced for the Court a series of schedules of sales which provided him with a valuation basis for each of the potential subdivision lots. One such schedule is titled Vacant Land with views of Central Business District. There are four prominent sales in the Bardon area with these types of views. Lot 5 on RP 201925, Parish of Enoggera containing 1236 m2 situated at 7 Satinwood Court, Bardon sold on 5th September, 1992 for $207,000 or $164/m2. Mr Rowland describes this site as a ridgetop block in a newly developed estate with modern homes surrounding it. There are uninterrupted Central Business District views and an open panorama from the treed ridgeline of Birdwood Terrace in the south to Stuartholme Road Ridge in the north-west. The site can be overlooked by a house to the south-west. Level access has been formed and a three-level home is under construction in the excavated site.
Lot 34 on RP 209339, Parish of Enoggera containing 1288 m2 situated at 41 Tristania Drive, Bardon sold on 1st December, 1992 for $190,000 or $147/m2. This is a wide frontage block with a gully head filled. Views are available to the Central Business District and eastern quadrant only but the site cannot be built out.
Lot 20 on RP 209340, Parish of Enoggera containing 1162 m2 situated at 36 Tristania Drive, Bardon sold on 14th December, 1992 for $185,000 or $159/m2. The views of the Central Business District of Brisbane are partly obstructed by trees on foreground blocks and an adjoining house. There is an open north to north-easterly aspect which cannot be built out.
Lots 117 and 118 on RP 20618, Parish of Enoggera containing 890 m2 situated at 78 Outlook Crescent, Bardon sold on 1st August, 1992 for $190,000. This site was at sale date improved with a three bedroomed timber dwelling in good condition. It is a hillside block situated below road level with the southerly outlook to Stuartholme partly obstructed by trees. Views to the Central Business District are possible but are obstructed by an adjoining two storey house and trees on other land. Mr Rowland values the house on this property at $20,000 and deduces a land value at $170,000 or $213/m2.
Lots 1 & 2 on Plan SL 936 Parish of Enoggera containing 1260 m2 situated at 120 Annie Street, Auchenflower sold on 10th December, 1990 for $390,000 or $309/m2. This is a ridgetop block with unimpeded views to the Central Business District, the South East and to Mt Coot-tha. An old home on site was sold for removal.
A sale at 91B McGahan Street, Carina Heights is regarded by Mr Rowland as being important evidence notwithstanding its separation from the subject land by quite a distance. It is described as Lot 116 on RP 94289, Parish of Bulimba containing an area of 1416 m2. The site sold on 20th December, 1991 for $260,000 ($183/m2) and resold on 11th December, 1992 for $325,000 ($191/m2). Mr Rowland describes this site as being a hillside block with private easement access. There is an open view to the Central Business District and to the ranges beyond. From a two storey development on this sale site, views of the Gateway Arterial Bridge, rivermouth and north-east to Bay Islands are possible. There is a mathematical error in Mr Rowland's calculations of the rate per square metre for the sale on 11th December, 1992 for $325,000. In lieu of $191/m2, it should read $230/m2. Mr Rowland explained that there is a transcription error and that he has the price recorded in his field notes at $230/m2.
As for the basis for his valuation of the lots without views, Mr Rowland again relies upon a number of sales. The most relevant of these appear to be -Lot 49 on RP 221163, Parish of Enoggera containing an area of 1005 m2 situated at 12 Tipuana Place, Bardon sold on 21st October, 1991 for $120,000 ($119/m2). This is wide frontage block with regular slopes down to the road frontage. It has a north-west aspect and a limited outlook.
Lot 53 on RP 221163, Parish of Enoggera situated at 28 Tipuana Place, Bardon sold on 29th October, 1991 for $100,000 or $98/m2. This site has a limited north-westerly outlook and adjoins a Tennis Court used for unit development.
Lot 48 on RP 221163, Parish of Enoggera containing 1052 m2 situated at 8 Tipuana Place, Bardon sold on 25th November, 1991 for $120,000 or $114/m2. Mr Rowland says this is a wide frontage block with regular slope down to the road frontage. It has a north-westerly aspect and a limited outlook.
Lot 2 on RP 813066, Parish of Enoggera containing 711m2 situated at 7 The Drive, Bardon sold on 6th August, 1992 for $95,000 or $133/m2. This block is situated at the head of a gully with the outlook limited to surrounding houses. It has concrete driveway access and is a bowl shaped block.
Mr Rowland has also scheduled a number of sales of group title plan sales in Greenmount Close, Estate at Ashgrove. He incurred some criticism during the case for the introduction of these sales and it was suggested they were in another suburb and without the views to the Central Business District. Nonetheless, I find them of assistance especially as they are relatively close to the resumed land and certainly many of the sites in the Estate have nice suburban and bay views and an outlook to the north and east. These sales took place during 1991 and 1992. The sites vary in area from 1404m2 to 2327m2 and in price from $97,000 to $160,000. The highest block in the estate (Lot 6 on GTP 2839 containing 1404m2) sold for the highest price ($160,000). It has reasonable access and a private position. Views to the Gateway Bridge and Moreton Bay Islands and to Settlement Road, The Gap are available. All lots in the estate have building platforms provided, but they suffer to some extent from adjacency to or near adjacency to the long established but now unworked quarry at The Gap and to the relatively newly constructed Gap Tavern. The sites do however have areas reasonably closely comparable with the more elevated sites projected for the resumed land, and they are of course identical in tenure.
By way of support for his englobo value of the resumed land (at the rate of $347,000 per ha), and apart from his principle sale at Scrub Road which has already been discussed, Mr Rowland also points to the sale of 24 El Paso Street, Bardon from Addstead Pty Ltd to the Brisbane City Council for $376,000 per hectare. Mr Rowland describes this lot as being a steep hillside block with spectacular views to the Central Business District and Bay Islands through from the north-east to the south. Unlike Mr Schutz, Mr Rowland did not undertake a hypothetical subdivision valuation exercise on this land into group title lots to test the profit and risk factor. Mr Rowland also cites the englobo purchase of the Greenmount Close land containing 2.431 hectares on 16th May, 1991 for $600,000 - or $246,800 per hectare.
Mr Rowland offered some criticism of Mr Schutz's valuation of the proposed lots on the resumed land mainly on the basis that the larger sized lots should attract a lower value per square metre than the smaller sites. This principle is well established and has received the endorsement of the Land Appeal Court in Re: H and E Grahn v. The Valuer-General - City of Redcliffe where the Court had this to say:-
"We agree with the submission made by the respondent that for the purpose of valuing residential sites the preferable method of comparison is on a site basis and not on the basis of unit area comparisons."
This is not to say however that the relatively larger areas of the proposed subject lots situated in a suburb like Bardon is not an advantage as was suggested by both Mr Schutz and Mr Chase. Mr Rowland explained to the Court that his valuations of the potential single unit sites on the resumed land (Lots 1 to 25) took into account not only the steeply sloping nature of the lots but that, for the most part, they have southerly aspects and are consequently lacking in exposure to the sun, particularly in the winter months. His valuation of the sites did not take into account any advantage which may have been gained by the provision of the television dish or the security gates, nor has he taken into account the cost of providing these facilities.
A considerable amount of time was spent during the hearing of this matter on examination and cross-examination of the witnesses in regard to the relative advantages and disadvantages of the proposed sites within the subdivisional design for the resumed land. It is unprofitable for me to discuss all this evidence here, suffice it to say that the evidence, coupled with a brief view of the subject land which was made at the request of the respondent, leads me to the conclusion that there are available to a number of the lots planned for group title subdivision, significant views not only of the Central Business District but to suburban Brisbane and Moreton Bay. While it is that these views are restricted in many places by trees and vegetation, I feel they are of such significance that they would add considerable value to the lots, more particularly to Lots 30-40 within the group title lots and Lot 15, and to a lesser degree Lot 16 within the single unit lots. But I hasten to add that I think the development policy outlined by witnesses for the appellant company insofar as it relates to the selective clearing of undergrowth and trees which do not meet the size of 200 mm breast height could, and in all probability would have met resistance from the Brisbane City Council in view of the vegetation protection order covering the resumed land.
Before going into the detail I find necessary as a basis for the determination of compensation, I should now comment that I do not propose to follow Mr Rowland's valuation in so far as it involves the purchase of the No. 93 Gordon Road property for a price of $154,000 and after removal of the dwelling house, its disposal for $82,500. Certainly the house at No. 93 Gordon Road (which is adjacent to the entry to the proposed subdivision for the resumed land) is not attractive and may detract from the selling prices of yielded lots in the subdivision, particularly Lots 1 - 7 in Gordon Road. But there are problems in that the dwelling house at No. 93 Gordon Road may not be for sale. Indeed Mr Rowland interviewed the owner and was informed that it was for sale "at a price". I feel that the approach suggested by Mr Schutz is more practical for the developer of the estate, and that is to try to purchase the property to renovate the house, and then to onsell it hopefully at a profit. I propose in my workings of a hypothetical subdivisional valuation exercise to price the lots, particularly Lots 1 - 7, so as to take into account whatever deleterious affect the present appearance of the No. 93 Gordon Road property has on the affected lots.
I find it necessary to make an indepth examination and reconciliation, if possible, of the hypothetical subdivision valuation exercises undertaken by the valuers. Thankfully, as is often not the case, there is considerable agreement between them in regard to many aspects of their respective exercises. Perhaps it is better put to say that the only significant, as well as being the most significant, difference between them is their respective estimates for gross realisation. The profit and risk factor, which often is a subject of widely differing assessments by valuers, is almost the same (27.5% and 30%). The development costs prepared for the claimant company are adopted by the respondent. The interest rate on land development costs vary but only from 10% to 9.1%. The period of development is agreed at 36 weeks although Mr Rowland suggests a longer selling period for the proposed lots than did Mr Schutz.
It is well settled that in cases of this nature any doubts in relation to the determination of compensation should be resolved in favour of a more liberal estimate and for the benefit of the applicant - vide The Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v. Executor Trustee and Agency Company of (SA) Limited
(1947) 74 CLR 358 p 374. This being so, for the purpose of an attempt at valuation reconciliation, I should now say that I propose to adopt a profit and risk factor of 27.5%, the agreed development costs, and the cost of the sattelite dish, the TV reticulation and the electronically operated security gate costs as furnished by Mr Schutz. The agreed Council fees and the bonding fees and the allowances made by Mr Schutz for landscaping and for finance application fees and his allowance for contingency are adopted.
I turn now to examine the respective valuations of the individual lots in the proposed subdivision of the resumed land. As a general comment, I find Mr Schutz's pricing of the lots is too high notwithstanding his enthusiasm about the prestigious nature of the proposed estate. It well may be that he was influenced too much in his valuations in the use of a unit area method of valuation. It is apparent that he adopted this method as his basis as demonstrated by the appended schedule, especially when the application of the rate per square metre is compared with the adopted site values which do not appear to have been rounded off-for example Lot 30 is valued at $225/m2 resulting in a value of $371,000. I prefer the site to site method of valuation relied upon by Mr Rowland.
I accept without reservation the submission made by the claimant company, and which indeed was its main submission, that the value of lots with views of the Central Business District is greatly influenced by those views. But again I feel that Mr Schutz has over estimated his pricing for these lots. For example values in the order of $371,000 for Lot 30, $301,000 for Lot 32, $357,000 for Lot 35, $346,500 for Lot 38 and $380,000 for Lot 40 are in my opinion simply not sustainable when compared with what I regard as the two key sales of lots with views of the Central Business District - that is with the sale of 7 Satinwood Court containing 1263 m2 for $207,000 and 120 Annie Street containing 1260 m2 for $390,000. This appears to be so, notwithstanding the challenges made by the claimant company to the comparisons made by Mr Rowland and his description of the views available from 7 Satinwood Court and its proximity to homeunits and proposed homeunits. It is a pity that Mr Schutz's searches did not appear to reveal the sale of 120 Annie Street as this is certainly a prominent site situated very close to the City and with excellent views of the Central Business District. I also find that Mr Schutz's valuations of the group title lots are not sustainable in view of the group title lot sales in Greenmount Close, Ashgrove, despite that the sale lots do not have Central Business District views.
As to the proposed lots without views, I am influenced by the evidence of Mr Rowland about the southerly aspect of most and the lack of winter sun. Certainly compared with sales in Tipuana Place, Bardon, I cannot see that Mr Schutz's valuations of those individual lots are supportable.
In valuation cases of this nature there is normally always room for differences of opinion in respect of the pricing of lots like those in the proposed subdivision. It is not normally a case of preferring one valuer's opinion to the exclusion of the other's opinion. The evidence as a whole satisfies me that Mr Rowland's valuation of the sites is on the low side, since I feel he has not placed enough emphasis upon the value of views from the more elevated sites, and on the rural type nature of the outlook from the less valuable sites in the proposed development (Lots 1 - 14 and 16 - 25). Doing the best I can, I find that a realistic pricing for lots within the proposed estate on the resumed land, given the selling period of 36 weeks and the advantage of the prestigious nature of the proposed estate as suggested by Mr Schutz and Mr Chase, to be:-Lots 1 - 4 - $100,000 each
Lots 5 & 6 - $110,000 each
Lots 7 - 9 - $120,000 each
Lot 10 - $125,000
Lot 11 - $90,000
Lot 12 - $100,000
Lot 13 - $115,000
Lot 14 - $125,000
Lot 15 - $275,000
Lot 16 - $160,000
Lot 17 - $110,000
Lot 18 - $125,000
Lot 19 - $135,000
Lot 20 - $115,000
Lot 21 - $110,000
Lot 22 - $145,000
Lot 23 - $150,000
Lot 24 - $100,000
Lot 25 - $120,000
Lot 26 - $175,000
Lot 27 - $185,000
Lot 28 - $175,000
Lot 29 - $210,000
Lot 30 - $360,000
Lot 31 - $325,000
Lot 32 - $200,000
Lot 33 - $225,000
Lot 34 - $200,000
Lot 35 - $275,000
Lot 36 & 37 - $250,000 each
Lot 38 - $275,000
Lot 39 - $300,000
Lot 40 - $340,000
I now proceed to my determination of compensation for the resumption of the land based on my finding as to lot valuations by the process of hypothetical subdivision as follows:-
Gross Realisation $6,825,000
Less selling costs @ 5% $ 341,250
$6,483,750
Less Profit and Risk factor 27.5% $1,398,456
$5,085,294
Development costs -
Roadworks, Drainage
and Surveying $ 853,000
Sewerage $ 303,650
Water supply headworks $ 102,632
Water supply construction
costs $ 180,000
Sewerage headworks $ 60,174
Council fees $ 17,500
Underground power and
Telecom $ 120,000
Bonding costs $ 8,824
Landscaping $ 40,000
Satellite dish and television
reticulation $ 35,000
Electronically operated
security gates $ 18,000
Finance application fees $ 10,000
Insurance $ 500
Contingency $ 60,000
Rezoning deed cost and
Title Office fees say $ 6,000
$1,815,280
Add development interest
at 9.1% for half development
period of 36 weeks $ 57,181 $1,872,461
$3,212,833
Less interest on land
for 36 weeks at 9.1% $ 202,408
$3,010,425
Less rates for holding period
allow 1 year (actual) $ 6,538
Legal fees on purchase say $ 7,500
Stamp Duty on purchase
estimate $ 105,000 $ 119,038
$2,891,387
==========
Much has been written in valuation texts and much has been said by Courts over the years about the inherent unreliability of valuations which have been based on hypothetical subdivision. With this in mind, I now propose to look at the englobo sales evidence to see if the forgoing determination of the value of the resumed land is reasonable. I am not as influenced by the sale at Scrub Road as was Mr Rowland. Certainly the physical characteristics of the land are advantageous, since it comprises for the most part elevated land of relatively even topography with good views. But there is a problem in its use as a relevant and basic sale. Searches of a Council file by senior Counsel for the claimant company and by Mr Schutz indicate that an application was made to rezone the land from "Future Urban" to "Residential A" on 17th November, 1989. Council refused the application on 23rd April, 1991, partly on the ground that it had value as bushland. Appeal No. 22 of 1991 was lodged against the refusal in the Local Government Court on 26th April, 1991 by the company which had contracted to purchase the land from C & B Cahill viz Silverace Pty Ltd. This appeal was withdrawn on 22nd May, 1991. A fresh appeal was lodged on 27th May, 1991 and this was also withdrawn on 17th July, 1991. The Council acquisition file indicates that there is a document dated 25th March, 1991 signed by the Manager of the Department of Development and Town Planning, recommended by the Town Clerk and endorsed by the Lord Mayor and a number of other Council officers in relation to a submission to the Establishment and Co-ordination Committee recommending that action be taken to acquire the land by resumption in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act for the purposes of the Environment Protection of the landscape amenity.
Now I find in these circumstances that the sale to Council of the Scrub Road land was made under such circumstances as would indicate that the land was under the threat of resumption. This being so, I am not prepared to rely upon it as basic evidence in this case. In addition to the rather unusual circumstances surrounding the sale, I should add that it is zoned "Future Urban" whereas the resumed land is zoned "Residential A". It is well removed from the subject land and situated really in another environment not being on the slopes of Mt Coot-tha within the suburb of Bardon and so close to the City.
I cannot agree with Mr Schutz, in that one can add the likely cost of obtaining the rezoning of Lot 4 on RP 90001 in El Paso Street to its sale price to reflect its value in the "Residential A" zone. It is speculative at least to suppose that it would be necessary to go to the Planning and Environment Court to obtain a rezoning. I prefer to look at its sale price and its then existing zoning ("Future Urban") when making a comparison with the englobo value of the subject land. This is at the rate at $376,870 per hectare. I accept the evidence of Mr Schutz as to the development costs of Lot 4 and indeed his evidence that the potential yielded lots in any proposed group title lot subdivision for Lot 4 are of lesser value that the subject subdivision. On this basis I cannot see that a land value of in the order of $2.9 million for the subject land, or in the order of $480,000 per hectare, given its overall advantage over Lot 4 in the market place, is anomalous or lacking in relativity with the sale of Lot 4.
In all the circumstances then I find that the value of the resumed land at resumption date is the rounded off sum of $2,900,000.
I now turn to consider the claim in so far as it relates to the disturbance items. The only matter in dispute is the claim for legal fees involved in the preparation of the claim for compensation. Evidence was given by Ian Bradley Walker who is a solicitor and partner in the legal firm Sly Weigall Cannan & Peterson as to how the solicitors fees in the sum of $7,610.82 was made up. Mr Walker had the carriage of the action in so far as the preparation of the claim for compensation is concerned. Copies of the firm's Memorandum of Fees served upon the Emanuel Group of companies (of which the claimant company is a subsidiary) were put in evidence. A fee was rendered on 29th November, 1991 for $761.66, a further fee of $2,721.18 was rendered on 6th December, 1991, a fee of $509.78 was sent on 31st January, 1992, another for $704.20 was rendered on 11th June, 1992 and a final account of $2,914 was forwarded on 27th August, 1992.
Mr Walker placed in evidence his firm's hourly charge out rates and the number of hours which were involved in the handling of the matter by various officers of his firm. There is no dispute as to the number of hours spent in the preparation of the claim. The fees rendered involved discussions with a second valuer, a Mr Jorgenson, who was not called in the case. There were attendances on the Mortgagee which wanted to know the valuation figures, and on other parties including a Mrs Kennedy who owned land adjoining the resumed property and who was negotiating with the claimant company about its desire to purchase some of her land, and with a Mr Croker who is an engineer employed by Bornhorst and Ward. It is observed, of course, that if the Mortgagee had not been informed as to the contents of the claim for compensation, it would have a right to separately claim compensation under the provisions of section 12(5) of the Acquisition of Land Act of 1967 and in accordance with the decision of the former President of this Court (Mr Smith) in Re: Claim for Compensation - Resumption for Road Purposes - Lensworth Finance Limited v. The Commissioner of Main Roads (1978) 5 QLCR 261.
The claim for solicitors fees is resisted by the respondent City Council mainly on the basis that it was not necessary to engage a second valuer, nor was it necessary to confer with the mortgagee or Mrs Kennedy. It is submitted by Counsel for the respondent that no award as compensation for solicitors fees should be made as Mr Walker was unable to split up the fees as between the work which was actually necessary to prepare and lodge the claim to the exclusion of work which, it is suggested, was unnecessary such as the conferring with a second valuer and the mortgagee and Mrs Kennedy. I have considered the submissions and have come to the conclusion, particularly in view of the monetary value of the claim for compensation, that the claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in the matter, particularly in relation to discussing the compilation of the claim with a second valuer. I propose to allow the claim for the solicitor's fee in full in the sum of $7,610 as claimed.
Accordingly, compensation is determined as follows:-
Value of Land resumed $2,900,000
Disturbance
Valuation fees $ 10,900
Solicitors fees $ 7,610
Counsels fees $ 600
Engineers fees $ 9,515
Town Planners fees $ 310
Total award of compensation $2,928,935.
Section 28 of the Acquisition of Land Act of 1967 provides that the Land Court may order that interest be paid upon the amount of compensation determined by it and further that such interest shall be at such rate per centum per annum as the Land Court deems reasonable. An advance of $2,133,260.27 was paid by the respondent to the claimant company on 8th February, 1993. This advance was made up of $2,000,000 as compensation for the resumption and $133,260.27 as interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of resumption to the advance date. But the Court awards interest on outstanding compensation monies in resumption cases as between a 1992 resumption date and a present payment of compensation date at the rate of 8.75% which rate is in line with the average long term bond rate for the relevant period. Accordingly I order that, in addition to compensation payable, interest at the rate of 8.75% per annum be paid by the respondent Brisbane City Council to the claimant company on the following sums and for the following periods:-
On the sum of $2,900,000 for the period commencing on 29th May, 1992 (Date of Resumption) and ending on 8th February, 1993 (Date of Advance) and;
On the sum of $900,000 for the period commencing on 9th February, 1993 and ending on the day immediately preceding the date upon which final payment of compensation is made; and
On the sums awarded under the heading of disturbance for the period commencing on the date upon which the fees were paid by the Claimant Company and ending on the day immediately preceding the date upon which final payment of compensation is made -
Less the amount of $133,260.27 which has been paid on 9 February, 1993 by way of interest by the Respondent Brisbane City Council.
Member of the Land Court.
0
1
0