Hill v Western Australian Planning Commission

The case of Hill v Western Australian Planning Commission involved the plaintiffs, who were lessors of a piggery, challenging a decision by the Western Australian Planning Commission to refuse a development permit. The plaintiffs argued that the refusal of their application resulted in a significant financial loss, as the land in question had a unique value due to its suitability for operating a piggery. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 36(2b) of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act, which relates to the assessment of the value of the land in question. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs' loss was greater because of circumstances relating to the land which gave the owner a particular advantage, and if so, how this should be factored into the valuation of the land for the purposes of the planning scheme. The court also had to consider the true market value of the land as an operating piggery, and whether this should be the basis for determining the value to be applied in the planning scheme.

The court held that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be determined by reference to its market value, where there is a willing buyer and willing seller of such a business in that location. The court emphasised that the true market value is that of an operating piggery, and that the value to the owner cannot be inflated merely because the owner has suffered a loss due to circumstances relating to the land. The court found that the plaintiffs' loss was not due to any particular advantage the land offered, but rather due to the planning decision which prevented the operation of the piggery. Consequently, the court ruled that the value of the land should be assessed based on its market value as an operating piggery, without any additional allowance for the plaintiffs' loss.

The final order of the court was that the trial on the preliminary issue was determined in favour of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The court found that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be based on its market value as an operating piggery, and that the plaintiffs' loss due to the planning decision did not entitle them to any additional compensation.