Olsson v The State
[1998] QLC 66
•16 June 1998
LAND COURT BRISBANE 16 JUNE 1998
[1998] QLC 66
Re: A96-53
Determination of Compensation - Resumption by The State Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Charles N Olsson v.
The State
Claimant
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The claimant owned a 6.249 ha parcel of land near Mudgeeraba, a township located in the area of what is now known as the Gold Coast City Council. The respondent issued a Notice of Intention to Resume the land on 8 February 1995, then on 12 May of that year a proclamation was published in the Government Gazette taking the land for school purposes pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 as amended (Qld).
On 6 June 1995 the claimant lodged a claim with the State seeking compensation in the amount of $1,650,000 for the loss of land. Early in the hearing leave was sought to amend the claim to $1,000,000, together with disturbance items, based on a valuation provided by Lawrence John Hamilton, a registered valuer who was called by the claimant. That application was resisted by the State and it was agreed between the parties that any argument on this matter would be deferred to the stage when argument, if any, on the question of costs arises. It was clear though, from the time of the application for leave to amend, that the claimant would be leading evidence to the lower figure and it is also clear that the respondent was aware of this figure from the date of exchange of valuations which took place prior to the hearing.
An advance of $500,000 was paid to the claimant on 8 January 1996, this figure apparently having been based on a valuation which was not sought to be relied upon by the State before me. A valuation in the amount of $281,000 completed by Gregory Patrick Crowley, a registered valuer who gave evidence, was provided as part of the exchange of expert reports and at the outset of the hearing it was that figure which was contended for by the respondent. Some way into the evidence this figure was changed to $320,000. This change came about as a result of Mr Crowley being advised by Jeffrey Ross Humphreys, town planner, who was also called by the respondent that it was appropriate to base the valuation of the resumed land on the
assumption that it could be subdivided into nine Park Residential allotments instead of the seven allotments which originally formed the basis of Mr Crowley's valuation.
It may be convenient if I mention now that in addition to evidence being given through Mr Crowley and Mr Humphreys for the State, and Mr Hamilton for the claimant, town planner Colin Thomas Little was called to give evidence in his area of expertise on behalf of the claimant.
I had the benefit of viewing the resumed land and the environs of Mudgeeraba together with the various sales referred to in the valuations of Mr Hamilton and Mr Crowley. I found these inspections to be of benefit in my understanding of the evidence. I first made inspections in company with the two valuers, then again some time later and with the agreement of the parties, by myself.
The Resumed Land
Whilst at the time of resumption it was to be found in the local authority area controlled by the Gold Coast City Council, the resumed land had, prior to the creation of that local authority by the amalgamation of two Councils, been subject to the Albert Shire Council. The Town Planning Scheme for that Council which came into effect on 24 February 1995 continued to encompass the land in spite of the amalgamation of the Councils. The land under that Scheme was zoned "Park Residential". The zoning and strategic plan designation of the resumed land loomed large in this matter as it was the contention for the claimant that the land had a potential beyond a simple subdivision of the land into Park Residential lots. I will in due course introduce the evidence concerning the strategic plan designation which applied to the land.
Mr Olsson's property is to be found where Hardys Road meets the Gold Coast- Springbrook Road ("Springbrook Road"), south-west of where the latter crosses Mudgeeraba Creek just outside the township. Mudgeeraba provides a fair mix of retail, medical and educational facilities, all of which can be found between 1 and 2 km from the land, whilst a wider range of facilities including recreational amenities is located within a 5-km radius. Electricity, water and telephone are available to the property, whilst sewerage can be provided by extending facilities from Mudgeeraba.
The resumed land is not subject to any easements or encumbrances. The land is somewhat wedge shaped with a long straight rear boundary abutting a 20-metre wide park and recreation reserve for much of its length and a Park Residential lot for the balance. That rear boundary at its eastern end takes a 90-degree turn north for a short distance until it meets Hardys Road which it follows for 257 metres until the Springbrook Road reserve is encountered. The boundary then follows that reserve in a westerly direction in two almost straight chords for a
total distance of 339 metres until it again meets the rear boundary at an acute angle of something less than 45 degrees. That angle forms the blade of the wedge that I have described. To the west of that acute corner but not cadastrally connected to the land is Tarrant Drive which services Park Residential lots to the south. It was Mr Crowley's evidence that legal access could not be obtained from the resumed land to Springbrook Road, however, I should mention now that the road reserve for that particular road is quite wide at the western corner of the resumed land and, prior to the resumption, one would have been forgiven for thinking that the Olsson land abutted Tarrant Drive. A Park Residential allotment adjoins the eastern boundary of the resumed land and shares the short boundary which runs north/south. That allotment shares the same aspect as much of the resumed land and has a frontage to Hardys Road. I mention this allotment later in these reasons and refer to it as "the adjoining allotment to the east".
Hardys Road is a two-lane bitumen sealed road with gravel shoulders which carries a fair volume of traffic as it is the main feeder road for the locality to the south of the resumed land. Springbrook Road is a two-lane bitumen sealed road with gravel shoulders. It carries a fair to heavy volume of traffic and, in addition to servicing those who live in the area of its compass, it is the main tourist route into the hinterland.
That area to the south and to the west of the land features rural residential estates located on the rolling hills to be found there. To the east of Hardys Road the local authority has recently resumed two large parcels of land totalling just under 80 ha, for park purposes. To the south of this, more rural residential lots are to be found. There is, running through this intended parkland, a double set of high-tension powerlines which are also visible from the resumed land. The significance of these powerlines in valuing the land was a topic of difference between the two valuers. Mudgeeraba and Bonogin Creeks are nearby and form attractive green corridors as they track through the area. A sawmill is found on the opposite side of Springbrook Road from the land, though Mr Crowley, who has lived in the area for some years, said that he had not seen the mill working. He described the mill as a "quaint" rural feature.
Mr Crowley described the topography of the resumed land as "moderate to steeply sloping forest ridge slopes and gullies, with a general fall from the southern boundary to the north. Average slope is about 17 degrees". Mr Hamilton was concerned with the use of the term "steeply sloping" and in his report used this language: "The subject land is all well elevated rising up from Springbrook Road to the southern boundary. The land is slightly undulating ...". Mr Little said that, by observation, the slope was about 10 to 15 degrees, though he agreed that a 17 degree average was "about right". That 17 degree measurement resulted from Mr Crowley adopting a particular point on the resumed land which he saw as being average and by
calculating the slope from that point having regard to contours recorded on a contour plan. I think that I can safety accept, based on the apparent agreement between Mr Little and Mr Crowley, that the resumed land has an average slope of about 17 degrees.
That slope is to the north and towards Springbrook Road. The northerly aspect is generally regarded as the preferred aspect, particularly for residential purposes, whilst the aspect towards the long boundary of the land fronting Springbrook Road would provide good exposure if commercial development took place on the land.
There was some debate as to whether the vegetation on the land was virgin or contained regrowth, however, I see no need to settle this dispute as it is quite clear that there are some large trees towards the Springbrook Road boundary of the land and contained on the road reserve there, along Hardys Road and interspersed throughout the site. There was, at the time of resumption, an understorey of black wattle trees, assorted native pines and shrubs. An aerial photograph and other photographs showed that the land was heavily vegetated.
An above ground trunk water main painted white is located on the elongated park and recreation reserve at the rear of the land. The reserve does not extend fully along that boundary, however, the water main continues from the end of the reserve across a Park Residential allotment and is therefore presumably protected by an easement which encumbers the title of that allotment. A brick structure, referred to as a pump station in evidence, is located at the western end of the water main, though it is not totally clear whether this structure is to be found on an easement or on the road reserve. Nothing seems to turn on this.
Mr Olsson's land has, since resumption, been developed into the Mudgeeraba Creek Primary and Pre-School. There was evidence that the authorities had some difficulty in locating a site for this school development and the evidence revealed that there was a deal of community pressure demanding the development of the school as the Mudgeeraba Central School was to capacity and overflowing. Construction on the new school commenced soon after the resumption and the development was completed early in 1996, a few weeks after the commencement of the school year.
It would be usual for me to first of all consider the valuation evidence adduced by the claimant; however, for reasons that will become clear later in these reasons, I will commence with a consideration of the valuation relied upon by the State.
Mr Crowley's Valuation
Mr Crowley valued the resumed land on the basis of the local authority zoning which applied at the date of acquisition saying that "rezoning to alternative uses is considered remote
due to the requirements of the Strategic Plan". He saw subdivision into acreage residential sites as the highest and best use of the land. In his written valuation he said that he had relied on the valuation technique of comparing the resumed land with four in globo sales and had used the hypothetical subdivision method as a check. I will introduce his in gobo sales now for convenience, but will discuss them and their comparison with the resumed land, in detail, later. Each of the sales is located in the Albert Shire area.
Sale 1 took place in September 1995 and involved the sale of an area of 3.31 ha for
$350,000 which calculated to $105,740 per ha. The land was zoned "Rural" and was designated "Park Residential" in the Strategic Plan. Mr Crowley's in globo Sale No. 2 involved an area of
14.15 ha which sold in September 1994 for $950,000 or $67,138 per ha. This land was zoned "Rural B" under the superseded 1988 Town Plan which allowed development of 4 ha "Rural Residential" lots, though the "Rural Residential" designation under the 1988 Strategic Plan is similar to the "Park Residential" designation which prevailed under the 1995 Plan. Rezoning was apparently considered probable by the purchaser who bought the land unconditionally. Sale 3 comprised two separate sales which were, in due course, developed together. The first of these sale properties had an area of 4.431 ha and sold in February 1994 for a price of $172,500 or
$38,930 per ha after the deduction of some improvements. The second of these sales was for a price of $172,500 or $37,120 per ha for an area of 4.647 ha of land in November 1994. The amalgamated site had an area of 9.078 ha and the combined purchase price, following the deduction of improvements, was $345,000 or $38,000 per ha. These sales carried the zonings "Rural B" and"Rural A", respectively, but were designated "Park Residential" in the draft Town Plan, which was not yet law at that time. The fourth sale referred to by Mr Crowley took place in February 1996, involved an area of 6.886 ha and showed a sale price of $270,000 or $39,209 per ha. It was zoned "Park Residential" and designated as such on the Strategic Plan.
In his initial valuation report, Mr Crowley prepared a hypothetical subdivision exercise based on the subdivision of the resumed land into seven acreage residential sites. That original set of calculations produced a figure of $43,943 per ha and he was influenced by this to adopt a figure of $45,000 per ha as the value of the land. When Mr Hamilton gave evidence, he pointed out some patent errors in Mr Crowley's original calculations and, as a result of this, Mr Crowley provided a corrected version which resulted in a land value of $44,235 per ha.
The seven-lot subdivision proposal was based on the Planning Scheme which provides that in the "Park Residential" zone the yield in any subdivision is not to exceed one lot per 8,000 m², whilst individual allotments must not be smaller than 4,000 m². An application of those rules to the area of the resumed land reveals that the maximum number of allotments achievable would
be seven. During Mr Little's evidence-in-chief he suggested that nine allotments would probably be achievable based on s.16.4.1 of the Planning Scheme which provides a range of circumstances under which a higher density of allotments might be achieved on subdivision. Mr Little was subjected to cross-examination on his suggestion; however, in due course Mr Humphreys, for the respondent, provided a supplementary report which proposed that nine lots would probably be achievable having regard to the provisions of s.16.4.1 of the Scheme. There was some difference between Mr Humphreys and Mr Little with regard to those aspects of s.16.4.1 which could be relied on to allow the increased density, however, I will not concern myself with this issue at the moment.
Possessed of Mr Humphreys' fresh advice, Mr Crowley completed a further hypothetical subdivision exercise which yielded a residual land value of $320,000. He adopted this figure as the value of the resumed land. Though Mr Crowley said that he had used comparison with in globo sales as his primary method of valuation, he did not say what value that method revealed to him. He said in cross-examination that he had originally adopted a value closer to his Sales 3 and 4 ($38,000 per ha and $39,209 per ha), though his figure by this method was probably higher than these sale prices as in his written report he said that he saw the subject land as being superior to these two properties. Tellingly, he said that the hypothetical subdivision exercise assisted in providing a "precise point at which ... you should stop". Given that following his receipt of the advice concerning the prospect of achieving nine lots he simply carried out a further hypothetical subdivision exercise and gave no evidence that he had revisited his sales, apart from a passing reference to his Sale 4, I conclude that he placed greater reliance on the hypothetical subdivision exercises than he did on the method of comparison with sales. It will be useful now if I introduce the proposed subdivision layouts.
Layout
Mr Little prepared a nine-allotment layout plan which he used for the calculation of the percentage of park required to gain the extra allotments, however, that plan which was tendered in evidence was not to scale and did not include measurements showing, for example, the size of the proposed allotments. Mr Little said that the plan was "indicative" only. For present purposes, the absence of such measurements is not an issue as I wish to focus on the broad differences between Mr Little's proposed layout and that contained in a plan tendered through Mr Humphreys. The Little plan showed nine allotments along the frontage of Springbrook Road and Hardys Road and with a park area to the rear of the resumed land and adjoining the park and recreation reserve located there. Mr Little's park extends beyond the existing park and recreation reserve up to the Tarrant Drive end of the resumed land. Vegetation would be protected along
the road frontage by the imposition of "conservation easements": a matter I discuss later. Such easements would cover 11% or .687 ha of the land. By contrast, Mr Humphreys' plan proposes a park of about 2.4 ha and having a width of about 40 metres located along the frontage of the subject land where it adjoins Springbrook and Hardys Roads. His layout proposes an access road being provided from Hardys Road ending at a cul-de-sac towards the centre of the land. This access road would service eight allotments. Three of these, Lots 5, 6 and 7, are located at the end of the cul-de-sac and are fan shaped. Lots 1 and 2 are also fan shaped and are located on the southern side of the entrance of the access road onto the land. Lot 9 has a separate access from Springbrook Road. Part of the park land is located towards the rear of Lot 9 providing it with a parkland frontage on all but one of its sides. This rear parkland provides for a continuation to Tarrant Road of the elongated park at the rear of the resumed land. Given that the proposed estate has the existing park and recreation reserve to the rear in addition to the proposed park along the frontage to the road, the allotments are contained fully within a parkland buffer. Allotment sizes range from 4,000 m² up to 4,950 m², having an average area of 4,410 m². Mr Crowley was of the view that access to Springbrook Road would not be allowed for intensive uses on the resumed land; and I discuss this in greater detail later; however, he understood that access to a single Park Residential lot as proposed by Mr Humphreys would have been acceptable. Nevertheless he thought that the cul-de-sac entrance road could have been extended to provide access to Lot 9. Apart from that, he appeared to be comfortable in using the Humphreys' layout as a basis for his nine-lot hypothetical subdivision exercise.
Although Mr Humphreys' layout plan was, to some extent, influenced by his consideration of the need to satisfy s.16.4.1 of the Town Plan in order that an additional two lots might be achieved, that issue may be put aside in considering the relative merits of the layout provided by the two town planners. Mr Hamilton saw advantages in the Humphreys' layout as it afforded a buffer from the road frontage of the resumed land and the cul-de-sac design provided for some aspect of privacy and, no doubt, the community perception that cul-de-sacs tend to provide. Mr Needham, Counsel for the claimant, in his cross-examination of Mr Crowley and in address, indicated that his side of the Bar table saw the benefits of Mr Humphreys' layout. Mr Humphreys was critical of Mr Little's tendered layout plan based largely on the location of the park at the rear. The provision of access to each lot from Springbrook Road as indicated in Mr Little's layout would also be an issue not only because of the effect that this would have on that road, but also because of the amenity impact on the individual lots. A cul-de-sac access off Hardys Road is to be preferred.
It is important that I say that, apart from Mr Humphreys' direct criticism of Mr Little's layout, witnesses were not asked to compare the two layouts provided. Nevertheless, I agree with the general thrust of opinion that it is the Humphreys' layout which is to be preferred. This issue is important for two reasons. First, it is useful to see the layout, including the location of parks, roads and so on, in striking the value of the proposed lots for the purpose of the hypothetical subdivision exercise. Second, the layout is important because of the relationship it will have with any commercial development on the land: commercial development was raised in Mr Hamilton's valuation. This brings into play other considerations which I deal with elsewhere in these reasons. Finally I should make it clear that although I am comfortable in concluding that Mr Humphreys' layout is to be preferred, this is not to say that it remains a fixture in my mind. It is simply the basis on which I will proceed, but it may be improved upon. (See De Ieso v. Commissioner of Highways (1981) 47 LGRA 412 at 417).
Hypothetical Subdivision
Mr Hamilton had not prepared a valuation of the land or any part of it on the basis of subdivision; however, apparently prompted by a question from me he carried out a hypothetical subdivision exercise. That exercise showed a value of $426,715 for the resumed land. The difference between the two valuers in their respective exercises fell into the areas of selling prices, profit and risk allowance and the rate of sale of lots. There was some difference between the valuers with regard to statutory charges during the holding period, however, given that the difference is something less than $2,000 only, I will adopt Mr Hamilton's figure of $4,660 without further discussion. I will now discuss the remaining differences.
Selling Prices
Mr Crowley said that based on a seven-lot subdivision, the average selling price that he would place on produced allotments was $95,000, however, he reduced this figure to $90,000 for his nine-lot exercise. Mr Hamilton accepted $95,000 per lot as being an appropriate figure but for a nine-lot exercise, though he did not refer to sales in support of his opinion, neither did he refer to a subdivision layout although he referred to an average lot size of 5,500 m² apparently based on the advice of Mr Little. The lots would be smaller than this if a cul-de-sac access road was to be provided. Using Mr Humphreys' plan as the basis, an average size of 4,410 m² is indicated. Mr Crowley's reduction of lot prices by $5,000 was based almost exclusively on the shape, in particular the narrow frontages of some of the lots in the layout provided to him by Mr Humphreys. Unfortunately, I cannot form a complete appreciation of Mr Crowley's reasoning given that a seven-lot layout plan was not tendered indicating the shape of lots that would have attracted the higher value in his view.
Mr Crowley referred to four sales in support of his lot values. The first of these, Sale A, had a price of $110,000 and involved the sale of 7,804 m² in November 1994. Mr Crowley described this land as being "near level front to easy rise at rear, low elevation and no outlook. Superior overall due to land and surrounding development." Sale B took place in September 1994 at a price of $95,000 for an area of 4,100 m². Mr Crowley's notes say, "Regular shaped, inside lot with moderate fall below the road level, medium elevation and limited north-easterly outlook. Overall the land is marginally superior due to the absence of the powerlines." His third basis, Sale C, had an area of 4,405 m² and sold in August 1995 for $99,000. Mr Crowley noted the following, "Elevated steep site below road level and limited views. Superior due to surrounding development." The final sale marked "D" took place in March 1995, had a sale price of $110,000 for an area if 9,929 m². In respect of this sale Mr Crowley wrote, "High elevation, medium to steep fall below road level with westerly aspect and distant views. Superior due to elevation, views and surrounding development."
Mr Crowley's comparisons between the subject proposed allotments and the sales might be best summarised by recording that he saw the subject proposed Lots 3 and 4; having a good shape, being at the rear of the subdivision with good elevation and removed from the Springbrook Road and Hardys Road frontages; as being comparable with his Sale B for $95,000. The others, he said, were all inferior to those two proposed lots based on exposure to roads or the powerlines (especially Lot 8 fronting Hardys Road near where it adjoins the Springbrook Road), shape (Lots 5, 6 and 7 located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac) and slope (especially Lots 1 and 2 fronting Hardys Road).
Mr Crowley lives in the area on a block to the south of the resumed land and, whilst he finds it personally convenient to drive into Mudgeeraba for small purchases, he put the view that the proximity of the resumed land to Mudgeeraba was a distinct disadvantage in comparison with blocks more remotely located. No sales were produced to support that proposition and whilst I accept that the ready association between the subject land and the town of Mudgeeraba tends to dilute its image as a rural location, I am confident that purchasers could be found who would be happy to make that small sacrifice for the benefit of ready access to the facilities in the town. Mr Hamilton certainly saw the location of the resumed land as convenient for residential purposes. The presence of the powerlines located on nearby land and within the arc of vision afforded from the resumed property received greater emphasis in Mr Crowley's mind than Mr Hamilton was happy to concede. The significance of the powerlines needs to be addressed when I consider the comparison made between the resumed land and Mr Crowley's in globo Sale No.
3, however, the matter also arises with respect to a consideration of the sale prices of the proposed hypothetical allotments.
At their closest the powerlines are located about 50 metres from the boundary of the resumed land, however, track away to the south-east and to the north-west. The lines are located on the opposite side of Hardys Road from the resumed land, but are quite prominent given the size, shape and colour of the steel towers supporting the lines. Mudgeeraba Creek, or perhaps more accurately the vegetation abutting the waterway, is also visible from the land and that, together with some open space land, provides an attractive aspect from the property. I have already mentioned the presence of the small sawmill. The powerlines intrude into this range of view from the resumed land as do some buildings, including townhouses in the Town of Mudgeeraba, which were not constructed at the time of resumption but were in the proposal stage.
The two valuers agree that the powerlines have a visual impact, however, it is Mr Hamilton's suggestion that Mr Crowley puts that impact too highly. Mr Hamilton acknowledged that there is a public perception that such powerlines pose a health hazard to people living near them, however, it is Mr Hamilton's observation that such concerns generally relate to the presence of powerlines on the land in issue and in close proximity to houses. He does not see such a perception featuring in the instant case where the powerlines are removed from the land, though admittedly within the view from it.
It is undoubtedly the case that the powerlines are, since the development of the school, clearly visible from the resumed land given the aspect of the land and its shape and that the towers are quite substantial structures. The land was, however, heavily vegetated at the time of resumption and would have offered some screening from the powerlines and the roads. Indeed, I notice on the aerial photograph tendered that the "adjoining allotment to the east" has been developed in a way which preserves the bulk of the pre-existing vegetation. Certainly, the construction of an access road for the purposes of subdividing the resumed land would result in a greater disturbance to the vegetation than took place on that allotment, but a prudent developer would be mindful of the need to be cautious. It may even be possible for a group title subdivision to take place which would allow the construction of a narrower access road with less resultant clearing.
In conclusion, I would say that the presence of the powerlines featured in Mr Crowley's mind a little more than they would in the view of a potential purchaser of an allotment and in the mind of an intending developer.
Having regard to what I have just written and bearing in mind that the resumed land has a northerly aspect; that the cul-de-sac layout proposal is an attractive one and may be subject to some modification to improve the shape of some of the less attractive lots; that there would be a large area of parkland in the nine-lot subdivision compared with the earlier seven-lot proposal; that parkland is well located towards the frontage and towards the rear of the proposed development and having regard to what I have written above concerning vegetation on the land, it seems to me that there were some positive aspects that would temper those negative features which appeared to be in the forefront of Mr Crowley's mind in his comparison process. I should also keep in mind that Mr Hamilton's opinion assumed allotments with an average size of 5,500 m², that is, more than is achievable. In addition to this, if I introduce somewhat more reliance on Mr Crowley's Sale C at $99,000, which is a steep site below road level and having limited views, I think that an average price of $93,000 on each lot in a nine-lot subdivision is achievable.
Rate of Sale
Mr Crowley's hypothetical subdivision calculations were based on the prospect of selling one produced lot per month with selling commencing following the completion of development works. Mr Hamilton, on the other hand, wrote in his hypothetical exercise that it was based on approximately two sales per month over a sales period of five months. In his evidence-in-chief, however, he said that marketing would be carried out during the four month development period This, together with the five-month post-development sale period, would result in an average sale rate of one lot per month, the same as that proposed by Mr Crowley.
Mr Crowley's in globo Sales 2 and 3 had a low rate of sale according to him, however, the actual rate of sale was not mentioned in evidence nor was there evidence of the marketing budget employed. In the case of in globo Sale No. 2, it was Mr Crowley's view that the prices sought were higher than would reasonably be expected and it follows from this that a rate of sale transposed from that development to the hypothetical development of the resumed land, if that is what he did, would be wrong. Mr Crowley did not simply transpose the sale rate on his in globo Sale 3, however, did have some regard to it. He also said that in the larger estate of Mudgeeraba Forest selling rates of two to three per month were achieved over some condensed periods of three to four months, but that in a smaller estate a sale rate of one lot per month was considered more appropriate.
My conclusion is that some selling would take place during the development period, but that a higher rate of sale would be expected once the blocks are fully developed and presented. I have little to go on from the marketplace other than the stated opinions of Mr Hamilton and Mr Crowley gathered, no doubt, from experience in the same market, however, I would conclude
that a subdivision on the subject land with its good exposure for marketing and its price level would lead a potential developer to conclude that selling would be completed within a period of six months after development was completed.
Profit and Risk Allowance
Mr Crowley had included a profit and risk allowance of 27% in his seven-lot hypothetical subdivision exercise but he increased this to 33% in the nine-lot proposal, the increase being based purely on his perception of the added risk of gaining the two additional lots. In his supplementary report Mr Humphreys said "... a subdivision involving as many as nine allotments could have been approved." He was not asked to expand upon this to express a view on the risk of achieving the added lots, his evidence proceeding simply on the basis that a nine-lot subdivision was a feasible proposition. The addition of 6% profit and risk to the previous seven- lot scenario was an inclusion attributable to Mr Crowley's initiative.
Mr Hamilton said that the Gold Coast market for development was competitive around the time of resumption and that this level of competition impacted upon his adoption of a profit and risk factor of 17.5%. Whilst noting that the hypothetical subdivision method of valuation was not Mr Hamilton's primary method, I do find it quite remarkable that two experienced valuers operating in and expressing an understanding of the same market would, in the case of a proposed subdivision exhibiting no outstanding features of a positive, negative or idiosyncratic nature, apply profit and risk allowances which are so far apart.
Whilst Mr Hamilton made reference to his general experience and his appreciation of the Gold Coast market solely in the adoption of his allowance of 17.5%, Mr Crowley arrived at his figure by carrying out what are sometimes called "reverse hypothetical subdivision calculations" on his in globo Sales 2, 3 and 4. In these exercises he included all of the usual factors found in a hypothetical subdivision exercise, however, also included the actual purchase price of the land, did not include his opinion of the profit and risk allowance that would apply and, by way of an iterative process, calculated what he said was the profit and risk allowance reflected in each transaction. Mr Crowley had interviewed either the purchasers or their representatives in each case and he had not asked what profit percentage or profit amounts the purchaser had in mind at the time of purchase, both because he saw such a question as being unduly intrusive and, second, because he would not be inclined to accept the answer given. There is something eminently practical in what Mr Crowley had to say on this point and I will add some observations of my own. Whilst, in accordance with the underlying principle expressed in Spencer v. The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418, the valuer would need to understand the circumstances of the transaction, it would take this proposition too far and outside that principle for the valuer to
simply accept what one party, the purchaser says was in his mind at the time, putting aside for the moment the reliability of that evidence. Also, it seems to me that if a purchaser/developer is willing to divulge the profit that he had in mind in purchasing a piece of land, then he ought also be able to indicate the method by which that hoped-for profit was calculated. It would be essential, if one were to rely on a profit figure mentioned by a purchaser, for the method of calculation of a profit to be known as variations would probably exist between the methods employed by individual developers. In particular, some may introduce into the method of calculation personal factors such as level of borrowings and the interest rate at which such moneys would be borrowed. Viewed as a matter of pure practicality, it is doubtful that a valuer could obtain from a range of purchasers standard data and methodology which would allow him to simply present a comparative view of expected profits in a number of sales. There is a need, in my thinking, for the professional valuer to carry out calculations on the selected sale properties employing a common denominator such as the reverse calculation method, rather than to take from a person competing in an active market a bald statement as to the profit anticipated in a particular case. It follows that I support the use of the reverse calculation method.
It is my view also that a valuer needs to moderate any information provided to him from the purchaser or vendor by deleting any patent errors and including from his own stock in trade tools any information or opinion needed to conclude the reverse calculation exercise. Such information must be based on what was available at the time of purchase. An important point to note is that whilst it is appropriate, in my view, for a valuer to insert into a reverse calculation exercise, figures representing his understanding of what would have prevailed at or about the time of purchase, it is not appropriate to include in such exercises information obtained from the actual subdivision which took place following the purchase of the land being analysed. (The Council of the city of Townsville v. J.S. Plant (1976) 3 QLCR 238 at 243-4). The Land Appeal Court referred with approval in that case to the well-known text Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia (Rost and Collins 1973 edition, pp.156-157) which expresses support for the reverse calculation method. The method was approved by my learned colleague, Mr Wenck, in McLachlan v. The Crown (unreported 24 August 1995). My consideration of the matter would be incomplete, however, if I did not make reference to a view of the matter expressed by Gobbo J in Coastal Estates Pty Ltd v. Bass Shire Council (1993) 79 LGERA 188 at 198:
"There is one particular aspect about the use of the hypothetical analysis method that increases the uncertainties associated with its use. One of the key ingredients has always been the allowance for profit and risk. The choice of this figure was traditionally supported by evidence as to what minimum figure professional
subdividers expected from the particular kind of development, with different rates being sought according as to whether the subdivision was an industrial, residential or resort subdivision. The rate so arrived at might then be modified, according as to whether the time lines were especially long or short. This sensible and practical approach has been somewhat obscured and even distorted by an increasing practice, manifested in this case, of analysing particular purchases of broad acre lands suitable for subdivision by reference to what the purchaser was said to have had in mind when it purchased the property. This is not related to an actual formal analysis but to narratives, often garbled, of what was said to be in the purchaser's mind. This is productive of much dispute and is an unfortunate trend in valuation practice. It serves to illustrate vividly why reliance on comparable sales, even where limited in number, is to be preferred to the hypothetical analysis method if it creates so much uncertainty and speculation."
I can only endorse the view His Honour expresses in the last sentence of this quote, however, my analysis of the matter of employing reverse calculations seems to have gone a step further than, it appears, was presented in that case.
Mr Hamilton observed that the reverse calculation exercises carried out by Mr Crowley appeared to contain certain standard figures and assumptions relating to the rate of sale, the cost of advertising and legal costs and the linear cost of roads power and water, therefore raising a suspicion that the figures do not reflect what the purchaser had in mind at the time of purchase. Given what I have said above generally on the method of reverse calculation and the source of data, this criticism does not concern me unless it is the case that the standard data included is wrong in some important respect. In response to the criticism, Mr Crowley said that there is not a wide variation in costs for this type of development and that it is therefore appropriate to adopt a standard linear cost for roads, power and water. In addition, he said that the adoption of common selling rates and selling costs was appropriate given that the produced lots would be similar in nature and would be placed on the same market. I accept these responses, though I keep in mind that I have adopted a shorter selling period than Mr Crowley did in the case of the resumed property. Similar adjustments to the analyses of the sale properties would tend to increase the profit and risk allowance in each.
I will now consider the individual reverse calculation exercises provided by Mr Crowley. The calculations carried out on his in globo Sale 2 revealed a profit and risk allowance of 27%. The selling agent told Mr Crowley that the purchaser had acquired the land on the basis of achieving a 15-lot subdivision, whereas 19 lots were actually produced. Mr Crowley said that he thought it was appropriate that he carry out his reverse calculation exercise on the basis of 15 lots as any prospect of achieving a higher yield would be reflected in the profit and risk rate. A difficulty I have with this reasoning is that on the basis of a land area of 14.15 ha I calculate, on
the evidence that I was given concerning the density provisions, that a yield of 17 lots at least would have been expected. Mr Crowley calculated, whilst giving evidence, that based on a yield of 19 lots at a reduced selling price per lot the profit and risk allowance would increase to about 35%. On my calculations, the rate would be about 31% if a 17-lot yield was assumed.
Mr Crowley applied his opinion of the sale prices to the reverse calculation carried out on in globo Sale No. 2, though mentioned this figure to the selling agent who agreed that Mr Crowley's anticipated selling price was consistent with what the purchaser was looking for at the time of purchase. There was some variation between the length of road and the length of water supply in Mr Crowley's exercise and the difference, which involved a figure of about $20,000, would have reduced the profit and risk allowance to about 25% on his original calculation. Consequential adjustments would need to be made to a 17-lot or 19-lot assumed yield.
Mr Little gave evidence of an external charge which would have applied to this sale land given that it was in a defined area which the local authority had determined would be subject to such a payment based on an intensification of subdivision densities. Previously the defined area had been subject to a minimum 10-acre subdivision requirement, however, the more dense Park Residential subdivision and its increased standards of roads and water services meant that a
$20,000 per ha additional imposition was required to be paid to the local authority. $17,000 of this was required for an upgrading of roads, whilst $3,000 was devoted to water. On the basis of this unchallenged evidence, the costs associated with the Sale 2 reverse calculation exercise would be increased by $283,000. The impact of such extra costs would reduce a 27% profit and risk allowance to a figure in the vicinity of 20% though, as I have already noted, there are other variations which would need to be taken into account in attempting to discern a profit and risk allowance from this in globo sale.
Mr Crowley's No. 3 in globo sale was also subjected to a reverse calculation exercise and showed a profit and risk allowance of 30%. In this case 12 allotments were expected by the developers whom Mr Crowley interviewed, and it was this number that was actually produced. In his exercise Mr Crowley had regard to the actual costs incurred in the development of the Sale 3 land together with information he had obtained regarding the Sale 4 land and other information within his general knowledge. I have already referred to the case of Plant but given that Mr Crowley, as I understood it, did not simply apply the costs of this development as they occurred but attempted to arrive at a figure based on what would be expected at the time of purchase, I do not find on this basis that what he did offends the principle explained by the Land Appeal Court in that case. What does appear to have occurred, however, is that in the exercise he carried out, Mr Crowley did not include allowances for bulk earthworks and preliminary costs with the result
that his costings were lower than the actual and probable costs by about $80,000. In the development costs included by Mr Crowley in each of his reverse calculation exercise and in his hypothetical subdivision of the resumed land, costs associated with preliminaries and bulk earthworks were not included. What these costs might have been in each individual case is unknown to me, though I can make the general observation that their inclusion would have the effect of depressing the profit and risk figure otherwise calculated by Mr Crowley and of increasing the costs in the case of the resumed land. Mr Crowley thought that his allowance for contingencies would have covered the deleted amounts, however I doubt that such an allowance should be employed to offset a clear error.
In globo Sale No. 4 was one where the land was subdivided into eight lots, though Mr Crowley had proceeded on the assumption of nine lots in his reverse calculation exercise. The effect of this error would be to reduce the gross realisation figure by $95,000, being the average price of allotments applied by Mr Crowley, reduce costs of development and produce a consequential increase in the profit and risk allowance. The profit and risk allowance calculated by Mr Crowley had been 30%. There was, however, a calculation error in the body of the exercise Mr Crowley carried out as he had deducted interest in the amount of $18,147 instead of adding it to his costs, thus resulting in a net difference in excess of $36,000. This would have compensated to some extent the error made in the inclusion of the wrong number of lots in the gross realisation.
If I take an unrefined approach to the reverse calculation exercises provided by Mr Crowley and as criticised in evidence, they would indicate that a profit and risk allowance in the range of about 20% to 30% is sought by purchasers depending upon the land in question. I have nothing to differentiate between the low and the high end of this range insofar as the in globo sales provided are concerned. Certainly it is Sales Nos. 3 and 4 which suffered least in the criticism of them and therefore might be seen as the more reliable. I note that the selling rates at one per month in each case, following development, are lower than that which I am prepared to adopt in the instant case and that consequently there is a greater risk inherent in the subdivision exercise proposed on the resumed land. Nevertheless, I should give some weight to Mr Hamilton's opinion, albeit one not referable to particular market evidence and will carry out a hypothetical subdivision exercise based on a profit and risk allowance of 25%. I might say that this figure is influenced also by Mr Crowley having adopted a rate of 27% in his original hypothetical subdivision exercise which is a rate lower than that revealed by his Sales 3 and 4. There was some suggestion from the respondent's side that interest rates might have impacted on
profit and risk rates at the time, but Mr Hamilton rejected that suggestion and Mr Crowley was not asked to comment on it. It is not a factor that I have taken into account.
I will now produce a hypothetical subdivision exercise which includes those of my findings which differ from those figures included in Mr Crowley's exercise.
Lot yield 9 lots
Approval period 6 months
Development period 4 months
Selling period 6 months
Interest rate 10%
Gross realisation $837,000
Less selling costs
Commission $24,975
Legals $500/lot $4,500Advertising $1500/lot $13,500 $42,975 Net realisation 794,025
Less profit and risk @ 25% $158,805
Developed land value $635,220
Less
Development costs $191,862
Interest on costs $7,994 $199,856
Land and holding costs $435,364 Less statutory costs
$4,660
Land and interest
$430,704
Less holding interest
10% for 1.0083 years
$43,428
$387,276
Less purchase costs Legals
$1,500
Stamp duty $8,600 $10,100 Land Value
$377,176
Per hectare
$60,357
I must keep in mind that the land value indicated in this exercise does not take into account costs associated with preliminaries and bulk earthworks to the extent that those may need to be included. I note also that whilst Mr Hamilton adopted an approval period of two
months, Mr Crowley used six months. There was no debate on this and given that some delay might be expected in gaining approval for a nine-lot subdivision, I have left Mr Crowley's figure unchanged. I will now put this exercise aside for the moment and will direct my considerations to the in globo sales introduced by Mr Crowley.
Mr Crowley's In Globo Sales
I will defer my consideration of Mr Crowley's in globo Sale No. 1 and will concentrate on Sales 2, 3 and 4. Mr Hamilton knew these properties and expressed the view that they might be relied upon to indicate "the absolute bottom line" value of the resumed land given that none of the sales have the potential which he feels applies to the resumed property.
Sale No. 2 at $67,138 per ha was assessed by Mr Crowley as being overall superior pro rata to the resumed land. He said that the sale property is similar in topography to the resumed land though somewhat steeper and more elevated, affording views either to the coastline or to the south overlooking the Nerang River Valley and the hills and ranges in that direction. The sale property has State forest to the north and west providing, in Mr Crowley's view, a quieter and more visually pleasing environment than is available to the resumed land and he described the surrounding development as being of a slightly higher level than in the vicinity of the resumed property. There is no powerline visible from the sale land. The sale property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and therefore does not have the intrusion of roads to the extent of the resumed land. Mr Hamilton agreed that there are some "lovely homes" in the locality, however, he described the built environment as comprising a "mixed level" of development which could not appropriately be described as prestigious. Mr Hamilton saw Sale No. 2 as being the best guide from the Sales 2, 3 and group 4 in establishing a subdivision value on the resumed property, however, given that 19 lots were produced on the sale 2 land compared with the nine proposed on his client's land, he said that some adjustment for size ought to apply in favour of the resumed land. In the result he disagreed with Mr Crowley's assessment, saying that the resumed property ought to have a higher value than this sale. This is consistent with his hypothetical subdivision result.
In his comparison Mr Crowley made the point that the sale property was not intruded upon by the same urban influence that touches the resumed land, however, the sale's steep topography and the developer's attempt to gain the maximum benefit from the available views has resulted in a somewhat cluttered built development, detracting a little from the aspects of space and isolation from neighbours apparently sought by Park Residential inhabitants. The steep access provided to some of the allotments was a feature that I was able to observe during my view of the sale land.
The combined sale prices of the sales which make up Sale No. 3 was $38,000 per ha, indicating clearly that Mr Crowley sees the resumed property as being superior. In his view, that conclusion of superiority is based on the steeper terrain on the sale property. The Sale 3 land is subject to the influence of powerlines in the form of a structure similar to that observable from the resumed land being constructed across land at the entrance to the subdivision. In addition, there is an easement providing for possible future powerlines. One enters the subdivision by first travelling under the constructed powerlines, then the eponymously named Incline Drive takes one up a steep hill to a relatively flat area at the end of a cul-de-sac. Lots surrounding the cul-de- sac do not have the powerlines within their aspect, however, lots towards the bottom of the hill are imposed upon by the powerlines to a much greater extent than would be experienced on the resumed land. In his written valuation Mr Crowley expressed the view that both the sale property and the resumed land were similarly impacted upon by the relevant powerlines and he maintained this view during cross-examination, however, in examination-in-chief he said, "By the time you get to about the mid point in Sale 3 it's no longer visible but you always have to drive under them to get into the site, so there's again pluses and minuses in that sort of comparison. In the end you probably say it's inferior in those respects." Nevertheless, having regard to his evidence overall, it seems to me that he has adopted a position of saying that the two properties are similar in terms of the negative impact of the powerlines' presence. Mr Hamilton adopted the contrary view and I prefer his appreciation of the matter. The constructed powerlines on the sale land stand in place somewhat like a negative entry statement and there is the attendant risk that further structures will be placed on the presently vacant easement area. In the case of the resumed property, by comparison, the powerlines are removed from the land and a view of them is able to be filtered out by vegetation retention. The lots towards the rear of the sale land would have gained protection from the substantial vegetation which is on the land, and some of which has been retained after development, though towards the entrance of the land and part way into it there are very few trees. Parkland is provided on the easement area and one could not imagine a less inviting park for children to play in, or for families to picnic.
The steepness of the land in Sale 3 has, according to Mr Hamilton's understanding, posed a difficulty with respect to water reticulation. His information is that water is able to be reticulated to the base of each of the cul-de-sac lots, however, the construction of a house towards the rear of such lots would necessitate additional pumping capacity being installed by the land purchasers. It is my understanding, following a view of the sale land, that this disability would apply to those lots on the eastern side of the cul-de-sac only.
In the result, I find Sale 3 as being inferior to the resumed land to a greater extent than opined by Mr Crowley.
There is one perplexing matter of evidence in respect of this sale property which I should comment on. It was said by Mr Little that each of the parcels which was combined to form the Sale 3 subdivision development achieved an additional parcel above that allowed by a straight application of the subdivisional rules which I mentioned earlier. On my calculations each would have achieved something less than six allotments, however, apparently six was approved and a total of 12 lots resulted. There was in evidence an application lodged by Mr Little's firm seeking 13 residential allotments, however, that application was apparently not approved. In the end then it seems to me that a comparison between the sale property and the resumed land needs to be made on the basis that 12 allotments were achievable on the sale, whilst a yield of nine lots was probable on the resumed land. No adjustment would appear to be necessary on the basis of such differences in yield.
Sale 4 in Mr Crowley's in globo list sold for $39,209 per ha and was assessed by Mr Crowley as being inferior to the resumed land on the basis of the steep terrain of the sale property and its location removed 3 km or so to the south. Subdivision approval was in place before the sale took place. Mr Crowley thought initially that the sale property had produced nine rural residential lots, however, on review it was shown to have produced eight lots only, the number that would be achieved as of right and without the requirement for the intervention of
s.16.4.1 of the Planning Scheme. Mr Crowley expressed the view that the development surrounding the sale property was superior to that adjacent to the resumed land, however, I think he has drawn into this comment the fact that the sale property does not suffer from a visual proximity to Mudgeeraba as the development to the south of the subject property is, I would observe, of a similar standard to that near the sale land. I have already said that I think he has overstated that proximity in the case of the resumed land and has not taken into account the matter of convenience of access to facilities which would be a consideration for some purchasers.
The sale property suffers in that one outcome of its steepness is that the supply of water to the land requires an expenditure in the vicinity of $150,000 for a booster pump and the limited range of the water supply onto allotments means that some houses would probably be constructed closer to the servicing road, thus detracting from the feeling of space that would normally be generated in a Park Residential development. The orientation of the topography of the land is such that many of the blocks would have a westerly aspect, whilst construction of a house pad would be expensive and disruptive of individual sites, given what might be called the crown shape of the land, that is falling away from a central point similar to that of a constructed
road. Some of the lots have a northerly aspect though the view is across a rather steep valley into the timbered area on the other side of the road: a not unattractive view but one limited in scope and variety.
Mr Hamilton expressed the opinion that the resumed property is superior to Sale 4 particularly on the basis of location and topography and generally having regard to those negative aspects of the sale land to which I have referred. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that the resumed property is superior to Sale 4 to a greater degree than that reflected in Mr Crowley's adoption of $45,000 per ha, though I must record that he said in evidence that his comparison would be adjusted having regard to the fresh hypothetical subdivision exercise he carried out on the resumed land based on a nine-lot yield.
In summary, it was Mr Crowley's view that the resumed land ought to be valued by paying particular regard to his in globo Sales 3 and 4 and with his Sale 2 providing support. Mr Hamilton, on the other hand, thought that the guidance provided by Sale 2 was more reliable than that supplied by the other two properties and that the value of the land would be higher than that particular sale. I disagree with Mr Hamilton's reliance on Sale 2, particularly on the basis of the attractive views available from that land and its situation. Consideration of Sale 2 needs to take into account the substantial external charge payable by the developer about which Mr Little gave evidence. A mathematical introduction of this charge results in a figure which would be inconsistent with the other sales leading me to suggest that the best approach is to simply have regard to this imposition in the comparison process. My conclusion is that the land quality in Sale 2 is quite superior to the resumed land, but that the overall cost of development substantially offsets that. I conclude that Sale 2 is overall superior pro rata to the resumed land.
I am of the view that Mr Crowley has too greatly emphasised in his comparisons the disadvantageous aspects of the resumed property and has not taken sufficient notice of those matters on Sales 3 and 4 that I have outlined. I refer in particular to the steep terrain and the water service difficulty on Sale 4 and its limited, even boring, aspect and the impact of the powerlines, the terrain and the water servicing problems on Sale 3. I think also that Mr Crowley has made too much of the proximity of the sale land to Mudgeeraba and has not taken sufficient account of the practical advantages that the resumed land enjoys because of the access into Mudgeeraba compared with Sales 3 and 4. I also see the prospect of marketing a subdivision of the subject land as being easier, less expensive and resulting in a quicker sale rate on the resumed land than on either Sales 3 or 4 or possibly Sale No. 2. In the result, I conclude that Sale No. 2 provides a ceiling value, whilst Sale No. 4 with its added costs of development provides a floor value. Sale 3, as I have said, is inferior and I note that Mr Crowley has placed selling prices of
It may be the case that the resumed land is superior to some, at least, of the sales in certain respects. The Upper Coomera area is less developed than the Mudgeeraba and nearby Gold Coast area; the resumed land is well situated, well drained and has a northerly aspect. There is a shortage of large vacant sites in Mudgeeraba, but not so in Coomera. These are no doubt matters of relevance, but, to use an extreme example, a beautiful piece of land overlooking the water in the middle of the Gold Coast could not be said to be superior to any of the sales cited, if that land was zoned "Public Open Space". Such an extreme example is not found in the evidence but the principle so exemplified appears to have been lost in Mr Hamilton's consideration of the sales evidence, including that of Mr Crowley's Sale No. 1 and its resale. He acknowledged the need to take into account the matter of potential, or highest and best use, in his reference to his Sales 2, 3 and 5 and in the sale of the Sale 6 site. That acknowledgement was broad and, unfortunately, that broad consideration of this most important matter found its way into consideration of his Sales 1 and 3 and of Mr Crowley's Sale No. 1.
The best that I can do in the circumstances that I find myself in is to add a value to the subdivisional value that I have found and to base this on Mr Hamilton's Sale No. 6. The approach is not of the classic bottom-up type referred to by the Land Appeal Court in Seaworld Pty Ltd v. The Crown (1982) 8 QLCR 213 at 216 to 217:
"Where that zoning, as in the present case, is restrictive and acts detrimentally on the value of the land in the rather narrow market place as zoned, it is proper for further enquiry to be pursued as to the effect on the mind of a prudent purchaser of the likelihood of the land being rezoned for a higher and more valuable use.
According to the greater or lesser likelihood of rezoning, the price a prudent purchaser would be prepared to pay will range from the top value for the land as rezoned depreciated by a reasonable amount for the time and risk involved in obtaining the rezoning (top/down), to the bottom or current zoning level value plus, if appropriate according to circumstances, something extra for the remote possibility of a change to a higher zone (bottom/up). These methods of valuation were referred to in Royal Sydney Golf Club v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation
- High Court of Australia - 2 L.G.R.A. 203 and by the Land Court in Queensland Turf Club v. The Valuer-General (1979) 6 Q.L.C.R. 180."
The method that I will employ is akin to a summation method and is based on the proposition that the hypothetical prudent purchaser would assume the prospect of rezoning or obtaining a consent use on a core area of say 2,000 m² for a use of the type that I have found that the local authority might approve. The core area would be added to by say 1,000 m² for buffering and set-back.
The area of land to be devoted to the higher use would be located at the Tarrant Road end of the property, would be a similar area overall to the Sale 6 property but would have a much larger area of buffer. The Sale 6 land would not have the limitations on exposure to passing traffic imposed upon the resumed land and would be less expensive to develop, particularly having regard to earthwork requirements. When I have regard to these factors and discount for the risk of obtaining planning approval on the resumed property and the costs and delay associated with gaining approval, I would apply a value overall of $180,000 to the part of the resumed land which may be devoted to the higher use that I have identified.
Following the excision of the area for development, there would be at least one lot fewer in the subdivision of the balance land and some intrusion into the amenity of that subdivision. I would therefore reduce the value of the area suitable for subdivision to $330,000. This figure, together with the $180,000 I have settled upon above, results in a land value overall of $510,000. To this figure should be added the amount of $11,500 agreed between the parties to be the amount payable on account of legal and valuation fees. Compensation under all heads is therefore determined at $521,500.
I now turn to the matter of interest. In this regard, the claimant does not seek interest on disturbance. I order, therefore, that interest on the amount of $510,000 be paid at the rate of 7.75 per centum per annum from and including 12 May 1995 to and including 8 January 1996; then on $10,000 up to and including the day immediately preceding the day of payment of the balance of compensation.
RP SCOTT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0