Springfield Land Corporation v The State - [2003] QLC 41

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Springfield Land Corporation v The State [2003] QLC 0041

PARTIES:Springfield Land Corporation (No. 2) Pty Ltd
(claimant)
v.
The State

(respondent)

FILE NO: A2001/0606

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable consequent upon resumption of land for school purposes under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967

DELIVERED ON: 13 June 2003

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: Mr RE Wenck

ORDER:1. There being no other heads of claim it is ordered that compensation to be paid by the respondent to the claimant for the taking of the land is the amount of Two Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,050,000).

2.The respondent having made an advance payment of $880,000 on 23 December 1999 is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of Two Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,050,000) for the period commencing 17 December 1999 up to and including 22 December 1999 then on the amount of One Million One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($1,170,000) for the period commencing 23 December 1999 up to and including the day immediately preceding the date on which the final payment of compensation is made.

CATCHWORDS: Resumption - Acquisition of Land Act 1967 - Compensation - Land not ripe for highest and best use

Highest and Best Use - Town planning considerations - Market value considerations
Valuation - In globo land - Lowest order of permitted use for residential development - Highest order for commercial development - Development potential for highest order not immediate - "Bottom up" approach adopted

COUNSEL: Mr MD Hinson SC for the claimant
Mr TW Quinn for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Freehills for the claimant
Mr J O'Rourke, Principal Legal Officer, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources and Mines for the respondent

By taking of Land Notice (No. 29) 1999, as published in the Government Gazette, the following described land was taken by the State, for School purposes on and from 17 December 1999:
Lot 23 SP101383, area 4.975 ha, Title Reference 50189878, parish of Stapylton
Lot 24 on SP101383, area 5.958 ha, Title Reference 50189879, parish of Stapylton.

The total area taken was 10.933 ha.

The claim for compensation, originally in the total amount of $4,835,000 was, during the course of the hearing, amended with leave to $4,865,000, the total amount being for loss of land. The claim was based on a valuation made by Mr Kerry C Herron, Registered Valuer.
An advance payment of $880,000 was made by the State to the claimant on 23 December 1999. The final valuation by the State was in the amount of $1,100,000. That valuation was made by Mr Michael Slater, Registered Valuer.
In addition to the valuers, supporting evidence for the respective cases was given in order of appearance, by:
For the Claimant -
Mr Michael C Challenor     -     Town Planner
Mr Robert C Holland        -     Traffic Engineer
Mr Gary B Nagel              -     Civil Engineer
Mr Robert J Sharpless       -     Civil Engineer and Director of Claimant Company
Mr Ian Keilar  -     Surveyor

For the State -
Mr Denis Brown                -     Town Planner
Mr William Owen              -     Urban Planner and Economic Analyst
Mr Colin L Beard              -     Traffic Engineer
Mr Maurice F McAnany     -     Civil Engineer

Springfield Background

The subject land is located within the north-eastern sector of the Springfield Urban Development Project in the south-eastern sector of the City of Ipswich, about 15 km from its CBD and about 24 km south-westerly of the Brisbane CBD.
Springfield is described as the largest master planned community development project, in size, in Australia. The overall site contained an area of about 2,850 ha. Estimates of the population on completion of the project vary between 55,000 and 60,000 people to live on 15,000 to 18,000 residential allotments. The master plan provides for five residential neighbourhoods each with commercial neighbourhood centres, significant open space corridors and a central/southern Town Centre on a site of about 320 ha.
The Town Centre is intended to combine higher density residential, commercial, higher order retail, tertiary education institutions, hospital/medical facilities, research technology activities, service industries and major cultural community facilities.
Development of Springfield commenced, in the northern sector, in 1992 with initial residential occupation in 1993. Included in this initial development was the "Springfield Neighbourhood Centre" in which the first commercial sales were said to have been made in 1993 (Medical Centre and Child Care Centre). Access to the early stages of development was obtained from the north-west via Old Logan Road through the suburb of Camira, to Springfield Parkway, a sub-arterial type road which has subsequently connected to the Centenary Highway extension.
In 1994/95 agreement was reached between the developer and the State for the southerly extension of the Centenary Highway from the Ipswich Motorway at Darra. By 1998 the roadwork extension had been constructed as far as the Logan Motorway interchange at Ellen Grove, then in mid-1999 the next stage was commenced, as a two-lane carriageway, southerly through the north-western sector of the Greenbank Military Camp, then the north-eastern extremity of Springfield, and through the Springfield Parkway intersection to the site of the Town Centre, connecting with a road westerly to Redbank Plains (Augusta Parkway). The highway extension was completed in 2000. Future roadwork planning then included a connection to the Mt Lindesay Highway, the eventual duplication of the initial two-lane carriageway of the Centenary Highway and its possible extension westerly to the Cunningham Highway near Amberley. There is also a futuristic proposal for a railway extension to be located between the dual highway carriageways.
A Social Infrastructure Agreement between the developer Springfield Land Corporation (SLC) and the State is in existence and deals with the transfer of land for social infrastructure. The subject resumption was specifically excluded from that agreement.
At the date of resumption, residential sales had exceeded 1,000 lots. The commercial development in the Springfield Neighbourhood Centre radiating from Springfield Parkway and Commercial Drive, included a retail centre anchored by a Coles Supermarket, a child care centre, medical centre, tavern and several small-scale commercial buildings including a TAFE training facility. A pre-school and primary school had been established in Woodcrest Way, south-easterly of Springfield Parkway and Commercial Drive.
Important to the marketing progress of Springfield at the date of resumption, from the perspective of SLC, through the evidence of Mr Sharpless, were:
·    The imminent completion of the Centenary Highway extension and the consequent provision of direct access past the Springfield Parkway Interchange to the site of the Town Centre and the road link to Redbank Plains.
·    The consummation of a 15-year strategic alliance between the development company Delfin, as it was then, and SLC, for the development of between 10,000 and 12,000 residential homes by the year 2014. That alliance in immediate hindsight resulted in the commencement of development of the first stage of the Springfield Lakes neighbourhood sector, on the eastern side of the highway.
·    The signing of the Memorandum Of Understanding in relation to the Medallist Golf Developments. That MOU in hindsight resulted in the commencement of the Greg Norman designed Brookwater Golf Course and as a further consequence the Brookwater Residential Neighbourhood, in the north-western sector of Springfield, off Augusta Parkway.

The Land Taken

The subject land, located in the central north-eastern sector of Springfield, is adjacent to the Centenary Highway road reserve, on its western side. Lot 23 is of somewhat irregular shape with 5 chord frontage totalling 117 m to Woodcrest Way, as its south-western boundary. Woodcrest Way links residential development to the south and west of the subject land with Commercial Drive and Springfield Parkway to the north-west. The north-western boundary of Lot 23, being 250 m in length, is common with the primary school site and its north-eastern rear boundary of about 187 m, is common for the majority of its length with the south-western boundary of Lot 24. The irregular, six chord southern boundary of Lot 23 adjoins six of seven surveyed residential lots off High Peak and Clearview Courts. Lot 24 is surveyed in rhomboid type shape, adjoining and north-easterly off Lot 23. Its common south-western boundary is about 173 m in length and the site widens to about 207 m as its north-eastern boundary which is a 0.123 m access restriction strip surveyed adjacent to Old Logan Road. The north-western boundary of Lot 24, which is common with Ipswich City Council land, utilised until mid-1999 as a refuse transfer station, is about 399 m in length.
The total frontage of Lots 23 and 24 to the Centenary Highway reserve, as their south-eastern boundaries, is about 462 m. At the date of resumption the highway reserve which was about 118 m wide in this section, carried medium density natural and regrowth forest vegetation adjacent to the subject lands, the existing two-lane carriageway then being under construction on the eastern side of the corridor. No direct access was provided to the road carriageway. Old Logan Road was of bitumen strip construction from Springfield Parkway to the disused transfer station site then unformed along the access restriction strip adjoining Lot 24, terminating at the highway corridor.
A secondary school now known in conjunction with the primary school as Woodcrest College, was established on the subject land subsequent to the resumption.
The land as an amalgamated parcel is generally physically sound, moderately sloping upwards from Woodcrest Way with a shallow depression traversing the south-eastern sector then generally gently sloping in the north. All town services were available for connection at the relevant date.

History of the Land leading to the Resumption

Mr Sharpless's evidence was that the subject land had first been offered as a high school site to the Education Department as early as 1992, then in 1994, at no cost, but on certain conditions and again on certain conditions in 1996, at the time when agreement had been reached between SLC and the Department regarding the adjacent primary and pre-school site. The Department had rejected the offers of the subject land for the reason that it had not met the relevant site criteria.
The evidence was that in accordance with the Social Infrastructure Agreement between SLC and the State, SLC was to provide both a primary school site and a high school site at no cost to the State.
Prior to 1996, SLC had commenced the staged development and sale of commercial land between the eventual primary school site and Springfield Parkway to its north-west. In 1995 a plan had been drawn by SLC's surveyors showing a proposal to subdivide the then proposed Lot 23 into eight commercial-type lots. That plan had not been lodged with the Council for approval. After the Education Department's 1996 rejection of the land, SLC made a successful application to Council for an Area Development Plan which included Lot 23 in the Neighbourhood Centre for Sector 1. In that same period Council had advised it would not permit residential development within a 250 metre radius of the refuse transfer station.
In July 1998, an eight-lot subdivisional proposal for Lots 23 and 24 was drawn by SLC's surveyors. That proposal was titled "Special Development Area Springfield Concept 2" (tendered as Exhibit 19). In that proposal the majority of Lot 23 was included as a proposed lot of about 3.7 ha fronting Woodcrest Way and adjacent to a proposed service road within the highway reserve, with access to the service road via a cul-de-sac at the central northern boundary. Two corner lots were proposed at the cul-de-sac entry off the service road with two further internal lots off the cul-de-sac and three lots along the extension of the proposed service road to Old Logan Road, the third lot also fronting Old Logan Road.
Tendered by Mr Quinn was correspondence dated August 1998 from SLC to the Minister for Education in which the Minister was urged to have the Department review its budget allocation for a new high school at Springfield. Mr Sharpless denied that the subject land was the focus of that correspondence. He said by that time SLC had come to accept that the Education Department's preference was for a site to be provided in the planned residential sector which eventually became Springfield Lakes. A high school location in that vicinity was seen by then, by SLC, to have wider enhancing effect on the marketing of proximate residential land than would a high school located on the subject land. By that time the nearby residential development off Woodcrest Way had been completed and sold.
At about the same time SLC had reached agreement with a private developer to provide land within Lot 23, adjacent to the primary school, for the development of a swimming-pool complex. According to Mr Sharpless such a complex was considered by SLC to be "a very desirable facility" and SLC was "prepared to sell the land for a below market value to assist him" (the private developer) "and we allowed deferred payment over four years. ... The swimming-pool complex was seen as a 'Loss-Leader' which would attract considerable traffic and enhance the value of adjoining lands. This enhancement of value would more than compensate for the below market sale."
The area of that site was approximately 8,000 m² and a contract dated 30 September 1998 (Exhibit 40) at a sale price of $200,000, provided for a deposit of $5,000, a payment of $45,000 upon practical completion of works, or 30 June 1999 whichever date was the earlier, then three following annual payments of $50,000.
It was Mr Sharpless's evidence that in early 1999 SLC "commenced looking at various development options" (for the balance of the subject land) "and had discussions with some of the real estate agents who were active in the commercial/industrial markets "as well as some initial discussions with one developer who had shown preliminary interest in the purchase of the subject site for commercial development."
Then, around May 1999 "after intense lobbying from residents of Springfield" the Education Department held discussions with SLC which led to negotiations to purchase the whole of the subject land. Resumption by agreement eventuated.
This meant that SLC was obliged to "extricate" itself from the original swimming-pool site agreement and a sale of an alternative site in the existing developed area of the Neighbourhood Centre was arranged. This sale proceeded at the same "below market price even though the land within this area is of higher value than that in Lots 23 and 24, to compensate ... for the difficulties he faced following resumption." The replacement site of 8,360 m², off Commercial Drive, was transferred to the developer for $200,000 ($23.92/m²).
In Mr Sharpless's opinion, it was important for it to be recognised that the subject land had "represented the only significant area of commercially zoned land available in Springfield until the recent approval obtained in July 2002 with the proposed Springfield town centre." Any marketing activities associated with the subject land had ceased from the time "it became obvious the site was going to be resumed." SLC's focus "then shifted towards bringing forward the development of our town centre which was the only other location within Springfield which was capable of providing any large quantity of commercial zoned land whilst maintaining the integrity of our master plan."
The sale in 2002 of a 40-ha parcel within the town centre will be discussed later.

Town Planning Status

Although there were some differences of opinions between the town planners there was no dispute as to the following relevant matters:
·The present Town Planning Scheme for the City of Ipswich came into force on 19 February 1999. It was a transitional planning scheme under the Integrated Planning Act (IPA).
·The Springfield Structure Plan (the Springfield Development Control Plan under the previous Town Planning Scheme) was the most relevant planning document in this matter.
·At least 50% of the Springfield Structure Plan area is within the Community Residential Designation.
·For the purposes of the Springfield Structure Plan, the Community Residential Designation was divided into five (5) sectors (Structure Plan Map 1). These sectors generally represented discrete areas and it is anticipated that a neighbourhood centre would be developed in each.
·The Strategic Plan provided that "Whilst neighbourhood centres will vary significantly in size they cater primarily for the convenience needs of the surrounding neighbourhood. From a retailing perspective these centres are likely to contain a supermarket and very limited comparison shopping. Other development appropriate for neighbourhood centres includes limited professional and business offices, medical services, community facilities (including schools), commerce and trade activities and recreational facilities.
·Section 5 of the Structure Plan referred to the Community Residential Designation and set out at 5.2.7 Development Concepts for Non Residential Developments, stating that neighbourhood centres can be accommodated within the designation and that the neighbourhood centre for Sector 1, in its identified location, had been approved prior to the commencement of the Structure Plan. Reference was then made to "another four (4) neighbourhood centres" (in each of the other four sectors) which "are intended to provide services and facilities for residents in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Strategic Plan which include:
·Neighbourhood and Local Centres will provide convenient shopping and local services for the immediate population catchment. Where possible, district level parks and educational facilities shall be located within close proximity to the Neighbourhood Centres.
·Development will be encouraged to establish in centres for which it is functionally compatible. Neighbourhood Centres should not be permitted to include the higher level comparison shopping and major administration and commercial business functions of Town Centres.
·Commerce and trade activities (which includes service and light industrial activities)
(i)     will be encouraged to locate adjacent to or within close proximity to Neighbourhood Centres;
(ii)     shall be located adjacent to the major road network and be accessible by public transport;
(iii)    shall be located in an area which does not affect existing or future residential amenity or housing stock;
(iv)    should not contribute to ribbon development along the major road network."
·Local Area Plans in the Structure Plan were outlined at section 2.2 and consist of:
Land Use Concept Master Plan (s.2.2.1)
Town Centre Concept Plan (s.2.2.2)
Area Development Plans (s.2.2.3)
·The Land Use Concept Master Plan included information relative to the possible likely schematic location of, inter alia, "neighbourhood centres and education and major community centres" with the exact location of these and other land uses to be determined in conjunction with the processing of Area Development Plans.
·Section 2.2.3.1 relevantly provided that no development can take place within any Structure Plan designation unless –
(i)there is an Area Development Plan over the land to be developed which has been approved by Council; and
(ii)the development is shown on or consistent with the approved Area Development Plan.
·    The subject land is located:
·       Within Sector 1 (Community Residential Designation) on the Springfield Structure Plan areas and Sector Map 1.
·       Within the Community Residential Designation on the Springfield Structure Plan Map 2.
·       Lot 23 (if not all) is mainly within the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre and Lot 24 within the Community Residential shading on the land use Master Plan.
·       Lot 23 was included in an application to Ipswich City Council dated 18 July 1997 for "an Area Development Plan to include land in the Neighbourhood Centre for Sector 1 of the Springfield Development Control Plan" (under the previous Planning Scheme). That application was approved by the Ipswich City Council on 1 May 1998.
·       Lot 24 adjoins the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre. The reference in s.5.2.7 of the Springfield Structure Plan to commerce and trade activities (which includes service and light industrial activities) being encouraged to locate adjacent to or within close proximity to Neighbourhood Centres, subject to the requirements as set out earlier, was a town planning consideration.

The Individual Town Planning Evidence
Mr Challenor

Mr Challenor saw the subject land as clearly meeting all of the town planning requirements for use for service industry/commercial development. He accepted that land in the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre which had already been developed for Neighbourhood Centre purposes at the relevant date, was "probably more suited to retail and commercial development than for commercial and industrial development". He also accepted that, in terms of the Planning Scheme, residential use of the land was an available option and in an ideal world, commercial development would not have been severed by a school, "but in view of the commitment of Lot 23 to development for Neighbourhood Centre purposes, residential development is not considered to be a realistic alternative".
From a town planning perspective, Mr Challenor concluded that "industrial/commercial usage clearly represents the highest and best use of the land." The scale of the Springfield development suggested to him an increasing demand for both commercial and industrial land, which, in his opinion, was foreseen by the structure plan which envisaged that "Once the population base for Springfield is established, employment opportunity for residents will emerge both within the proposed Town Centre and adjoining neighbourhood centres" (s.1.1). He noted that "until the proposed Town Centre is substantially commenced, the neighbourhood centre in which the subject land is located, is serving as a de facto town centre for the whole of Springfield."
Mr Challenor accepted that retail showroom development on Lot 23 would have been prohibited under the former Planning Scheme. However, he saw it as unnecessary to consider the former Planning Scheme when, in the Springfield Structure Plan, as part of the existing Planning Scheme, retail showroom development was specifically included in the Community Residential Designation Table of Development – Code Assessable Column 2 – "On a site nominated as a neighbourhood centre on an approved Area Development Plan".

Mr Brown

It had been Mr Brown's understanding that the claim for compensation had been founded on the highest and best use of the land being for "development of commercial uses such as service trades and bulky goods retailing".
He provided an analysis of his consideration of requirements for development of the land under the Integrated Planning Act and the existing Planning Scheme. He stated that the Council retained the ability under the IPA to impose reasonable and relevant conditions in relation to any development approval for the land. He saw issues such as the suitability and adequacy of access, traffic volumes in residential streets, traffic safety in the proximity of the primary school "as well as other factors such as integration of the overall neighbourhood centre, the interface between the development of this land and the existing primary school" as considerations which would have necessitated a fully documented application with indication of the resolution of those likely issues.
Mr Brown did not accept that the land was well positioned to allow for a substantial commercial/retail/business form of development particularly given the narrow width of the immediate Woodcrest Way access and lack of existing constructed access from Old Logan Road.
He pointed out that a "retail warehouse" constituted prohibited development under the former Planning Scheme. In his opinion "in order to have any prospect of developing the Site with retail warehouse (retail showroom) development it would have been necessary to obtain Council approval for a new area development plan under the existing Planning Scheme". He did not accept such development was an option under the approved Area Development Plan and saw it as "open to conjecture" whether a new Area Development Plan providing for retail warehousing would have received Council approval. No application for such development had been made under the existing Planning Scheme. Concentrating on retail showroom development, it was Mr Brown's opinion that there was an insufficient population base to attract "comparison shopping (such as retail showrooms)" to Springfield at the relevant date. He saw the provision of the Springfield Structure Plan as pointing to strong encouragement for comparison shopping, as distinct from convenience shopping, to be located in the Town Centre. In his opinion any fragmentation of such higher order retail shopping to the Neighbourhood Centres would be contrary to one of the basic principles of the Structure Plan.
Mr Brown did not nominate any particular highest and best use as being indicated from a town planning perspective, but whatever that use was it did not, in his opinion, include retail showrooms or, from a location consideration within the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre, any substantial commercial/retail/business form of development.

The Valuation Evidence
Mr Herron

In his formal valuation report Mr Herron valued the land on the basis that its highest and best use was of a commercial nature and that construction of a service road off the Centenary Highway would be permitted. He saw the highway frontage and the exposure to traffic on the highway which would be, on his assessment, a consequence of that highway frontage, then the location of the land at the entry to Springfield from the north, as positive features enhancing the usage potential of the land.
Although he did not accept that some large bulky goods retail warehousing development should be considered an unrealistic potentiality, his oral evidence was that he saw more intense subdivision of the land for smaller lot mixed-use development as the more likely potentiality.
In Mr Herron's opinion matters which impacted significantly on the status of Springfield and the market value of its developed lands at the date of the taking of the land, included the earlier in 1999 commencement of work on the Centenary Highway extension to within the estate and its year 2000 completion date; the 1999 agreement between Delfin and the claimant/developer; the 1999 agreement which led to the development of the Brookwater Golf Course and its associated residential sector.
He shared the opinion of the claimant, as he understood it, that, as at the relevant date, a need existed for mixed-use commercial development capable of serving community needs wider than the existing convenience facilities of the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre. He accepted that the planned Town Centre was designed to provide the regional retail and business needs of the Springfield and wider community. However, the Town Centre site comprised raw land at the relevant date and its ultimate development was at best some years away and then reliant on future significant residential development and extension of necessary infrastructure.
The subject land in comparison was already serviced with infrastructure and Mr Herron did not accept that mixed-use commercial development of this land would impact on the eventual Town Centre development in a competitive way.
Mr Herron saw highway exposure orientated commercial development as having been historically established and accepted as complementary to major regional centres.
As it happened, Mr Herron had been provided with some exaggerated misinformation regarding the extent of housing development and population of Springfield at the relevant date. That misinformation had formed part of his valuation considerations. In considering the type of commercial uses which might be attracted to the land and its location he had done some research prior to the hearing into the nature of commercial activities in the town of Beaudesert, which he now accepted had a larger population than Springfield at the relevant date. He had also prepared a list of external businesses which advertised in the "Springfield Times" and which he saw as having potential for establishment in Springfield. In his oral evidence he suggested that there would be "a whole range of things" for which the land with its highway frontage and access would be suited. Specific mention was made of motor vehicle associated industries and dealerships, service station, motel, entertainment, recreation, homemaker-type outlets, trade services, as indicative of without limitation to, the type of uses which Mr Herron saw as complementary to the site.
His valuation of the land was initially in the amount of $5,020,000. That figure was derived from an assessment based on an overall pro-rata value of $55 m², totalling on his figures $6,011,500, on the assumed basis that Centenary Highway service road access was not only available, but constructed. The claimant's engineer's estimate of the cost of construction of a service road option to the boundary of the amalgamated parcel was initially $993,481. By deduction, the value of the land at the relevant date, with service road access capable of being provided became, on Mr Herron's figures, a rounded $5,020,000. The engineering estimate was increased during the course of the hearing by $153,000 and Mr Herron's valuation then reduced with overall rounding to $4,865,000.
The assumption of Centenary Highway service road approval was a significant factor in Mr Herron's valuation and he relied on the opinion of engineering experts in that regard. There was no assumption of any extension of roadworks to or within the Old Logan Road reserve. Access was accepted as being available from Woodcrest Way, as constructed, but no internal access or development options were relevant to Mr Herron's valuation considerations.
In reaching his valuation conclusions, Mr Herron gave consideration to sales of commercial sites within Springfield and then extended his research widely throughout the greater Brisbane/Ipswich City Council localities.
The Springfield evidence was categorised as "larger" sites, of which there were three sales listed, and "smaller" sites with nine listed sales.
The first sale was of a larger site of 2.069 ha within the subject Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre, westerly of the primary school, in Springfield Parkway. The site had sold in 1995 for the equivalent of $42.53 m², the price said to have been "discounted for contribution to Coles fit out and ⅓ profit share." The site was subsequently developed as a small shopping centre with a Coles Supermarket. Mr Herron said that while he placed little reliance on this sale for reasons associated with the price discounting and its early date, he felt that the sale indicated a minimum value for the subject land at the later date.
Most of the smaller commercial site sales were within the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre (seven sales) with one in Springfield Lakes Boulevard. Those sales were of sites with areas ranging between 1,320 m² and 6,599 m² and took place in the period from as early as 1994 through to 2002 with prices ranging from about $80/m² to $143/m².
The ninth "smaller" site sale, of a site of 8,360 m², took place in 2000 at the equivalent of $23.92/m². Mr Herron had discarded the sale because it was in his opinion clearly "out of line". This was the alternative swimming-pool complex site, to which earlier reference has been made.
Mr Herron found that the smaller commercial sales assisted him in a "broad-brush" way. He had not conducted a hypothetical development valuation exercise for the in globo subject land, other than a rough check calculation carried out prior to the hearing. The figures adopted in that check were not presented as evidence, although Mr Herron's evidence was that the result supported his in globo valuation.
Mr Herron rejected the suggestion put to him that land in the established part of the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre was significantly more valuable than the subject land even in subdivision. He accepted that the usage potentialities of the two locations, north-west and east of the primary school were distinguishable. However, in his opinion, the superiority of the location north-westerly of the school for convenience shopping was negated in market value comparison terms, by the advantages of the subject land through its association with the "strategic" highway location and exposure, and identification with Springfield as a whole rather than the local Neighbourhood Centre.
The second sale of a larger site, of 1.008 ha, took place in 2002 in the Springfield Lakes Neighbourhood Centre. That land had a steep slope disability over the rear 20%, and the sale reflected $81.35/m². There was no oral or written comparison with the subject land provided, but the level of value appears, after size considerations, to show some consistency with the sales of the smaller commercial sites.
The third larger sale was of part of the designated Town Centre, being the planned retail sector of that centre, containing an area of 40 ha. That land sold in May 2002 for $29,000,000 or $72.50/m² as raw land, requiring expenditure on external works estimated to cost $6,148,352 bringing the equivalent sale price on that basis to about $87.84/m². On top of that, site works for internal development were estimated to cost $5,336,800, but not all of that cost was categorised by Mr Herron as being related to the physical development of the site (eg earthworks involved in cutting, levelling and filling). Mr Herron calculated that if the later in time sale price was to be discounted back to the date relevant to this matter, a period of 2.5 years, at a discount rate of 10% (which he suggested as being harsh) the raw land content of the sale would have equated $57.10/m², or $69.21/m² with external site works completed and $79.72/m² with all internal site works completed. Again, Mr Herron could do no more than to take a broad-brush approach in comparing this much larger site with acknowledged superior, but then futuristic, development potentialities, with the subject land
In his formal report Mr Herron commented as follows:
"External to the site in greater Brisbane/Ipswich City are quite a number of sales showing a wide range of values for large sites, depending on the amount of usable land, site development costs, location and approvals. Most serviced sites fall into the $55 to $100 psm range .... (Sales below $50 psm generally have drainage, flooding problems and/or large earthworks costs.)"
The external sales considered by Mr Herron were 12 in number, ranging in area from 1 ha to 6.65 ha, at prices ranging from $52.99/m² to $144.20/m², the latter being a "Bunnings" acquisition in 2001 of a 5.772 ha site at Gympie Road, Carseldine. Another site of 4.82 ha in Oaky Flat Road at Morayfield, apparently with some physical disabilities, was purchased also as a Bunnings site but in 1998 for $63.80/m².
The evidence was that despite contact having been made with the agents for Bunnings, no interest was forthcoming for the acquisition by them, of the subject land, in 1998. However, Mr Herron in his oral evidence did not discount the possibility of market interest in the site for some bulky goods large-scale warehousing.
Four of the external sales were located at Heathwood (Brisbane South Industrial Park) in a fairly recently developed "general industry" zoned estate used for large-scale warehousing and associated transport type activities. The Heathwood land received specific mention in Mr Herron's report as follows:
"... the Heathwood sales provide reasonable comparables in that while closer in radius to the CBD and to the Logan Motorway, they are adjacent to the army country and adjacent to Forest Lake, a somewhat similar development to Springfield. They also provide a number of similar sized sale lots at around the relevant date. Zoned "General Industry" they are restricted in use and cannot be seen from the Motorway, but are better situated. These sales show a range of $52.99 to $68 psm."
Mr Herron rejected the suggestion that the specific mention of these Heathwood sales indicated that they formed his principal basic sales evidence. In his oral evidence he said that the Springfield sales "gave very broad and good pointers to the value" (of the subject land) but "he had felt compelled to go outside Springfield in order to firm those values ..." and "certainly did have regard to the Heathwood sales. They are around about the same time. They are at a somewhat similar location. The areas are somewhat similar and they are used for a commercial-type application." He did not see "why the subject land wouldn't be suitable for large-scale warehousing."
Mr Herron pointed out that he had not specifically mentioned many of the sales in the body of his report "but that doesn't mean to say I didn't have regard to them."
It is clear that Mr Herron's "broad-brush" approach to the sales evidence did not allow any specific direct comparisons. After considering the "basket" of evidence he formed the opinion that with highway service road access, highway exposure and commercial potential, a valuation based on $55/m² sat comfortably with that overall evidence.
Mr Herron had made reference in his report to developers having shown interest in the subject land. He had discussed the site with one developer to whom it had apparently been offered by the claimant for $6,000,000. Some rough workings had been supplied by that developer to Mr Herron which he understood were intended to support a proposed offer of $4,000,000 but, as he understood it, negotiations had not proceeded because of the impending resumption. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence that Mr Herron had placed any specific reliance on the information he had obtained from the developer. There is also no evidence from the claimant's side to suggest that a formal offer had been made despite correspondence, tendered by the respondent, in which the developer had been urged to commence negotiations.

Mr Slater

Mr Slater had given close consideration to the town planning status of the land and had paid regard to the town planning report of Mr Brown.
The potential of the subject land was said to have been considered "in the context of the town planning issues, the physical nature of the land and its situation as well as the marketability of the land as at the date of resumption". Mr Slater described the subject land as being remote from the then existing Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre development and separated from the commercial environment by the existing primary school. He saw access to the land for non-residential development as being constrained by the road system as it existed and considered Woodcrest Way as "inadequate in providing access to any significant commercial development on the subject land." He acknowledged that "leaving aside the access restriction strip" Old Logan Road "could theoretically provide access to the land". However after consideration of the cost of upgrading this road "and the impracticality of this form of access" he concluded that a commercial development could not rely on Old Logan Road access. In his oral evidence Mr Slater expressed surprise with the estimate of cost to upgrade this access as agreed between Mr Nagle and Mr McAnany.
Mr Slater commented that there was "no shortage of developed land in the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre with a number of vacant sites in Commercial Drive" and made reference to the considerable land still to be developed in Springfield in both the Neighbourhood Centres and the Town Centre.
He concluded that on the assumption that "town planning and access questions could be resolved ... there would be little, if any, demand for lots developed on the subject land for non-residential purposes ... The land has no potential for commercial uses and that, bearing in mind the uncertainties in the town planning aspects, a prudent buyer would not be prepared to pay a price based on any potential higher than residential".
Mr Slater saw the residential development potential as being in the form of the adjacent residential estates. "The land did however suffer the detriments of proximity of the land fill and existing primary school sites to the west and the arterial road corridor to the east." In his oral evidence he said that the "land fill" reference was loosely used, in terms of the refuse transfer station activities which had been conducted on that site. However it was also his evidence supported by photographs of the relevant signage, that the site had been formally closed for all dumping activities prior to the date of resumption. (Mr Sharpless had thought that dumping of some forms of dry refuse had been permitted past the date of resumption.)

Mr Slater commented that there had been limited sales evidence on which he could rely, of in globo land with highest and best use for residential development "because of the location and form of the Springfield development".
He had found it necessary to rely on only one sale but which he described as providing "very good evidence". A site of 11.814 ha, zoned "Rural" but with strategic planning intent for low-density residential use was purchased by the Catholic Church, subject to rezoning to allow use for school purposes and subject also to the provision by the vendor of "suitable road access and all services" on 8 January 2002 for $1,500,000 or $127,000 per ha. The sale land is not within the Springfield Structure Plan area, but is immediately adjacent, fronting, on its western side, Augusta Parkway (the Redbank Plains road connection from the Centenary Highway) opposite the Brookwater Golf Course development.
Mr Slater described the sale land as having potential for residential development at the date of sale, in a considered superior position to the subject land through its proximity to the prestigious development associated with the Brookwater Golf Course. The sale land did not suffer the detriments which were described as affecting the subject land.
In Mr Slater's opinion the sale land was significantly superior to the subject land overall. There was no suggestion that in the comparison process the sale price had been discounted for the later-in-time date of sale compared to the date of resumption. By direct comparison of the subject land with the sale property Mr Slater's valuation was as follows:
10.933 ha @ $100,000/ha $1,093,000
Adopt$1,100,000

Retail and Commercial Analysis

Mr Owen had been commissioned by the respondent to provide an assessment of the retail and commercial potential of the subject land "as the opportunity may have been reasonably determined in December 1999".
Mr Owen's opinion as to the retail and commercial development potential of the subject land was generally pessimistic, and independently supportive of Mr Slater's opinion.
The Terms of Reference for Mr Owen's report were set out as follows:

" ·     Assessment of the site from a retail and commercial perspective (to include all uses defined by the appropriate Council schedule.

·     Define the appropriate retail showroom catchment of the site at time of resumption and the definable future.

·     Estimate the population in the catchment on an annual basis from 1996 to present.

·     Assess the alternative sites for bulky goods retail (now and at time of resumption), this will include the Springfield Town Centre and will concentrate on what was known and knowable.

·     On the basis of the population and competition, prepare an estimate of demand on the site for the range of commercial uses indicated in the Council schedule.

·     Provide an opinion as to the viability of these uses."

In concentrating on retail and commercial development, Mr Owen reported under the headings of Regional Assessment; Retail Patterns and Analysis; Trade Area Delineation; Demographic Analysis; Retail Expenditure Potential and Viability analysis.
Mr Owen's experience had been that there was a tendency for master planned communities not to meet their initial projected populations and that sale rates of anything more than 500 a year were difficult to maintain over any lengthy period. He conceded that the initial period of any such community was the slowest and his Springfield projections, being based on the historical information which would have been available at the date of resumption, could "easily accelerate based on the take-up of available residential land".
On his analysis of the eventual need for retail showroom development to service Springfield and surrounding residential suburbs, Mr Owen concluded that the subject site was of sufficient size to accommodate that total need. However the site was in his opinion, "poorly located to service the broader catchment, has poor regional access" (even on the assumption that service road access would be available) "and would be the second choice for many retailers by comparison to the Town Centre. His research had indicated that in June 1999 there was newspaper publicity that SLC had released plans for a $500m shopping centre within the Town Centre and the first stage would be a 10 ha homemaker centre with up to 30,000 m² of bulky goods retail. He saw it as "reasonable for retail operators to conclude that the Springfield Town Centre will be a major retail node with an extensive capacity to house retail and retail showrooms in a manner that will dominate the region." In his opinion, most bulky goods retailers would be seeking a single outlet to service the predicted market and in making a decision on the information available and/or published in 1999, on whether to locate either on the subject land or "to wait a short period of time and locate in the Town Centre" the Town Centre option would have received preference being the best available location.
In Mr Owen's opinion the subject land would have had limited appeal for local uses, many of the viable uses already having been established in the Neighbourhood Centre whilst other permissible uses were generally seen to conflict with the residential and school amenity of the immediate locality.
In Mr Owner's opinion the subject land was surplus to the retail and commercial needs of the local community.
There was evidence that, for the purposes of the determination of this matter SLC had also sought advice from an analyst, relative to the commercial potentialities of the land. However no expert evidence was led by the claimant in this regard.

Access Potentiality

The question of the availability of external access, in particular highway service road access was an important aspect of the claimant's case. Before giving further consideration to the question of the highest and best use of the land and its market value, it is necessary to make findings relative to access potentiality and associated costs.

Woodcrest Way

There was some dispute between the traffic engineers regarding the road hierarchy status of Woodcrest Way, at least within that section servicing the Neighbourhood Centre.
Mr Holland had conducted a traffic count for a short period (15 minutes), when the schools were ending for the day, and found that, by extrapolation, the traffic flow for that limited period had been equivalent to about 10,000 vehicles per day – equating traffic expected on a very busy road. On that basis, he saw the description of Woodcrest Way as a "residential collector street" as a "gross over statement". It had been his understanding that "Woodcrest Way was always intended in the plan of the overall area to provide access to the subject site developed as a retail or industrial commercial type precinct rather than a residential precinct ... That was always understood between Springfield and Council". He did not accept therefore that it could have been seen as a residential collector street and furthermore saw it as ludicrous to "have an educational facility of 2,000 students having sole access via a residential collector street". In his opinion the peak traffic flows associated with the school (as I understood it, including the high school) would be substantially higher than "at a commercial development".
Mr Holland saw it as a "redeeming feature", in terms of his service road proposals, that a commercial development of the subject land would not be expected to rely solely on access from Woodcrest Way. He saw it as desirable to minimise traffic flows in Woodcrest Way "no matter what its designation". He accepted that it was now obvious that the overall school design, including the internal road layout, had been prepared on the basis that there would be a road connection to Old Logan Road.
Mr Beard's evidence was that, on all the plans he had seen, Woodcrest Way had been described as a collector road. In his opinion it had collector form and function and fell within no other road classification. He agreed however with Mr Holland inasmuch as the western section of Woodcrest Way to Springfield Parkway provided for commercial orientated traffic as well and that the maximum daily traffic flow on a collector road was desirably 3,000 vehicles. While he also accepted that an extrapolated flow of up to 10,000 vehicles a day could result from a count in "a very short sharp peak in that after school period" he did not accept that such a count meant that the road carried more than 3,000 vehicles over a 24-hour period.
Mr Beard held the opinion that the subject land could have gained satisfactory vehicular access via Woodcrest Way provided any development was not a high traffic generator and had a direct nexus with the adjacent residential community. He cited examples of conventional residential, a retirement village, a local church, a childcare centre or a school as uses which could be developed with such access. He agreed with Mr Holland's opinion that the street "already carries more traffic than is desirable during the before and after school peak periods" but considered brief localised congestion to be acceptable "when generated by a school which is an integral part of the residential community it serves".
In contrast, in Mr Beard's opinion, commercially generated traffic "would lead to unacceptable conflicts with pedestrian and vehicular traffic and have adverse amenity impact".

Old Logan Road

There was no dispute from a traffic engineering perspective that Old Logan Road was capable of being constructed, at the cost of the developer of the subject land, in the section easterly of the existing bitumen sealed section, to provide physically acceptable vehicular access to the land from the Springfield Parkway intersection.
Mr Beard was of the opinion that with "absence of through traffic and the length of the 'dead end' which is out of sight of traffic on Springfield Parkway, this route is not suitable to provide access to a commercial development or precinct". However "it could provide secondary access to a use which had primary access via Woodcrest Way".

The Centenary Highway Service Road Proposal

Mr Holland had received instructions from SLC, subsequent to the date of resumption, to provide preliminary advices regarding means by which access could have been provided to the subject land from the Centenary Highway extension.
The resultant preliminary investigations identified two options for the provision of a connection to/from the Centenary Highway, with relocation of the proposed highway entry ramp linking Springfield Parkway with the future northbound highway/carriageway. Each of the options involved the use, to varying degree, of the highway corridor reserve and, with extension, was capable of including a point of access to/from Old Logan Road. Mr Holland's advice to SLC had been that both options would have been subject to further civil engineering assessment.
Option A suggested that the proposed ramp to the northbound highway lanes as designed could have been replaced and incorporated within a road carrying two northbound lanes and one southbound lane commencing at Springfield Parkway then northerly for about 1.2 km to an entry/exit point at the subject land, continuing past the land as a northbound access ramp to the highway. Most of the southern section of Option A was to be located external to the highway reserve and the balance within the reserve.
Option B suggested the proposed ramp to the northbound lanes be replaced at Springfield Parkway, incorporated within a section of road comprising two northbound lanes and one southbound to a merge point where one northbound lane and one southbound lane would continue to an ingress/egress point at the subject land. The replacement northbound ramp would continue northerly from the merge point as a ramp to the proposed northbound highway carriageway. The configuration of Option B involved more extensive use of land external to the highway reserve in the southern section than did Option A, but with somewhat similar utilisation of the reserve in the northern section, to the point of access to the subject land.
In his considerations, Mr Holland had utilised a base plan supplied to him by Mr Keilar. That plan had indicated residential subdivision southerly of the subject land either adjacent to or within close proximity to the highway reserve. Both options had avoided the residential subdivisional plans, as registered at the relevant date. It had been Mr Holland's understanding that the land utilised for the road proposals external to the highway reserve had not been required by SLC for future residential development
Mr Sharpless's evidence was that the instructions were given to Mr Holland for the purpose of demonstrating the development capacity of the subject land had it not been resumed. Although some of the land over which Mr Holland's road options traversed was later subdivided, that was a result of subsequent arrangements with Delfin.
Mr Holland had not made any inquiry of the Department of Main Roads for the purpose of establishing the departmental attitude to his road proposals. He accepted that "it would be incumbent upon whoever actually built the road to show that future upgrading proposals for the Centenary Highway itself were not compromised by any service road". Mr Holland had direct knowledge of a highway reserve at Mango Hill having been used for the provision of a service road to an adjoining development and had also referred to service road construction associated with commercial development at Loganholme having utilised part of State-controlled roads.
Mr Holland agreed that his advice to a prospective purchaser of the subject land would have been that it was the vendor's responsibility to arrange agreement for highway access if the land was offered for sale on the basis of such access being available. However he was also of the opinion that SLC had been in a much better position to obtain such agreement with the Department of Main Roads than would have been most purchasers. He was aware that SLC had been heavily involved with the Department in the negotiation of agreements relevant to the planning and construction of the Centenary Highway. He saw, as a relevant example of SLC's ability to negotiate arrangements with the Department, the retention by SLC of certain air rights over part of the highway corridor reserve.
Mr Beard had a different view as to the departmental attitude towards use of the Centenary Highway for Mr Holland's service road proposals. In his opinion, provision of highway service road access to the subject land might have been a possibility had it been a serious proposal during the initial highway planning stages. However, by the date of resumption, as he understood it with the highway corridor already reserved, with a contract let to build the extension on a particular alignment and with the interchange construction designed, it was his opinion that the service road opportunity had already been lost.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Beard had written to the Department of Main Roads seeking advice regarding access to the subject land by means of the proposals suggested by Mr Holland and a modified proposal as suggested by himself. The response was that no approval had ever been given for any proposal and had Ipswich City Council asked for design advice at the relevant date of resumption, before the land had become a State-controlled road, the response would have included advice that Option A would not have been approved, for technical reasons associated with the design, but that the location of the on-ramp in Option B may have been considered acceptable. However the response would also have included the advice that any service road would have to have been constructed clear of the Centenary Highway road reserve so that it would not compromise the future planning of the transport corridor.
Mr Holland was not concerned by the Department's advice to Mr Beard. He suggested that in the hypothetical situation which existed at the time the advice was sought and the reason given by Mr Beard for seeking the advice, it was not surprising that what he termed a "lazy" response was received.
Mr Beard did not disagree with Mr Holland's opinion that, if it had been possible to demonstrate that future requirements of the Department would not be compromised by a service road proposal then departmental approval might have been a possibility. However he saw the process involved in demonstrating lack of compromise as being a difficult exercise particularly if the corridor had recently been acquired by the Department. From his experience the Department "likes to keep all their options open" and it was difficult to establish the extent of its future requirements. He saw the circumstances surrounding the service road construction at Mango Hill and Loganholme to have no similarity to the circumstances relevant to the subject land, particularly as service road arrangements had never formed any part of the negotiations and agreements between SLC and the Department of Main Roads.
Mr McAnany also gave evidence as to his experience with the Department's reluctance to approve works which might compromise future requirements. He strongly supported Mr Beard's opinions in that regard.
From a technical point of view, Mr Beard doubted that approval could have been obtained, in any event, for Option A. Of the two options he saw Option B as being more likely to be acceptable to the authorities "in a road planning sense" avoiding the long "on-ramp" as he described it, in Option A. However he thought that Option B, as designed by Mr Holland to "only provide dead-end access" to the subject land, should have been modified to connect to Old Logan Road for the purpose of providing "a continuous sub-arterial road route serving the subject land and other lands to the north-west". While he saw it as "theoretically possible" to develop a road system modified as suggested, he doubted the economic feasibility of such proposal when, added to the overall construction cost (including Old Logan Road), was also the lost opportunity to develop "30 to 50 residential allotments" in the southern section of the service road route in Option B.
While an early subdivision and development proposal had included access to the highway reserve, it is clear on the evidence that SLC had made no detailed investigation relative to the technical potential for construction of a service road between the Springfield Parkway Interchange and the subject land, prior to the resumption. SLC's argument was that, by the time the full commercial potential of the subject land had been seen to be ripening, the State's requirements of the land for school purposes had emerged and it would have then been an exercise in futility for any formal service road planning to have been instigated.
The respondent's argument, particularly through Mr Beard and Mr McAnany, was that regardless of the emergence of the State's interest in the land, SLC had left it too late in the overall planning and development agreement process relative to the Centenary Highway for a service road proposal to have been seriously considered by the Department of Main Roads.
The claimant called Mr Keilar, who had close involvement in the survey work which would lead to the eventual reservation of the Centenary Highway corridor. His evidence was that, pursuant to relevant agreements, it had been necessary for the land required for the corridor to be set aside but, prior to design and construction contracts being entered into, and transferred initially to Ipswich City Council. When the design of the road remained incomplete his suggestion was adopted that the proposed corridor be surveyed as a lot on a subdivisional plan and transferred to the Council, but subject to a trust deed which provided for future adjustments to the corridor boundaries encompassing any design or unforeseen changes in the road location when it was ultimately built. The initial survey was then dated 24 June 1999. The design process commenced and initial construction followed. That led to "a number of changes in some of the locations of parts of the road corridor". A survey plan dated 5 June 2000 then identified the area to be dedicated as road, subsequent to which it was to become a State-controlled road.

Mr Keilar explained that the road corridor as initially designed to accommodate the full extent of transport infrastructure had been 100 metres wide and came to within about 18 metres of the surveyed boundary of both the subject land and a number of surveyed residential lots to the south-west. The rear boundaries of the residential lots surveyed by registered plan at the time the proposed corridor lot was transferred to the Council then diverted further to the south-west away from the proposed corridor. At the later date when the boundaries of the road corridor could be established, the earlier residential subdivision had extended further to the south with the rear boundaries of those lots eventually returning to the road corridor closer to the Springfield Parkway Interchange. This left a lot (Part of Lot 157 on SP128019) containing 3.382 ha between the extended subdivision and the road corridor.
This 3.382 ha lot was generally contained within the area which had been shown as available for construction of the service road Option B, in Mr Holland's proposals.
As observed by Mr Beard, had the Option B proposal been constructed, much, if not all of that eventual 3.382 ha lot would have been lost for the residential subdivision which had subsequently occurred.
Mr McAnany had also given consideration to the loss of potential residential lots. One of his assumptions had been that if the Department of Main Roads would not have agreed to the use of the highway corridor those lots surveyed to the south of the subject land along the road boundary and many within the 3.382 ha lot would have had to be utilised for Mr Holland's proposals. He had obtained an interchange construction plan noted as having been received by Ipswich City Council on 6 October 1999, which showed residential lots extending much further to the south than did the base plan which had been provided to Mr Holland. There were several lots in fairly close proximity to the interchange which would be lost to earthworks requirements for Mr Holland's proposals, on Mr McAnany's assessment.
It is not surprising that Mr Beard and Mr McAnany were concerned about the loss of potential residential land external to the highway corridor. In the normal course of events the use of such land for roadworks would be one of the cost factors worthy of consideration. I will return to that aspect of this matter in the cost estimates.

Findings relative to Service Road Proposals

It seems clear that although subdivisional plans both for the subject land and residential lots to the south were registered on the basis that the eastern boundaries of the lots were to be common with the western boundary of the highway corridor, the width of that corridor had not been finally established until after the date of resumption. It also seems clear, on Mr Keilar's evidence, that not until the design for the extension of the highway works and that initial carriageway construction was completed were the boundaries of the reserve fixed for dedication.
It is seen as reasonable to accept that the width of the reserve required for the duplicated highway carriageways and associated infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the subject land and for some distance to the south of that land was 100 metres. Had it been necessary, a "remnant" strip about 18 metres in width would have been available to accommodate Mr Holland's service road proposals. That strip conveniently was included within the highway corridor dedication, on Mr Keilar's evidence "without objection" from the Department of Main Roads. With SLC's close involvement in proceedings involving the highway, its design, construction and the surrounding surveys, I am persuaded that, at least at the time when the State's high school requirements became known, and probably even by the date of resumption, the opportunity remained available in the specific circumstances associated with this land, for approval to have been obtained for a service road construction. This construction could have taken place both within the highway corridor and, where proposed, externally to it.

Access Construction Cost Estimates

Mr Nagel had provided an estimate of cost for Mr Holland's Option A in the total amount of $993,481, including contingencies (10%) and consultant's fees (7.5%). He had initially carried out a costing estimate including roadworks along the full highway corridor frontage of the subject land, but, on instructions, removed the frontage works. He agreed that a reasonable estimate for that additional work was $316,000. He accepted that the instructions to exclude that additional work were reasonable on the basis that once service road access to the subject land had been provided, any additional roadworks external or internal would have been a specific development cost consideration.
Mr McAnany had provided a cost estimate based essentially on Mr Holland's Option B which had also been Mr Beard's and the Department of Main Roads' preference on technical grounds. Although Mr Nagel did not agree, Mr McAnany's opinion was that Option B was in any event less expensive than Option A. An analysis of the costings on a like-with-like unit basis would seem to confirm Mr McAnany's opinion that Option B was less expensive. However, included in Mr McAnany's costing was the inclusion of the extension of the service road within the highway corridor along the frontage of the subject land to Old Logan Road. That was in keeping with part of Mr Beard's suggested modification of Mr Holland's Option B.
Mr McAnany's cost estimate with that inclusion was in the total amount of $1,657,200 including contingencies (10%) and consultant's fees (engineer and surveyor) (10%).
Mr McAnany had been critical of some aspects of Mr Nagel's estimate.
First, Mr Nagel had excluded the actual cost of certain earthworks which would eventually have been required when duplication of the highway carriageways (northbound) occurred. Mr Nagel's assumption had been that the Department of Main Roads would be responsible for that cost and would bring forward the timing of the necessary expenditure. Mr McAnany's experience with Government Departments led him to believe that this was an unrealistic expectation. Mr Nagel was not prepared to concede that his approach was based on unrealistic expectations, citing examples of expenditure brought forward by the Department in the Springfield project. However, he agreed that if his approach in this regard which he had apparently adopted on instructions, was wrong, then an additional cost of $220,000 would be involved.
Second, Mr Nagel had used cost unit rates which Mr McAnany described as "unique in the Springfield development". Mr McAnany considered it "highly questionable" that reduced rates made available to SLC would have been available to any third party developer. Mr Nagel's evidence was that from his firsthand knowledge, the unit rates which he had used at the relevant date were applicable to work in the Springfield development but not exclusively to SLC, with contractors keen to establish and maintain their presence. He agreed that if he had used rates adopted by Mr McAnany, his estimate would have increased by $120,000.
Third, although it appeared that if the additional frontage works earthworks and unit rates were adopted, there was an insignificant difference between the two estimates, Mr McAnany was keen to point out that the costings were for different options and in his opinion, Mr Nagel had still underestimated the extent of road pavement involved in the proposal which he had adopted. Mr Nagel, on review, accepted that criticism and agreed that his estimate of $993,481 should be increased by the amount of $153,000 to $1,146,481.

Findings relative to Service Road Costs
Cost Estimates

As I have been persuaded that Mr Holland's Option B should be accepted for the purpose of this exercise, I will adopt as a base, Mr McAnany's quantities and items of cost. In taking this approach I accept that an argument existed for the Department of Main Roads' to bring forward expenditure for the earthworks on the service road proposal which will eventually reduce the cost of the highway carriageway duplication. However in a situation where some negotiations would still have been necessary relative to the use of the proposed highway corridor and in particular in the immediate proximity of the interchange, essentially for a private development, with limited public benefit, the probable typical negative departmental response could reasonably have been anticipated.
I am persuaded by Mr Nagel that the unit rates he adopted were based on the reality of the situation at the relevant date. While he agreed that $120,000 might have been added to his estimate if Mr McAnany's rates were adopted, there was no evidence provided to the Court as to the amount by which Mr McAnany's estimate should be reduced if Mr Nagel's rates were to be adopted instead. There may be some questionable items involved such as, for example, the extent of earthworks involved based on the agreement between the engineers, site management costs and stormwater drainage costing. However, for the purpose of the exercise I have reviewed Mr McAnany's estimate and reduced it by $165,000, before contingencies and consultancy fees. The following is the resultant calculation:
Mr McAnany's estimate, excluding contingencies and fees  $1,381,000
Less adjustment on reduced unit rates  $165,000
$1,216,000
Add contingencies and fees (20%)  $243,200
Total estimate  $1,459,200

This estimate includes the service road construction to Old Logan Road, at a cost of $316,000 on Mr Nagel's unit rates. An extension of the review of Mr McAnany's estimate would, on that basis, result in his estimate being reduced to $1,143,200 for the provision of service road access to the subject land but excluding the additional highway frontage works. The claimant had been prepared to concede an amount of $1,146,481 based on its approach, excluding the earthworks and the road frontage extension.
For the purpose of considering the valuation approach followed by the claimant, I will adopt a rounded estimate of $1,145,000 as the cost of providing service road access to the otherwise undeveloped site.

Potential Additional Roadworks – Site Development
Highway Frontage Service Road

As Mr McAnany observed, the exclusion of the cost of constructing the service road along the highway frontage of the subject land was valid only if the basis of valuation of the subject land was as an unserviced parcel with a point of service road access provided.
Mr McAnany had serious reservations about the full potential of the land being capable of realisation through other than construction of the external road system to Old Logan Road then the upgrading of Old Logan Road to the west.
This is a matter which will be a valuation consideration.
Old Logan Road
Mr Nagel and Mr McAnany agreed that the cost of upgrading Old Logan Road to a standard which would be required by Council if relevant to an associated development approval for the subject land, would have been $270,000.
Internal Roads
Again there was agreement that any internal roadworks associated with development of the site could have been costed at a rate of $550 per lineal metre at the relevant date.

Loss of Potential Residential Land

I accept the evidence that, at the date of resumption, the land which later became part of Lot 157 on SP128019 containing 3.382 ha had not been regarded by SLC as having residential subdivisional potential, for reasons associated with topography and lack of potential for connection to sewerage infrastructure. The use of the land had been seen to be limited to that of an open-space nature, buffering residential land from the highway corridor. No doubt such use would have had some inherent value, even if relatively nominal, as part of the overall development strategy of Springfield.
The potential of the land for residential use was not exposed until subsequent to the subject resumption, when a different development strategy, assisted in part by approval obtained from the Department of Main Roads for use of part of the highway corridor for associated filling and drainage works was investigated and adopted by Delfin. While the details of the obvious benefits to SLC through the disposal of this land in accordance with the Delfin Agreement, were not revealed, that benefit would have been lost had the service road proposal proceeded. However, that benefit was the result of subsequent events which I accept could not have been predicted at the relevant date of resumption.
As Mr McAnany again had observed, there would have been the possibility of the loss of some designed lots in proximity to the interchange, if the earthworks requirements associated with the final design of the service road proposal encroached into that planned development area. However, in a development the size of Springfield, any such loss might well have been mitigated against and absorbed into the overall master plan design.
I do not accept that loss of land for the route of a service road as proposed by Mr Holland, in the area external to the highway corridor, would have caused SLC monetary loss other than of a nominal nature, at the date of resumption.

Temporary On-Ramp

There was agreement between the engineers that if there had been a delay in the construction of the service road proposal and the temporary on-ramp to the highway extension had already been constructed as part of the contract completed in 2000 and its replacement was necessary as part of the service road proposal, then the cost of the service road proposal would increase by $150,000.

Highest and Best Use
Town Planning Considerations

There is no dispute that residential subdivision of the land would have been a permitted use. In the hierarchy of permitted uses, that is the lowest order of use which requires consideration in this matter.
From a town planning perspective, I am persuaded by Mr Challenor's opinions that Lot 23 qualified for "Development to Follow the Code Assessment Process" (Column 2 of the Table of Development - Community Residential Designation in the Springfield Structure Plan) for purposes as listed under the notation "On a site nominated as a Neighbourhood Centre on an approved Area Development Plan". It is not seen as necessary to set out the comprehensive purposes listed but it is noted that "Retail Warehouse" is included. Lot 24 adjoins Lot 23 and as a consequence also adjoins the Neighbourhood Centre. It would be expected, as was Mr Challenor's opinion, that development for "commerce and trade activities (which includes service and light industrial activities)" would be encouraged to locate on that land.
It was the opinion of both sides that no purpose was served by the two surveyed sites being valued as separate entities, and Mr Challenor's conclusion that industrial/commercial usage clearly represents the highest and best use of the land, is accepted to include the subject land as a whole.
The highest order of permitted use from a town planning perspective does not necessarily identify the "best" use from a market perspective. Without nominating specific purposes of development from the list, Mr Challenor's identification of "industrial/commercial" places what is seen to be, in the specific circumstances, emphasis on the industrial flavour of commercial purposes rather than a retail flavour, which he identified as more appropriate in the earlier established sector of the Neighbourhood Centre.
Mr Brown had serious reservations as to the probable effect of the "reasonable and relevant conditions" which would be expected to attach to development approval, for the purpose of addressing negative features of the site such as the suitability and adequacy of access, traffic volumes in residential streets, traffic safety in proximity of the primary school and other factors such as the integration of the overall Neighbourhood Centre and the interface between the development of this land and the existing primary school. These reservations are seen as legitimate, but it is clear from his evidence that Mr Challenor's opinion was given on the basis that the negative features would need to be overcome by, for example, suitable buffering at the relevant interfaces. If those negative features are capable of resolution which I accept they are, then , in my opinion, their relevance is related to market value considerations.
Market Value Considerations
Residential Land
Mr Herron disputed Mr Slater's valuation, if the highest and best use had been found to be for residential purposes.
In Mr Herron's oral evidence he suggested that a figure "in the vicinity of" $250,000 per ha would have reflected his opinion of the land's in globo residential value. That opinion appeared to place some reliance on a "Willowland" sale at $140,000 per ha and an "Educang" sale at $223,000 per ha, both "sales in late 2002 within Springfield Estate" and to which reference had been made in his response report (Exhibit 9A). Mr Herron accepted under cross-examination that the "Willowland" sale was a reference to a Memorandum of Understanding to which a contract of sale had been attached but apparently not executed. He had not been aware of conditions attaching to the Educang sale or the relevant payment terms.
There had been included in Mr Herron's formal report a reference to that 2002 Educang contract (Lot 34), discussed later as Site B, in a schedule of four "Springfield-Education/Church Sales". Also included was a December 1996 sale of a 4 ha site (Lot 3 SP127101) in Springfield College Drive at $125,000 per ha and another (Lot 1 SP127104), discussed later as Site A, also in Springfield College Drive of 4.95 ha for approximately $200,000 per ha in July 2000. Included in that schedule was the 2001 sale upon which Mr Slater had relied.
Mr Herron disagreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Slater that the proximity of the subject land to the refuse transfer station and existing primary school site should be seen as detriments. Instead he saw the proximity to a "quality school" as a residential advantage and instead of adjacency to the refuse transfer station being a detriment saw that site's future development as proposed sporting fields being of benefit to any adjacent residential development. He saw further residential benefits through the land's location closer to Brisbane and in close proximity to the "green belt" afforded by the Army buffer zone opposite. Although recognising the futuristic nature of its planning, Mr Herron also made mention of the potential advantage of proximity to a future railway station.
Mr Slater had considered the land the subject of the sale upon which he relied to be "significantly superior" to the subject land for reasons associated with the proximity to the Brookwater Golf Course and the beneficial effect "of the influence of prestigious residential development based on the course", then the perceived detriments of the subject land which, apart from those upon which Mr Herron's comments had been discussed above, included the adjacency of the highway corridor.
It seems to me however that while the proximity to the primary school and highway corridor would be expected to cause some residential detriments to immediately adjoining land, the subject land, as demonstrated by the development strategies of Delfin had, through its location, more immediate residential development potential to provide a higher, albeit less prestigious, lot yield, influenced by its location partly within and partly adjacent to the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre. In comparison, the location of the sale land was relatively remote from existing facilities. I have also formed the opinion that, at the date of resumption, the then recent closure of the refuse station, on Mr Slater's evidence, and the future potential development of that site for sporting fields, would have negated if not outweighed the perception of detriment caused by the past usage of that particular site.

All things considered, I think Mr Slater took a harsh view as to the market value of the subject land if its highest and best economic use was limited to residential development.
In his formal valuation report, Mr Slater commented "Because of the location and form of the Springfield development, there is limited sales evidence on which to rely." That very limited earlier evidence was restricted to the negotiation of church and school sites in Springfield College Drive. The July 2000 sale of Site A to Educang, as included in Mr Herron's schedule, warranted consideration which might then have provided a result more beneficial to SLC than was Mr Slater's sale.
There was evidence to the effect that in 1998 SLC had entered into "The Springfield College Development Agreement" (Exhibit 37) with the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane and the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) and Educang Limited, a company owned by the churches, with expertise in the operation of independent educational institutions. In the recital to the Agreement, SLC wished "to assist the Churches and Educang in establishing at Springfield a new independent educational institution having at least three separate campuses and to be known as the Springfield College." Three sites were involved - Site A of 4.96 ha (the Junior School); Site B (the Middle School) and Site C (the Senior School). The Agreement was not tendered in full but set out the arrangements between the parties in relation to their various obligations. The end result was intended to be that the cost of the Site A raw land to the Churches and Educang, was nil, through a 100% rebate against the purchase price payable under the contract. However, two of the acknowledgments by the parties in Clause 12.1 were as follows:
·"The Owner and the Developer have agreed to rebate the purchase price of Site A fully provided the Churches and Educang execute this deed and thereby the Churches commit to the construction and operation of the Junior School and Educang commits to the construction and operation of the Middle School and the Senior School and the payment of market value for Sites B and C.
·The parties acknowledge that the purchase price calculation formula for Sites B and C requires calculation by reference to the market value of the sites and that if the owner and Educang cannot agree, the calculation of market value is to be determined by an independent valuer. If that occurs, the price paid for Site A may be an important "comparable sale" for the valuer to have regard to. For that reason the parties wish the Site A price to be $200,000 per ha and accordingly the incentive referred to above will be given to the Churches by way of rebate, to enable the sale to be recorded at the full price in the relevant statutory records."

The weight which can be given to the second acknowledgment in terms of evidence of value, is seen to be extremely limited, in the circumstances. However it does indicate at the date of the Agreement in April 1998, prior to the date of resumption, that the parties would give consideration to the assumed purchase price of Site A being $200,000 per ha when negotiating the purchase of sites B and C, and that such price "may be an important 'comparable sale' for a valuer to have regard to" should the market value of Sites B and C have required determination by an independent valuer.
Depending on the alternative evidence available, such as the sale upon which Mr Slater ultimately relied to value the subject land, the assumed sale price of Site A might have been seen eventually, and in hindsight, to carry little weight in deciding the market value of Sites B and C. However it is certain that the parties would have at least been obliged to give consideration to that level of value as would have the valuer, if appointed. Mr Slater had been aware that obligations were imposed on the vendor "to undertake certain works in accordance with the Agreement" but apparently he had not been aware of the acknowledgements in Clause 12, not having been supplied with a copy of the Agreement at the time his report was written. His oral evidence was that, in his opinion, it would be extremely difficult to "draw any meaningful evidence from them" when referring to the reported sales of Sites A and B.
There was no specific evidence given by Mr Herron, or Mr Sharpless, as to the circumstances surrounding the December 1996 "education/church" sale of the 4-ha site included in Mr Herron's schedule at $125,000 per ha.
At the precise date of the resumption, the evidence as to the value of in globo residential land was extremely limited. It would have been expected that values might have increased from that date to the date of Mr Slater's sale. It was Mr Sharpless' opinion however that land within any master-planned community carried with it a premium in value, related to the development certainties afforded by significant costs having been outlined in obtaining that master-planned status. Mr Slater's sale was located adjoining but not within the master-planned area. The contract was subject to approval for rezoning for school use. There was no suggestion that any particular difficulty might have been involved had a rezoning for residential use been sought, but at least some delays may have been expected, in the event of objection, for example by SLC.
All things considered including the very limited evidence available, the differences of valuation opinion as to the extent of effects from proximity to the existing school and the closed refuse transfer station and location considerations generally, I would choose not to differentiate to any large degree between Mr Slater's sale showing $127,000 per ha and the subject land despite the superior aspect of the sale land. I would adopt a valuation of $125,000 per ha for the subject land had its highest and best economic use been found to be limited to residential.
Commercial Land
Mr Slater had concluded that the subject land had no potential for any form of development higher than residential. He described the land as remote from the then existing Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre development and separated from the commercial environment by the existing primary school. He described the existing access as constrained for non-residential development. Mr Slater considered that the land could not rely on the upgrading of Old Logan Road because of cost considerations and "the impracticality of this form of access to a commercial development on the resumed land". He was surprised that the cost estimate for upgrading Old Logan Road was not higher than the amount agreed between the engineers.
In terms of marketability for commercial development, he saw the relatively low level of the existing built development despite the availability of vacant developed land in the Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre, the planned development of a further four Neighbourhood Centres throughout Springfield and the significant area proposed for the Town Centre as impacting adversely on the existing and future demand and the marketing potential of the subject land for commercial development.
Mr Slater had concluded that on the assumption that "town planning and access questions could be resolved ... there would be little demand for lots developed on the subject lands for non-residential purposes".
The evidence of Mr Slater and then that given by Mr Sharpless relative to the provision of the "more valuable" replacement swimming-pool complex site, points strongly to the superiority of the commercial location of the existing development in the Neighbourhood Centre around Springfield Parkway/Commercial Drive, in comparison with the location of the subject land.
Mr Herron accepted that the two Sector 1 Neighbourhood Centre locations and their development potentialities were distinguishable but did not accept that, in terms of market value, the subject land with service road access and highway exposure, should be regarded as inferior. In his opinion, any superiority of the Springfield Parkway location for local convenience shopping was negated by the superior capability of the subject land to identify with the wider Springfield community as it progressively develops, through the highway position at the northern entry to Springfield.
As I have accepted that industrial (including light and service industry)/commercial uses would have been permitted on the subject land, the questions of highway exposure and market demand become relevant considerations.
At the date of resumption the highway construction was taking place on the eastern side of the corridor. Any exposure available to two-way traffic which would be using that carriageway on the imminent completion of construction was screened, to a significant degree, by medium density vegetation within the highway reserve. The timing of the duplication of the carriageway was unknown but the more effective exposure would be provided eventually when the northbound lanes were constructed closer to the boundary of the subject land. Even then, the evidence of Mr McAnany, which I accept, was that if the service road was to be constructed, the Department of Main Roads would insist that the two-way service road carriageway be effectively screened from the northbound highway carriageway to avoid visual confusion, particularly at night. There was some conflict of opinion as to whether the Department of Main Roads would permit clearing of any significant vegetation in the highway corridor for the purpose of improving the exposure of the subject land for commercial purposes. However it seems reasonable that a prudent purchaser of the subject land would not have relied on the exposure to traffic being improved, either in the short term or later, by clearing of the highway corridor vegetation. Some photographic evidence was tendered through Mr Slater which, together with the inspections carried out by the Court at the request of the parties, persuades me that the traffic exposure available to at least the eastern carriageways is not sufficient for the subject land to be regarded as enjoying a "strategic" location as suggested by Mr Herron.
That finding relative to highway exposure leads me to accept the more widely held opinion that the location of the subject land in a hypothetically fully developed condition is significantly inferior for commercial use and particularly commercial use with a retail orientation, than land in the established commercial sector from where Mr Herron obtained some sales evidence.
As to the designated Town Centre, it seems clear on the totality of the evidence that the retail/commercial potential of land in that location is so superior that cogent market value comparison with the subject land is most difficult.
Sales evidence which Mr Herron found to provide "reasonable comparables" was that from the Heathwood land. Details of the Brisbane South Industrial Park as tendered through Mr Slater indicated that the subdivision comprised 29 lots, one of which contained 15.16 ha, developed as a massive distribution warehouse (Coles/Myer). The balance lots ranged from about 3,500 m² to 6.254 ha (the latter being one of the sale lots). At the date of resumption, about 19 of the lots were available for sale. The estate adjoins the Logan Motorway, with near direct access available, although gained through the environs of a toll station which is a clear detriment. Although the estate identifies with the Motorway, advertising exposure is limited and non-existent to the properties subject of the sales to which Mr Herron made reference. The sales reflected levels of value ranging from $52.99 m² (for the site of 6.254 ha) to $68 m² (for land containing 1 ha but comprising two surveyed lots each of 5,000 m²). Mr Slater offered the opinion that the subject land did not have the potential for use of an order comparable to the sale lands.
Having regard to the finding I have made as to permitted use, there are, as Mr Herron found, some similarities between the use potential of both the subject land and the Heathwood land. The potential of the subject land may be of a higher order with greater commercial flavour and historically more valuable industrial use, than the dominating large-scale general industry purposes permitted on the Heathwood lands. However, in the end result I would see the higher order of permitted use achievable only through subdivision of the subject land into smaller fully serviced lots with service road access extending to integrate with the local road system.
The information provided by Mr Sharpless shows that in the established section of the subject Neighbourhood Centre, in the period from 1994 to 1997 17 commercial lots, most of which were relatively small in size, were sold, then no sales were recorded until subsequent to the date of resumption when the alternative swimming-pool complex site and two other lots were sold in the period to 2001. The evidence of Mr Slater indicates that, at the relevant date, built development in this section was relatively light with significant areas of vacant land including lots still unsold by SLC, particularly in Commercial Drive. Some of the earlier sales indicated that some lots had been purchased for later rather than immediate development (eg Mobil Oil and McDonalds Properties) and the sale prices of those lots were seen by Mr Slater to indicate the holding nature of the purchases.
I have been persuaded that there was sufficient commercial land available in the established section to meet the demonstrated demand, if this Neighbourhood Centre was to serve as a "de facto" Town Centre (in Mr Challenor's words) until the designated Town Centre development commenced. It was Mr Owens' opinion and a logical one, that the Town Centre development would not commence until the population increased sufficiently to warrant the capital expenditure involved and it was not until then that demand for any significant retail warehousing would be experienced.
With consideration to the quantity of commercial land with superior location available at the relevant date and the relatively slow market which then appeared to exist for such land, the subdivisional potential of the subject land for industrial orientated commercial purposes is seen to be somewhat futuristic. Even if there was some demand for immediate built development and from some purchasers prepared to hold the land until population increased sufficiently to warrant built development, a long selling period would be expected for an overall subdivisional development and then at levels of value much closer to the Heathwood sales than the retail orientated commercial sales.
There is no hypothetical development valuation exercise before the Court and the gross realisation adopted by Mr Herron in his "rough" untendered exercise is unknown. His evidence was that his valuation was intended to reflect the in globo value of the land. As the assumed service road was not constructed to the land he deducted that estimate of cost in arriving at the net in globo value. It is clear from the evidence that SLC had taken the stance that any further external road costs, as with any internal development costs, would be the responsibility of a purchaser/developer. The market value of the land relates to its development potential and the cost of developing the land to its full potential is an important market consideration. I fail to see the distinction between the works which might have been carried out by the vendor and those which might have been carried out by the purchaser, when, at the relevant date, none of the works had been effected. The land was in its in globo state and the valuation must be conducted on that basis. Although Mr Herron could not see any reason why some single use of the land should be removed from consideration, there was no serious suggestion that the highest and best economic use of the land related to a single business requiring the whole of the site. Even if that was the case, the nature of the use would need to be identified in considering highest and best economic use.
Part of the respondent's argument was that the existing Sector 1 development made adequate provision for commercial uses related to neighbourhood centre needs, while commercial uses related to district needs would be accommodated within the Town Centre as population growth was experienced.
It is noted that the planning concepts for the Town Centre include a "Service Trade" precinct (6.2(h) Springfield Structure Plan). That precinct is intended to "provide a base for service and light industries and trade functions which will be an essential ingredient to the expanding development and population in and around the Springfield area". It is seen as relevant that while importance is placed on the planning of a central area within the Town Centre "to accommodate a wide range of uses to serve the overall residential population and neighbourhood centres" this precinct development concept specifically recognises the accommodation of various "commerce and trade" areas within a number of neighbourhood centres. "Commerce and Trade" is identified in the Structure Plan as including but not limited to "service and light industrial activities". The Structure Plan is considered to recognise that neighbourhood commerce and trade activities will be complementary to and not necessarily in competition with a Town Centre precinct. It is seen as logical that, being complementary to the overall Town Centre planning concept, the Service Trade precinct would not precede the earlier stages of the Town Centre development. The evidence is (from Mr Owen) that in a 1999 press release the first stage of the Retail Precinct was expected to comprise a "bulky goods" precinct. The first stage had not been expected by Mr Sharpless (para 23, Exhibit 8) to open until late 2004/early 2005, and the Retail Precinct not to be fully developed until 2015-2020.
In comparison, the retail/commercial subdivision development of Sector 1 was largely completed by 1999, and with relatively light density built development at that time, was considered by Mr Challenor to be serving, in the interim period, as a "de facto" Town Centre for the existing and expanding Springfield population. The subject land as the potential "commerce and trade" precinct within and adjacent to the Sector 1 neighbourhood centre, and the only large area of such land with infrastructure available within Springfield, could reasonably be seen, in my opinion, as having the potential to serve as the "de facto" Town Centre commerce and trade or Service Trade precinct, once there was sufficient population growth and in the interim period until development of a central precinct was warranted. Maturity of that potential would be seen to mirror from a timing perspective, the early stages of the Retail Precinct of the Town Centre development, predicted in 1999 as being about five years distant.
That potential for the subject land is futuristic but not seen as so remote or speculative that it would not influence the market value of the land, given the evidence demonstrates that commercial land carries significantly higher levels of value than does residential land.

Conclusion - Highest and Best Use

The highest and best use of the subject land from both town planning and market value perspectives, is found to be for future subdivisional development, for industrial/commercial uses, served by a highway service road connecting to the local road system primarily via Old Logan Road.

Valuation Conclusions

At the date of resumption there may not have been a buyer immediately seeking a relatively large area of potential commercial land particularly land inferior in location to that available within the existing Neighbourhood Centre and the designated Town Centre. However, as Griffith CJ said in Spencer v The Commonwealth [1907] 5 CLR 418 at p.432, in circumstances relative to valuation matters not dissimilar to those in the subject matter, albeit nearly a century ago:
"In my judgment the test of value of land is to be determined, not by inquiring what price a man desiring to sell could actually have obtained for it on a given day, i.e., whether there was in fact on that day a willing buyer, but by inquiring 'What would a man desiring to buy the land have had to pay for it on that day to a vendor willing to sell it for a fair price but not desirous to sell?' It is, no doubt, very difficult to answer such a question, and any answer must be to some extent conjectural. The necessary mental process is to put yourself as far as possible in the position of persons conversant with the subject at the relevant time, and from that point of view to ascertain what, according to the then current opinion of land values, a purchaser would have had to offer for the land to induce such a willing vendor to sell it, or, in other words, to inquire at what point a desirous purchaser and a not unwilling vendor would come together."

Apparently the price being asked by SLC was even higher than Mr Herron's valuation, but in these matters, the price asked by the owner is relevant only if the price is fair, and meeting the description given by Isaacs J also in Spencer (supra) at p.441, as being arrived at:
"... by voluntary bargaining between the plaintiff and a purchaser, willing to trade, but neither of them so anxious to do so that he would overlook any ordinary business consideration. We must further suppose both to be perfectly acquainted with the land, and cognizant of all circumstances which might affect its value, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding features, the then present demand for land, and the likelihood, as then appearing to persons best capable of forming an opinion, of a rise or fall for what reason so ever in the amount which one would otherwise be willing to fix as the value of the property."
Later at p.442 Isaacs J referred to the comments of the Privy Council in Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v Charlesworth, Pilling & Co (1901) A.C. 373 at p.391 -
"It is quite true that in all valuations, judicial or other, there must be room for inferences and inclinations of opinion which, being more or less conjectural are difficult to reduce to exact reasoning or to explain to others. Everyone who has gone through the process is aware of this lack of demonstrative proof in his own mind, and knows that every expert witness called before him has had his own set of conjectures, of more or less weight according to his experience and personal sagacity. In such an inquiry as the present, relating to subjects abounding with uncertainties and on which there is little experience, there is more than ordinary room for such guesswork; and it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at."
The single piece of evidence which was specifically related to the subject land was the price at which SLC and the purchaser of the original site for the swimming-pool complex were prepared to do business. The weight which can be given to that transaction is lightened by Mr Sharpless' evidence that the price was considered by SLC to reflect an inducement designed to attract that particular type of public benefit development and to attract further development of a commercial nature. No opinion was expressed as to the "correct" market value. It seems to me that the generous payment terms may have in fact represented the inducement. The arrangement did not eventuate in a sale of that specific land but the evidence relative to the contract for the replacement site can, in my opinion, be accepted as representing the intentions of the parties as to the original site, had it not been for the resumption. The intended site comprised an area of 8,000 m², or approximately 7.3% of the total area of the subject land. It appears headworks charges were payable by the vendor, and services were to be made available for connection. Apparently no development work was required to excise that particular site as a separate entity. The purchase price of the land equated to $25 per m² or $250,000 per ha.
Mr Slater had concluded that the land had no commercial potential, while Mr Herron's valuation represented his opinion that the highest and best use of the land was for commercial development, with no suggestion that such potential was other than immediate at the relevant date. Based on my finding that industrial/commercial development potential existed, but the land had not matured for development at the relevant date, it follows that a fair price for the land lay somewhere between the polarised valuation opinions.
I have not been persuaded that Mr Herron's valuation, which equates about $445,000 per ha, was capable of support, even if the commercial development potential had been found to be immediate. In subdivision, the value of the subject land was seen by Mr Herron to be similar to the levels of value in the established sector, and that opinion, which I do not accept, would be critical to any feasibility exercise. Mr Herron's valuation accepted that provision of service road access was sufficient for the development potential of the land to be realised. The evidence generally as to access disabilities of the site has persuaded me that a road system integrated with an upgrading of Old Logan Road would have been necessary to overcome the potential traffic pressure on Woodcrest Way. If the service road had been constructed subsequent to the temporary ramp off the Springfield Parkway interchange, the external roadworks could have escalated to $1,881,000 on the cost estimates which I have adopted. There was no evidence led as to the total cost of subdivisional development, but clearly it would be significantly greater than the external roadworks alone. Furthermore, even had the development potential been seen to be immediate at the relevant date, the risks to which a developer would have been exposed, particularly with the abnormal costs involved and lack of specific approvals, would have remained significant.
There was evidence from Mr Sharpless that a valuation had been made of the subject land, for mortgage security purposes, by a firm Jorgensen's Valuers, in an amount of $4.85 m. Furthermore SLC's financiers had relied on that valuation to advance a total amount of $3.6 m against the security of the subject land and another unidentified lot. Another valuation obtained by SLC from Landmark White was said to have "supported the views of the previous valuer". Although those valuations would be relevant to SLC and particularly the financier, they can be given no weight in this matter. The support for the other valuers' opinions and the bases of their valuations are unknown and they were not called as witnesses for examination. For those valuations to have been capable of support however, the production of much more convincing market evidence than was made available to the Court, would have been necessary.
It seems to me that this is a case where a "bottom-up" approach would be the effective method of establishing a fair price, identifying the exposure to risk facing a purchaser prepared to wait until potential greater than residential matured, whilst identifying the premium a vendor would receive over and above the alternative development potential.
Having given consideration to the bottom line, and increased Mr Slater's valuation from $100,000 per ha to $125,000 per ha, for the reasons given, I have concluded that a premium of 50% over that figure provides a market-related and realistic result. That result equates to $187,500 per ha which is observed to reflect the present value of about $300,000 per ha deferred for five years at 10%. This observation has not formed a basis of assessment, but an in globo value of $300,000 per ha is considered to broadly reflect the adjustments which I have indicated would be seen as necessary to Mr Herron's valuation, had the potential for development been accepted as immediate at the date of resumption. For reasons given earlier a deferral period of about five years is not considered to be unrealistic in the circumstances, as a prudent purchaser would be expected to take a cautious approach, when considering the period within which the higher potential might mature. A discount rate of 10% had been adopted by Mr Herron in his deliberations relative to the sale of the Town Centre retail precinct. Although that rate was suggested by Mr Herron to be "harsh", I think in these circumstances it could well be conservative, if a cautious approach to risk was to be applied.

Finding

The market value of the land as at 12 December 1999 is determined as follows:
10.933 ha @ $187,500 per ha $2,049,937

Adopt$2,050,000

Orders
1.There being no other heads of claim it is ordered that compensation to be paid by the respondent to the claimant for the taking of the land is the amount of Two Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,050,000).

2.The respondent having made an advance payment of $880,000 on 23 December 1999 is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of Two Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,050,000) for the period commencing 17 December 1999 up to and including 22 December 1999 then on the amount of One Million One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($1,170,000) for the period commencing 23 December 1999 up to and including the day immediately preceding the date on which the final payment of compensation is made.

RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT

"	· Assessment of the site from a retail and commercial perspective (to include all uses defined by the appropriate Council schedule.
· Define the appropriate retail showroom catchment of the site at time of resumption and the definable future.
· Estimate the population in the catchment on an annual basis from 1996 to present.
· Assess the alternative sites for bulky goods retail (now and at time of resumption), this will include the Springfield Town Centre and will concentrate on what was known and knowable.
· On the basis of the population and competition, prepare an estimate of demand on the site for the range of commercial uses indicated in the Council schedule.
· Provide an opinion as to the viability of these uses."