The Scout Association of Australian Queensland Branch v Council of the Shire of Noosa
[1992] QLC 25
•28 July 1992
|
LAND COURT,
BRISBANE.
28th July, 1992.
Re: Determination of Compensation -
Resumption for Road purposes -
A91-71
The Scout Association of Australian Queensland Branch
v.
Council of the Shire of Noosa
J U D G M E N T
The respondent Council of the Shire of Noosa resumed on 2nd June, 1990 land from the Scout Association of Australia Queensland Branch, land described as Lot 8 on Plan 224431, Parish of Tewantin containing an area of 6802 m2 for road purposes. The resumed land is now part of the land utilised for the Noosaville By-pass road. It is situated at 11 Eumundi Road, Noosaville about 1.3 kms from the commercial node at Noosaville and 100 m from the Noosa River. The land was at resumption date zoned "Special Uses - Boy Scouts" under the provisions of the Shire of Noosa Town Planning Scheme. On 27th November, 1990 the claimant Association filed with the Council of the Shire of Noosa a claim for compensation in the sum of $180,188 made up as follows:-
Land (Lot 8) $119,035
Severance (Lots 7 and 9) $ 51,780
Injurious affection (new security fence) $ 7,350
Valuers fees $ 1,773
Solicitors fees $ 250
$180,188
====
The resumed land was part of a larger parcel of land owned by the Association and which at resumption date was then described as Lot 7 on RP 79817 Parish of Tewantin (herein after referred to as the parent parcel) containing an area of 2.6201 hectares. Subsequent to resumption the Association is left with two parcels of land, one on either side of the resumed land. Lot 7 on Plan 224431 contains an area of 1.618 hectares and has a narrow frontage of 20.167 metres to Eumundi Road. It has erected upon it Boy Scouts and Girl Guide facilities. Lot 9 on Plan 224431 containing an area of 2959 m2 has a frontage to Gibson Road. Each of Lots 7 and 9 also fronts the new By-pass road but access to it is not allowed by the Noosa Shire Council from either lot.
At the outset of the hearing of the matter, leave was sought by Counsel representing the claimant Association to amend the claim for compensation. Leave was granted and the claim now reads:-Land (Lot 8) $119,035
Severance (Lots 7 and 9) $ 51,780
Injurious affection (new security fence) $ 9,433
Legal expenses $ 410
Valuers expenses $ 1,773
Total of amended claim $182,431
=====
Legal and valuation expenses involved in preparation and lodgement of the claim for compensation are agreed between the parties in the abovementioned sums.
Russell John Ryter, a consultant Town Planner in the employ of Maclean Wargon Chapman Town Planners was called by the claimant Association. Mr Ryter describes the nature of the parent parcel as being relatively flat with a number of mature trees located on the site. The land is subject to river flooding but enquires made by Mr Ryter at the Noosa Shire Council indicate that the flooding disability would not in itself preclude the land being developed for residential purposes. The zoning of the site limits the use or uses of it to the Boy Scout movement. However, Mr Ryter points out that the parent parcel adjoins a number of allotments which are subdivided for residential purposes and included within the "Residential Low Density" or the "Residential Single Unit" zones. These lots front Eumundi Road, Gibson Road and Gympie Terrace. A lot adjoining the parent parcel at the corner of Eumundi Road and Gympie Terrace is zoned "Industry" and is used for the purpose of a Dry Cleaning and Laundry Business. An allotment adjoining the point of access to the parent parcel from Eumundi Road has recently been developed for villa accommodation units. Adjoining the parent parcel to the east is a large parcel of land which has recently been rezoned from the "Future Urban" zone to the "Residential Low Density" zone and it is currently being developed for residential purposes. Mr Ryter expresses the opinion that if the parent parcel was not in the ownership of The Boy Scouts Association at resumption date, then in all likelihood it would have been included in the "Future Urban" zone having regard to its size and location. Mr Ryter is of the view that, subject to normal engineering considerations, the parent parcel is in fact suitable for urban development. It is included within the urban designation on the Strategic Plan Map. As a result of his investigations, Mr Ryter is left in no doubt that development of the parent parcel for some form of urban development would at resumption date have been both appropriate and supported by the Council's Town Planning documentation.
Mr Ryter says that having regard to the zonings adjoining the parent parcel, with their attaching height restrictions, and to the height of development established in the immediate locality, then it would be inappropriate to permit development on the parent parcel in excess of two storeys. For this reason, Mr Ryter believes that the most appropriate zone which might be allocated to the parent parcel in the event of an application having been made for rezoning would be the "Residential Low Density" zone. He says that the parent parcel was of sufficient size to permit a well planned town house style development. It had three road frontages and accordingly potentially three points of access to increase the number of design options.
Mr Ryter is of the opinion that the parent parcel possessed potential to provide a maximum potential yield of 129 two bedroom units. After resumption, he says that Lot 7 would have a maximum potential yield of 80 two bedroom units while Lot 9 would have potential for 14 two bedroom units. Now although Mr Ryter says Lot 9 has potential to yield this number of units, he also says that it has very difficult access along a street which is now called Armitage Court (formerly Gibson Road) and because of this, its post resumption potential is limited from a Town Planning point of view. Mr Ryter says that the resumption effectively reduces the potential yield of the land from 129 units to 94 units - a loss of 35 two bedroom units.
Mr Ryter told the Court that he is familiar with the Town Planning Schemes for the Shire of Noosa which were gazetted in 1985 and 1990. The zonings previously mentioned are those included within the 1990 Town Planning Scheme which was gazetted on 15th December, 1990 and accordingly after the date of resumption. However Mr Ryter says that the Schemes are basically the same save that the 1985 Scheme did not contain a statement of intent, and he is confident that an application for rezoning to "Residential Low Density" under the provisions of the 1985 Town Planning Scheme would also have been successful.
Brief evidence was called from Kevin John Burton who is a fencing contractor. It was Mr Burton who provided the quote for $9,433 ($38.50/m) for the construction of a security fence on the boundary between Lot 7 and the resumed land. The quote is for a fence 245 metres long constructed of treated CCA timber with hardwood rails and pine palings. Mr Burton also quoted for an alternative security fence 2 metres high of chain-wire construction with three barbed wires on top in the sum of $6,308.
Valuation evidence was called by the claimant Association from practicing Elwyn Clifford Denman. Mr Denman describes the parent parcel as being generally level as a whole with the exception of a broken area in the southern section which is traversed by a waterway. He confirms that the land is in a designated flood area with much of it have been filled to give the Scouting Association maximum usage. He says the property as a whole is tree studded and developed to a park like setting for Scouting and Girl Guide purposes.
Mr Denman is also of the belief that should the use of the land no longer be required by the Scouting Association, then an application to rezone it for residential development would have proven successful. He believes that a developer would have an expectation of gaining "Residential Low Density" zoning approval, especially on the basis that the land to the north and to the east is presently similarly zoned.
Mr Denman says that since the property prior to resumption had two access points to Eumundi Road, this would give potential to it for redevelopment for cluster housing of some magnitude. He stresses that the property is close to the Noosa River, park areas and shopping facilities as Noosaville and Tewantin, and says it is ideally suited to such a development.
Mr Denman outlines the effects of the resumption as being that it causes a direct loss of Lot 8 containing 6802 m2, and causes an indirect total loss of Lot 9 containing 2959 m2. He says that Lot 9 is situated between the southern side of the new By-pass road and the former Gibson Road (now Armitage Court) and that, while Lot 9 has legal access from Armitage Court, due to the steepness of a rise in Armitage Court from the frontage of Lot 9 to the Eumundi Road frontage, and since the Noosa Shire Council has declared that the By-pass road would be a limited access road (and accordingly no access will be permitted from Lot 9 to the By-pass road), then Lot 9 is virtually without practical vehicular access. Mr Denman believes that the unformed steep rise in Armitage Court is 5 - 6 metres high. He says that since resumption there has been what he describes as a walkway built along Armitage Court through to Eumundi Court. Armitage Court is an unconstructed roadway. Subsequent evidence in the case indicates that this is not a walkway but a cycle track. Mr Denman's enquiries from the Noosa Shire Council reveal that the Council is not prepared to construct Armitage Court from Eumundi Road. As a result any proposed development of Lot 9 would require a developer to meet the construction of Armitage Court at his own cost. Mr Denman believes that the cost of constructing Armitage Court down the embankment across a watercourse would be more than $30,000 and this cost would make any proposed project on Lot 9 highly uneconomical. Because of this Mr Denman believes Lot 9 is valueless post resumption. Mr Denman has not enquired from an engineer as to the cost of providing this access to Lot 9.
Mr Denman points to a further adverse affect of the resumption in that it causes the northern severance (Lot 7) to be restricted for future development because of what he calls its adverse shape which is roughly triangular with only one single road frontage to Eumundi Road. Council again will not permit access to the By-pass road from Lot 7.
Mr Denman believes that the resumption will result in the necessity for the Scout Association to erect a timber security fence along the southern boundary between Lot 7 and the new roadway with a 20 metre return along the eastern boundary to both reduce sound along the new road and to contain the security of children using Lot 7 from the new road. It was Mr Denman who estimated the cost of the erection of the security fence at $7,350 as incorporated within the original claim for compensation.
Mr Denman's assessment of compensation on a "before and after" basis is:-Value of Land Before resumption
2.591 ha @ $175,000 $453,965
Less value of land after resumption
Lot 7 - 1.618 ha @ $175,000 $283,150
Lot 9 - 2959 m2 $ nil $283,150
Loss in land value $170,815
Add cost of security fence to new road
plus return - 245 m @ $30/m2 $ 7,350
TOTAL CLAIM $178,165
=====
Mr Denman relies upon a number of sales for his assessment of compensation. Resubdivision 2 of Subdivision 2 of Section 2, Parish of Tewantin containing 1004 m2 sold in November, 1989 from Sagner to Deius Pty Ltd for $100,000 - situation 48 Poinciana Avenue - zoning "Residential Low Density". Five units have been constructed since the time of sale indicating a unit value for the land of $20,000 per unit. The sale represents a rate of $996,000/ha. This is a small site which obviously is not comparable with the subject land.
Lots 2 - 4 on RP 79817, Parish of Tewantin containing 1753 m2 sold on 9th February, 1990 from Van de Graff to Dwyer for $105,000 - situation Eumundi Road (adjoining the parent parcel) - zoning "Residential Low Density". The sale represents a rate of $600,000 per hectare. Again this is a small site and for this reason is again not comparable with the subject land.
Lots 11 - 15 and 19 on RP 66590 and Lot 84 on RP 100030 and Lot 2 on RP 106722 and Lots 21 - 22 on RP 66590, Parish of Tewantin and Lot 17 on RP 67136 and Lot 3 on RP 132415, Parish Weyba containing 153.407 hectares sold to Mademinster Pty Ltd on 1st December, 1989 for $10,750,000 - situation Laburnum Crescent, Hygieta Street and Gibson Street - zoning "Future Urban" - Single Unit and "Rural". The sale reflects a rate of $70,000 per hectare. The property is presently being developed into a canal estate known as Noosa Waters Estate. This sale land is much larger than is the subject land. It was obviously purchased with a different potential use in mind (canal estate).
Lot 22 on RP 151414, Parish of Tewantin containing 1.49 hectares sold from Richards to Nucol Pty Ltd on 4th May, 1989 for $100,000 - situation Goodchap Street - zoning "Residential Single Unit". The sale represents a rate of $67,000/ha. Mr Denman says this sale property is not directly comparable with the subject land in that it is zoned strictly "Residential Single Unit" compared with what he feels is the "Residential Low Density" potential for the subject land. Mr Denman says this sale land is surrounded by residential single unit development and this limits its potential to that use. Mr Denman has not relied upon this sale as a basis of valuation but he says the sale site is greatly superior in terms of its outlook, which is over a lake. It is also superior in land quality. It is flood free and has a bitumen sealed road frontage.
Subdivision 1 of Portion 151, Parish of Tewantin containing 29.943 ha was purchased by Inew Pty Ltd on 28th August, 1987 for $1,900,000 - situation Goodchap Street, Eumundi Road and Hilton Terrace - zoning "Future Urban" with a section at the corner of Hilton Terrace and Eumundi Road zoned "Special Facility". The sale represents a rate of $63,450/ha. Mr Denman says that this land comprises a mixture of wet costal forest and more elevated coastal country. Again this sale property is much larger than is the subject property and Mr Denman sees it as having potential for single unit residential development. A large part of the land containing 20.32 ha now described as Lot 2 on RP 228115, Parish of Tewantin facing Goodchap Street has been resold to Mooloolaba Downs Pty Ltd on 20th December, 1990 for $1,000,000 - or $49,212/ha.
Lot 2 on RP 132415, Parish of Weyba containing 4.451 hectares sold on 25th January, 1988 to Fulloon and Ors for $250,000 - situation cnr Gibson Road and Thomas Street - zoning "Rural". The sale reflects a land value of $56,000 per hectare. Mr Denman says that the sale land is all wet coastal forest.
Counsel for the respondent Council opened its case by calling in evidence Raul Weychardt who is a town planner and who since 1985 has been in the respondent's employ. Mr Weychardt told us that the 1985 Town Plan for the Shire was gazetted in May of that year and that a strategic plan which can include various development control plans was introduced in 1988. To date the Shire has a fairly recent addition by way of a development control plan. The 1990 Plan referred to by Mr Ryter only involved a replacement schedule at it wasn't a replacement scheme. Mr Weychardt says that the planning documentation prior to 1988 was somewhat rudimentary and at that time it would have been quite possible that Council may have agreed to a rezoning of the parent parcel for residential low density purposes. Mr Weychardt says however, that a significant change occurred with the replacement of the schedule in the plan in 1990, and although it was not gazetted until December, 1990, it was advertised for objections from 6th March, 1990 to 11th May, 1990 and so the proposed changes were very well and truly public knowledge at relevant date in this case. It is to be noted that the date of resumption in this case was post the closing date for objections.
Mr Weychardt says that with the change in December, 1990, then a key change in emphasis was placed upon the intent in the "Residential Low Density" zone. The 1990 Scheme generally followed similar lines to the 1985 scheme with one important distinction. In the 1990 Scheme the maximum size lot for residential low density is preferred to be 1,500 m2, and Mr Weychardt says that the rationale for this provision was to discourage large developments of units. Council's preference is for smaller sites being developed and for smaller buildings rather than a great variety of buildings.
Mr Weychardt does not believe that an application in 1990 for rezoning of the subject land to "Residential Low Density" would have been successful. He points to an application in March, 1990 to rezone land described as Lot 38 on the southern side of Gibson Road from "Rural Pursuits" to "Residential Low Density". A decision was made on 14th June, 1990 to refuse that application on the basis that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated the need for further residential low density land at Noosaville, and that the proposed zoning for multiple dwellings would be detrimental to the future amenity of nearby land zoned "Rural Pursuits", "Future Urban" and "Residential Single Unit". A further reason for the refusal was that ample residential low density land existed in the locality, and that the rezoning may have led to an additional undesirable accesses on to the Noosaville By-pass road.
Mr Weychardt confirmed that land adjacent to the parent parcel on the east of it was rezoned on 29th November, 1990 to "Residential Low Density", and that this was almost immediately prior to the gazettal of the new schedule in 1990.
Ronald William Bugler, a registered valuer practicing at Noosa, was called by the respondent Council. Mr Bugler also assesses compensation using a "before and after" method of valuation, which reads:-Value of land before resumption - 2.6201 ha
at $100,000/ha - say $262,000
Value of land after resumption -
Lot 7 - 1.618 ha at $110,000 $177,980
Less injurious affection at 10% $ 17,798 say$160,000
Lot 9 - 2959 m2 - $35,000
Less injurious affection at 10% $ 3,500 $31,500 $191,500
Compensation for loss of land $70,500
=====
Mr Bugler confirms that the subject land is within an area subject to river flooding, and that his advice is also that access from the new Noosaville By-pass road will not be permitted to the balance areas after resumption.
Mr Bugler sees the highest and best use of the subject parent parcel to be for future subdivision into "Residential Single Unit" allotments. He also confirms that the parent parcel is approximately level and that it has been partially filled forming gentle undulations. Mr Bugler also identifies the open drain traversing the western side alignment of Lot 9.
Mr Bugler tabulates a number of sales upon which he relies as a basis for his valuation. Lot 22 on RP 151414 containing 1.49 hectares sold from Nucol Pty Ltd to Surfair Apartments Pty Ltd on 12th May, 1989 for $170,000 - situation Goodchap Street - zoning "Residential Single Unit". It is to be noted that this is a later sale of the same parcel of land cited as a sale by Mr Denman. Mr Bugler says that the majority of this land is within an area designated as subject to river flooding. He confirms that Donella Lake views are available from the property. Since sale Lot 22 has been subdivided into 14 Residential Single Unit lots. The sale reflects a value of $114,093/ha. Mr Bugler says it has a better location than has the parent parcel and had the advantage of having Val Crescent and Goodchap Street constructions in place at sale date.
Mr Bugler refers to the sale of Lot 2 on RP 228115 from Glusibi Pty Ltd to Mooloolaba Downs Pty Ltd on 20th December, 1990 for $1,000,000 - situation Goodchap Street and Noosa-Eumundi Road - zoning "Future Urban". Mr Bugler says two corners of the land are designated as being subject to river flooding. It comprises gently undulating englobo land embracing a low ridge running parallel to Eumundi Road and then it falls gently westward and northward. There is a large highest set aged dwelling on the site. An application to rezone the land to "Residential Single Unit" was made in July, 1990. The proposal included a subdivisional design of 227 lots. The sale reflects a value of $49,221 per hectare. Mr Bugler sees the land topography and road frontage to be superior to the subject land and points out that the south eastern ridge on the land has good local elevations. The land was purchased without rezoning conditions.
In January, 1991, Lot 1 on RP 78623, containing 6.738 hectares sold from Karobran Properties Pty Ltd to F and K International Pty Ltd for $340,000 - situation McKinnon Drive, Tewantin - zoning "Rural Pursuits" (since sale rezoned to "Residential Single Unit" with a 62 lot subdivision approved). Mr Bugler says the outer perimeter of the this land is subject to local flooding. He described the site as a level to gently undulating wallum area falling to lower flood prone areas. The sale price reflects a value of $50,460/ha. The contract of sale was conditional being subject to rezoning approval.
Mr Bugler cited three sales of small residential single unit sites in the area which provided him with a basis for valuing Lot 9 post resumption. They are:-Lot 122 on RP 227330 - 2023 m2 - Bibby to Burdon in July, 1989 for $50,000 - zoning "Residential Single Unit" - situation Cullinane Street, Tewantin. This is a gently undulating lot.
Lot 49 on RP 228903 - 2950 m2 - McWilliam Projects Pty Ltd to R and S Keys in October, 1989 for $44,000 - zoning "Residential Single Unit" - situation Casuarina Crescent, Noosaville. This is a gently sloping irregularly shaped fully serviced lot.
Lot 14 on RP 220650 - 3296 m2 - Belmont Forest Pty Ltd to Fairchild in March, 1990 for $72,500 - situation Furness Drive, Tewantin. This is an irregularly shaped level parcel in an established residential area. It has subsequently been developed as a childcare centre. It is zoned "Residential Single Unit".
Mr Bugler does not agree with Mr Denman's valuation of the subject land on the basis of its highest and best use being potentially "Residential Low Density" land. He further disagrees that Lot 9 post resumption is worthless. He suggests its highest and best use is as a large single unit residential lot. His enquiries suggest that the construction of an access road along Armitage Court to the site would cost $20,000. He values Lot 9 with access at $55,000 and arrives at his valuation of $35,000 for it by making allowance for the cost of the access provision. The estimate of access provision cost was provided to Mr Bugler by a Mr Sanderson of the Engineering Department of the Noosa Shire Council.
Mr Bugler does not think that the sale of Lot 2 on RP 132415 which was relied upon by Mr Denman was a straight forward transaction. It seems to him that one of the purchasers is a divorcee of one of the vendors.
Mr Bugler does not see the need for a security fence along the By-pass road, but in any event he feels that its costs is not compensable if the land is being valued for the assessment of compensation on the basis of a higher and better use than is the use to which it is being put. This is a well entrenched principle of valuation with which I agree.
The Court was invited to take a view of the resumed land and the retention areas together with the sales referred to in evidence by the valuers. This view has been taken and it has been of assistance to me in my appreciation of the evidence.
Before and perhaps as part of, my consideration of the valuation evidence in this case, is the necessity for a decision to be made as to what represented the highest and best use of the parent parcel and the retention areas at resumption date. It is agreed that if the land had not been zoned "Special Uses - Boy Scouts", then it would have been a relatively simple matter to have gained approval from the respondent Council for an alteration to the zoning. But to which zone? Would it have been to the "Residential Low Density" zone or to the "Residential Single Unit" zone? I am satisfied on the evidence of Mr Ryter, together with the evidence of the change in the zoning of the land to the east of the subject land to the "Residential Low Density" zone, that there would have been a considerable likelihood that an application for rezoning of the parent parcel to the "Residential Low Density" zone as at the date of resumption would have had considerable prospect of success, notwithstanding the opinion of Mr Weychardt and his evidence as to the lack of success in rezoning Lot 38 from the "Rural Pursuits" zone to the "Residential Low Density" zone. Lot 38 is to the south of the old Gibson Road and appears to be in a much less desirable location for residential low density development than is the subject land. In addition, one of the reasons for the refusal of the application to rezone Lot 38 was that the rezoning may have led to additional undesirable accesses onto the Noosaville By-pass road. In considering the prospect of rezoning the subject land to "Residential Low Density" and in terms of the valuation of the parent parcel we are required to ignore the purpose of the resumption and accordingly the existence of the By-pass road and its effect on the value of the parent parcel at resumption date. As Counsel for the claimant Association pointed out, it would have been open to press an application for Rezoning in the Local Government Court in the event that Council would not approve any such proposal. Although the amending schedule was not introduced into the Town Plan until December, 1990 (post resumption) it was on display at date of resumption as outlined by Mr Weychardt. It may have been of persuasion with Council, but would not have been enforceable at resumption date. Having said this, it must also be said that any hypothetical prudent purchaser of the parent parcel, or of the retention areas, at resumption date, could not take it as a certainty that any application for rezoning to the "Residential Low Density" zone would have proven to be successful. There would be some risk that the application would be unsuccessful, and of course if the application was resisted by Council, there would be time delays and costs involved in gaining the approval. I have come to the conclusion that the parent parcel at resumption date did stand possessed of potential for rezoning to the "Residential Low Density" zone and that post resumption Lot 7 had a similar potential. With regard to Lot 9, I find that its highest and best use is as assessed by Mr Bugler as a single unit residential lot.
There is simply no sale placed in evidence by either of the valuers which would support Mr Denman's valuation of $175,000/ha for the parent parcel and of Lot 7 post resumption, especially when the area and shape of the Lots are taken into account. Taking an overview of the sales evidence, and placing more weight on that with potential for low density residential development, I find that the assumed hypothetical prudent purchaser would not be prepared to pay more than $140,000 per hectare for the parent parcel at relevant date on the basis that he must assume the risk, albeit perhaps small, that a rezoning to the "Residential Low Density" zone would ultimately be approved. Lot 7 post resumption is a much smaller site than is the parent parcel with just one access point from Eumundi Road, and it has an injurious affection factor being adjacent to the By-pass road (a factor allowed for by Mr Bugler). I follow Mr Denman's opinion that the post resumption value of Lot 7 should be determined at the same rate per hectare as the preresumption value of the parent parcel at the rate of $140,000 per hectare. As for Lot 9, I cannot see that post resumption it has no value. It is a site which could be considered as having value as a large single unit residential lot as suggested by Mr Bugler, but there is the problem of the access difficulty and also the injurious affection factor of the adjacency to the By-pass road. I find that Lot 9 does have a value post resumption, and determine that value, resolving any doubts I have, as I must in compensation matters, in favour of the claimant, in the sum of $20,000. I determine compensation for the resumption, using the "before and after" method adopted by the valuers, as follows:-Value of land before resumption -
2.6201 ha @ $140,000/ha $366,814
Less land value after resumption -
Lot 7 - 1.618 ha @ $140,000/ha $226,520
Lot 9 - 2959 m2 site $ 20,000 $246,520
Determination of compensation for loss
of land $120,294
=====
I make no determination of compensation for the cost of the security fence. The reason as before mentioned is that compensation has been determined on the basis of a higher and better use for the land than that made of it by the claimant Association. If the higher and better use value is to be obtained in the market place, then the use of it in the ownership of the Boy Scouts Association has to be abandoned. There is then no requirement for a security fence. Legal and valuation fees are determined in the agreed sum of $2,183. Compensation is accordingly determined under all heads of claim in the rounded off sum of $122,500.
Section 28 (1) of the Acquisition of Land Act provides that the Land Court may order that interest be paid upon the amount of compensation determined by it, and that such interest shall be at such rate per centum per annum as the Court deems reasonable. The Court is advised that the respondent Council of the Shire of Noosa advanced a sum of $71,500 against compensation to the claimant on 1st November, 1991. I order that, in addition to compensation payable, interest be paid by the respondent Council to the claimant Association at the rate of 11% per annum on the following sums and for the following periods -On the sum of $122,500 for the period commencing 2nd June, 1990 (date of resumption) and ending on 1st November, 1991 (date of payment of advance) and
On the sum of $51,000 for the period commencing 2nd November, 1991 and ending on the day immediately preceding the date upon which final payment of compensation is made.
Member of the Land Court.
0
0
0