Walker Corporation Pty Limited v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2004] NSWLEC 170

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Walker Corporation Pty Limited v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2004] NSWLEC 170 APPLICANT Walker Corporation Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority FILE NUMBER(S) : 30024 of 2003 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: Evidence :- Directions for concurrent evidence LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/19/2004

APPLICANT Mr J J Webster SC with Mr I J Hemmings (Barrister) SOLICITORS Minter Ellison LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr B J Preston SC with Mr A E Galasso (Barrister) SOLICITORS Deacons

JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 30024 of 2003

Talbot J

19 April 2004 Walker Corporation Pty Limited Applicant v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Respondent Directions for Concurrent Expert Evidence 1 The purpose of the proposed concurrent evidence by the six town planning and architectural experts is to seek to narrow the issues in dispute and to save haring time. It also allows the Court, as the decision-maker, to consider the competing expert views while they are fresh in the mind. The prospect of partisanship is further reduced in the context of an open session. The experts will be given the opportunity to outline their own evidence and then participate in a forum wherein there will be an opportunity to hear the views of other experts and to question each other in order to facilitate critical evaluation of other expert opinions. The Court and the experts have already gained considerable benefit out of the process of generating joint reports in accordance with the Expert Witness Practice Direction. 2 The issue the Court has to decide is not whether the land should or should not be developed in a particular way but rather what would a prudent theoretical purchaser have had to pay for the land to a willing but not anxious vendor. The enquiry is directed to the reasonable expectation the purchaser and vendor may have held for future development of the land. 3 Each witness is to assume that the Court has been appraised of the alleged facts identified as constituting the planning history of the site and the evidence that the parties claim addresses the actual use of the site since about 1928. The Court has not determined how those facts and evidence should be applied in order to find the highest and best use of the site for the purpose of a hypothetical sale on 26 September 2002. A site inspection has taken place and attributes of the site identified on land and from the water. 4 The parties have nominated the following alternative prospective uses that they say a hypothetical purchaser would have had regard to at the relevant date in September 2003:- (a) A residential use pursuant to a zoning that permits medium density. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 ("SEPP 56") applies.