Blacktown City Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 35

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Blacktown City Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 35

APPLICANT: Blacktown City Council PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S) : 30133 of 2005; 30673 of 2005

CORAM: Lloyd J

Compulsory Acquisition of Land :- amount of compensation - open space zoning - community land - restrictions on sale must be ignored - restrictions imposed by zoning must be considered KEY ISSUES:

LEGISLATION CITED: The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 ss 55 and 56

CASES CITED: Leichhardt Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 353,

DATES OF HEARING: 27/11/2006; 28/11/2006 and 29/11/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31 January 2007

APPLICANT: J E Robson SC SOLICITORS: Norman Waterhouse LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: P C Tomasetti (barrister) SOLICITORS: Henry Davis York

JUDGMENT: - 8 - IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Lloyd J

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

LEC Nos. 30133 of 2005 & 30673 of 2005

BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL v ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2007] NSWLEC 35

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 22 October 2004, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales ("the RTA") acquired by notice of compulsory acquisition the following three areas of land: · lots 26, 27 and 28 in deposited plan 1063300, Sunnyholt Road, Blacktown ("site 1"); · lots 116 and 117 in deposited plan 231157, Old Windsor Road, Seven Hills ("site 2"); and · lot 251 in deposited plan 790614, Old Windsor Road, Seven Hills ("site 3"). 2 On 25 February 2005, the RTA acquired by notice of compulsory acquisition lots 3 and 4 in deposited plan 1074875, Old Windsor Road, Kings Langley ("site 4"). 3 The dispossessed owner of the land, Blacktown City Council, claims compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land. The claim for the compulsory acquisitions of 22 October 2004 (proceedings No. 30133 of 2005) and the claim for the compulsory acquisitions of 25 February 2005 (proceedings No 30673 of 2005) were heard together. The question for determination is the amount of compensation to which the council is entitled. 4 For the land acquired on 22 October 2004, the council claims $1.28 million market value plus $5,000 for disturbance and the RTA has offered $305,000 market value plus $5,000 for disturbance. For the land acquired on 25 February 2005, the council claims $1.4 million market value plus $5,000 for disturbance and the RTA has offered $380,000 market value plus $5,000 for disturbance. 5 It can immediately be seen that the gap between the parties is vast, despite the fact that they each rely upon evidence of an experienced valuer. In cases such as this, where the valuations are poles apart, the Court would be greatly assisted by a court appointed expert. Unfortunately, this did not occur during the case management and by the time it came before me as the trial judge, it was too late to make such an appointment.