Filip Yakas v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Filip Yakas v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales - [2004] NSWLEC 525 - NSWLEC 2004 case summary — Zoe

[6]

30 The Applicant also criticised the reliance of Mr Sanders on the five functions (set out in par 23) which the SROP states that the Corridor located on the ridge was to perform as a basis for his view that the underlying zoning of the land is Rural Residential. The Applicant argued and Mr Sanders conceded, that functions 1, 4 and 5 should be ignored as steps in the resumption process, leaving only the physical barrier (2) and western backdrop functions (3) remaining. The Applicant further argued that the five principles identified by the then Minister for Local Government in a 1970 letter to a local member regarding the role performed by the ridge ("the 1970 letter"), being the principles also contained in the SROP regarding the functions to be performed by the ridge, had been outdated by the 1988 Metropolitan Strategy so that the ridge had become merely a natural boundary providing a western backdrop to urban development. The five principles made by the then Minister for Local Government in the 1970 letter are as follows: 1. It represents the physical division between eastern and western catchment of the Cumberland Plain and any extension of urban development beyond this point would involve the construction of a new sewerage and drainage system. 2. It is part of a land feature to be used as an effective western backdrop to urban development and as a significant feature in the landscaping of the urban environment. 3. It represents a natural boundary for the containment of Sydney's urban sprawl. 4. It represents a vital regional open space scheme for future metropolitan needs and is proposed as a reservoir of land which will meet some of the future recreational requirements. 5. It represents, particularly on the western side of the ridge, a vital link in the corridor system proposed as a reserve for the installation of major public utilities and communication systems of the future and as a vital link for this purpose between the south western and western urban corridors of the Sydney Metropolitan area.

[28]

54 Mr Lunney argued that the sales relied on by Mr Dobrow did not support his argument that the value of the land as a single large lot is greater than its value as a three lot subdivision site as: (a) Sale 8: 1598 Horsley Drive was not purchased as a rural home site but by a person living overseas (apparently as an investment) and its price was not consistent with the existence of a premium for large single sites because its value was commensurate with its subdivision potential; (b) Sale 9: 1667 Horsley Drive is not a comparable transaction, primarily because it was zoned for tourism uses under the LEP, which provides very substantial potential for development beyond that available upon a single large Rural-Residential zoned site and these is no direct evidence that it was purchased as a rural home site; (c) Sales 10, 11 and 12 have all been the subject of development applications, lodged after completion, for subdivision. This indicates that these properties were not acquired as large single rural home sites; (d) Sale 13: The Horsley Drive was not firmly relied upon by Mr Dobrow, for good reason. It was a negotiated settlement to litigation, not a market transaction, and the amount referred to by Mr Dobrow as the sale price included an amount of about $500,000 attributed to legal costs. That land area was in the order of 5.3 hectares. It is not comparable and is unreliable evidence; and (e) 158 Duff Road is a sale of Mr Lunney's which Mr Lunney argued showed a comparable land value of $1 million and which Mr Dobrow argued had a comparable value of $1.05 million. 158 Duff Road had an area of 1.943ha, just under the 2ha minimum needed for a subdivision into two one-hectare lots and its shape, topography and location are all superior to the acquired land. This sale of a large single home site with superior features cannot reasonably be said to justify a valuation at double the amount (namely $2 million) of the subject land as a single home site which, although larger, is of notably inferior shape, topography and location.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Filip Yakas

Respondent/Defendant:

Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Cases Cited (9)

CITATION : Filip Yakas v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 525 APPLICANT: PARTIES : Filip Yakas RESPONDENT: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales FILE NUMBER(S) : 31579 of 2003 CORAM: Pain J KEY ISSUES: Compulsory Acquisition of Land :- Market value - Determination of underlying zoning - Whether special market for single large lot in rural zoning - Whether alternative acquisition value available Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 117 LEGISLATION CITED: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, s 54, 55, 56 Land and Environment Court Rules, pt 13 r 8 Roads Act 1993 Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd; Webster v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575; Commissioner of Succession Duties (South Australia) v Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Limited and Ors (1947) 74 CLR 358; Housing Commission of New South Wales v San Sebastian Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 196; CASES CITED: Minister Administering the Heritage Act 1997 v Haddad (1998) 67 LGERA 438; Richardson v Roads & Traffic Authority (1996) 90 LGERA 294; Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418; Turner v Minister of Public Instruction (1956) 95 CLR 245; Vella v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales; Paoloni v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales; Martignago v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2003] NSWLEC 375 07/09/2004 08/09/2004 DATES OF HEARING: 09/09/2004 10/09/2004 14/09/2004 15/09/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/24/2004

(1999) 167 ALR 575

(1947) 74 CLR 358

(1978) 140 CLR 196

(1998) 67 LGERA 438

(1996) 90 LGERA 294

(1907) 5 CLR 418

(1956) 95 CLR 245

[2003] NSWLEC 375

Cited By (2)

Filip Yakas v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Multari G v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (43 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (9)

Cited By (2)