Evidence
20 The appellant relied upon a report and evidence of a town planner, Mr John Wynne, of Urbis Pty Ltd. He gave evidence about the future development potential of the subject land. He considered that if the subject land had not been reserved for "County open space" it would have been included partly in the "2(b) Residential" zone under the Strathfield PSO and partly in the "10 Mixed Use" zone. Dealing first with the northern portion of the subject land, Mr Wynne said this would be zoned "2(b) Residential" because this zoning corresponded with the zoning and the use of the land north of the M4. Mr Wynne also concluded that a substantial part of the northern portion of the subject land would have been included in the "10 Mixed Use" zone. He relied upon the fact that the subject land adjoined land which is predominantly used for non-residential purposes, namely, the large scale development of the Arnott's land. Development had been approved up to 24 metres in height on such site. He further observed that the land north of the subject land was undeveloped public open space and the subject land abutted only one residential property.
21 Mr Wynne acknowledged that if the northern portion of the land had been included in the "2(b) Residential" zone, DCP 3 would control the development. However, he believed that DCP 3 would represent an under-utilisation of such portion. DCP 3 provides that land zoned "2(b) Residential" is suitable for villa house or town house development, which is low density. Mr Wynne gave evidence that low density development would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the subject land's potential, given its proximity to public transport. He agreed that villa house and town house development as prescribed in DCP 3 had resulted in low density residential areas in the Strathfield municipality. He said, however, that there had been exemptions for larger land holdings such as the Department of Defence site and McDonald College in Beresford Road.
22 As to the southern portion of the land, Mr Wynne considered that the inclusion in the "10 Mixed Use" would be inconsistent with a zoning of adjacent land having a frontage to Parramatta Road. He said that DCP 20 controlled the majority of the southern portion of the subject land because it was largely within the Parramatta Road corridor. DCP 20 would set the development parameters for the southern portion of the subject land. He observed that DCP 20 "establishes a clear framework for future development in the area". Such framework is based upon the identification of building layouts, footprints and height limits; the identification of a desired amalgamation of smaller sites to create feasible development sites; the establishment of a desired model of built form; and development guidelines to support these factors.
23 Turning to comparable sites Mr Wynne believed that the development parameters applicable to the "Strathfield Triangle", being a triangular area of land bounded by Parramatta Road, the western railway line, Leicester Avenue, the Parramatta Road corridor, and the land in Beresford Road and The Crescent, represented a strong precedent for the likely planning controls that would be applied to the subject land. The accessibility, location and nature of built form of the comparable sites were similar.
24 Mr Wynne compared other sites including the former "Defiance Mill's" site which was in close proximity to the Arnott's land. The site was an industrial site re-zoned as "10(b) Enterprise area" under the Concord PSO to allow for more intensive development. The development parameters in this zone included a maximum FSR of 0.75:1 and a maximum building height of twenty-four metres. Mr Wynne considered such FSR to be restrictive and uncharacteristic compared to development on nearby land. However, he conceded that a FSR of 0.75:1 had been specifically imposed by the Minister in such zone.
25 In the result, Mr Wynne stated that the southern portion of the subject land was suited to intensive and large scale development. The development that could be undertaken included buildings with heights of approximately six storeys in the vicinity of the Parramatta Road frontage, being reduced to three storeys closer to the M4 if the subject land were used for residential purposes. If the use of the subject land was for non-residential purposes, six storeys would have been permitted throughout the southern portion. Such an approach would reflect the building envelope referred to in DCP 20. Alternatively, two separate buildings exceeding six storeys in height could be developed on the southern portion with a height of up to eight to ten storeys ("the two towers built form"). This was a similar approach to that adopted by Strathfield Council's approval for the Department of Defence site.
26 With regard to the intensity of the development of the first built form, Mr Wynne calculated that the southern part of the subject land had an indicative development yield of 17,550m2 . He acknowledged that there would need to be a setback from trees, easements and Powells Creek. Adopting his two towers built form Mr Wynne stated that the southern portion would have an indicative development yield of 18,240m2. He said:
"It is my opinion that the indicative development potential of the southern part of the 'acquired land' based on my two alternative likely built form 'envelope' controls, falls between around 17,000m2 and 21,000m2. This represents an indicative floor space ratio of between 3.0:1 and 3.6:1 for this part of the site.
In my opinion, having regard to all the preceding factors, I consider that the most likely development yield for the southern part of the 'acquired land' would be closer to 17,000m2 of gross building area (an FSR of 3.0:1) than 21,000m2 (an FSR of 3.6:1)."
27 As a consequence Mr Wynne considered that the southern portion of the subject land could obtain a yield of 190 dwellings having an average gross floor of 90m2; or 170 dwellings having an average gross floor area of 100m2; or, 154 dwellings having an average gross floor area of 110m2.
28 On the northern part of the subject land Mr Wynne believed that residential development would have been likely. Such development would allow for high density to the south and east extending to a lower density in the north and west. He believed that a maximum of six storeys would be permitted in the vicinity of Powells Creek and the M4, decreasing to three storeys closer to the M4 if the subject land were used for residential purposes. Mr Wynne considered that the northern portion of the land with an area of 8,700m2 would produce an indicative development yield of 15,600m2. Allowing for setbacks a theoretical development of 20,000m2 could be achieved. He concluded:
"It is my opinion that the indicative development potential of the northern part of the 'acquired land' based on the likely built form 'envelope' controls, falls between around 13,000m2 and 20,000m2. This represents an indicative floor space ratio of between 1.5:1 and 2.3:1 for this part of the site.
Overall, it is my opinion that the northern part of the land would most likely be approved to accommodate development achieving a floor space ratio in the order of 1.5:1 (around 13,000m2 built form area)."
29 Accordingly the development Mr Wynne proposed for the northern development was 144 dwellings having an average gross floor area of 90m2; or 130 dwellings having a gross floor area of 100m2; or 118 dwellings having an average gross floor area of 110m2.
30 Mr Wynne considered that the land beneath the M4 would also be capable of development as a car park. He calculated that that land would produce an available area of 2,280m2 which would allow for 76 at grade car parking spaces.
31 Mr Don J Smith, the Chief Town Planner and later Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services at Strathfield Council between 1981 and 2000, was of opinion that but for the "County Open Space" and "County Road" zoning under the Strathfield PSO the southern portion of the land would have been zoned "3(b) Business (Special)" under the Strathfield PSO with a FSR of 3:1. He considered that a commercial zoning was appropriate for such position since it was compatible with existing development along Parramatta Road. He believed that the northern portion of the subject land would have been zoned "2(a) Residential" under the Strathfield PSO similar to adjacent land in the Strathfield Municipality. Mr Smith said that the Department of Defence site and other intensive residential development sites such as 5-7 Beresford Road, Homebush and 1-3 Beresford Road, Homebush were of particular relevance. These were sites approved for residential flat development and had a close affinity to the Arnott's land because they, like the Arnott's land, had previously been used for industrial or non-residential purposes. He noted that Strathfield Council permitted residential development with a maximum height of twelve storeys obtaining an FSR of 2.5:1 on the Department of Defence site. Strathfield Council permitted a substantial building for residential flat developments at 5-7 Beresford Road, Homebush which was of the same height as a fifteen storey silo previously located on the property. Such development achieved a FSR of 2.5:1. At 1-3 Beresford Road, Homebush a six to twelve storey building was built partly on former railway land on the basis that it adjoined development of a similar height.
32 Having considered the likely built form envelopes proposed by Mr Wynne, Mr Smith said that in respect of the southern portion of the subject land it was not necessary to confine the development to three storeys adjacent to the M4. He would have recommended a six storey development throughout the southern portion regardless of whether the development was residential, commercial or both. He would have suggested approval of either development of the southern portion, but would have preferred the proposal for the two towers.
33 In relation to Mr Wynne's development proposal for the northern portion of the subject land Mr Smith said that he did not consider that a limitation of three storeys adjoining the M4 was necessary. He suggested that such building height could have been increased to six storeys. He concluded by saying that he would have recommended Mr Wynne's proposal for approval subject to:
· The 3 storey element adjoining the motorway be increased to 6 storeys, subject to sufficient setback from the motorway to reduce impacts such as noise, overshadowing and the like.
· The 3 storey building along the western boundary be set back to reduce impacts such as privacy, overshadowing, overlooking onto adjoining residents.
34 Mr Mike George said that unless the owner of land initiated such action Strathfield Council would not rezone industrial land to a residential zoning. If a request to rezone the subject land was not made, it would have been included in the "Parramatta Road Corridor Study" and treated similarly to adjoining land. He concluded:
"In these circumstances, it is my opinion that the whole of the acquired land would have been included in the study because -
· There would have been no particular reason to treat the different parts of the same site differently, simply because of the M4
· The Council had already taken action to increase residential densities north of the M4, and consideration of the northern part of the acquired land would have been consistent with this action."
35 Mr George added:
"On balance the more likely scenario is that had an application been made by the owner of the acquired land, if it was zoned industrial, for a residential rezoning, the application would have been supported by the Council in principle."
36 The respondent relied upon the evidence of Mr Garth McKenzie, a town planner, who disagreed with the appellant's contention that the subject land would have been zoned for such intense uses. In his opinion, the northern portion of the subject land would be zoned "2(b) Residential" under the Strathfield PSO to render it compatible with the existing zoning of land to the west of the subject land. The southern portion of the subject land would be zoned "10 Mixed Use" under the Strathfield PSO similar to the area adjoining the southern portion of the subject land to the west and south west. Further, to provide for public pedestrian access or cycle link through the subject land between Parramatta Road and Allen Street Strathfield Council would have zoned part of the subject land as public open space or required dedication of an open space corridor as a condition of development consent.
37 Mr McKenzie believed that the development potential of the subject land would be subject to the same or similar provisions of LEP 79, DCP 3 and DCP 20. He considered two hypothetical scenarios to determine the development potential of the subject land. Both assumed the relinquishment of the Sydney Water easements. One option was based upon permitting the transmission line easement to remain in its current location. The second considered the transmission line as an underground easement. He calculated the development potential for the first option as permitting 8 townhouses and 2 detached dwellings in the "2(b) Residential" zone and 39 apartments of varying sizes in the "10 Mixed Use" zone located in two buildings of three storeys and four buildings of six storeys in height. The second option was predicated upon the transmission lines being relocated underground. Pursuant to this option, 18 townhouses and 2 detached dwellings would be derived in the "2(b) Residential" zone. In the "10 Mixed Use" zone Mr McKenzie stated 53 apartments could be located in five buildings of three storeys, two buildings of four storeys and five buildings of six storeys. In both options he assigned 9,350m2 of the total area of the subject land to the "2(b) Residential" zone and 7,330m2 to the "10 Mixed Use" zone.
38 Mr Harvey Sanders, who was a consultant town planner, testified that if the subject land had not been zoned "Open Space - Parks and Recreation Areas" and "County Roads - National and Regional" under the CCPSO, it would have been zoned partly "2(a) Residential" and partly "3(b) Business Special (Redevelopment)" under the Strathfield PSO when it was first gazetted in 1969. Such zoning was consistent with land adjacent to the western side of Powells Creek.
39 Following the adoption of the Strathfield Housing Strategy and LEP 79, Mr Sanders said that he would have advised the hypothetical prudent purchaser that the southern portion of the subject land would be rezoned "10 Mixed Use" under the Strathfield PSO and "2(b) Residential" pursuant to the Strathfield PSO in the north.
40 According to Mr Sanders, DCP 20 would apply to the southern portion of the subject land as this area was included in the Parramatta Road corridor. He believed that the DCP 20 Masterplan "would have illustrated building footprints on the land having a height six storeys along the Parramatta Road frontage with three storeys to the north". Had the southern portion of the subject land been included in the DCP 20 Masterplan, setbacks would have been required for the M4 and for retention of the fig trees. He observed that the DCP20 Masterplan did not make provision for the electricity transmission lines and other easements. As to the northern portion, he said that he would have informed a hypothetical prudent purchaser that subject person was subject to development controls in the "2(b) Residential" zone contained in the Strathfield PSO and in the DCP 3.
41 Cowdroy J said:
"59 Mr Sanders' conclusions differ from Mr Wynne regarding the applicability of DCP 3 to the northern portion of the subject land. Mr Sanders did not consider that the northern portion of the subject land would have been treated differently to adjacent land by Strathfield Council if it had been included in the Strathfield Housing Strategy. Land in the Strathfield municipality was rezoned by LEP 79 from '2(a) Residential' to '2(b) Residential' under the Strathfield PSO 'to permit medium density residential development in order to increase residential densities' proximate to the Olympic site. In this respect 'redevelopment for the purpose of townhouses and villas was recommended and adopted by' Strathfield Council. Mr Sanders also referred to the fact that Strathfield Council decided to maintain the townhouse and villa houses designation in the area north of the M4 despite the recommendations in Mike George's 'Proposed Rezoning of Various Residential Sites - Strathfield' study. Furthermore Mr Sanders considered low density development to be represented by '2(a) Residential' zone and not the '2(b) Residential' zone.
60 Mr Sanders made other criticism of Mr Wynne's conclusions. Mr Sanders did not accept that the fact that the subject land was a part of the Arnott's land was relevant in determining the zoning and development potential of the subject land. Mr Sanders considered that the subject land was distinguishable from the Arnott's land because it was a separate land holding and contained in a separate land title at the date of acquisition. Furthermore it was separated by Powells Creek and it was located in a different local government area.
61 Mr Sanders disagreed with Mr Wynne's alternative hypothesis that the whole of the subject land would have been zoned '10 Mixed Use' under the Strathfield PSO at the date of acquisition. Mr Sanders believed that the rezoning of the Arnott's land as '10(b) Enterprise Area' under the Concord PSO would not have influenced Strathfield Council to zone the entire subject land a '10 Mixed Use'.
62 Mr Sanders also disputed Mr Wynne's town planning proposal based upon severance. Mr Sanders considered it speculative and improbable that the subject land would have been included in the development proposal for the Arnott's land, especially as any such development proposal would exceed the applicable FSR standard under Concord LEP100. Mr Sanders also noted that the use of the subject land for a car park would have been prohibited under the '2(b) Residential' zone. If the subject land was used for a car park any potential for residential development would be forfeited. Accordingly Mr Sanders did not regard Mr Wynne's proposal as a practical or viable means of establishing the maximum value of the subject land."
42 Mr Mark Pepping, also relied upon by the respondent, was the current manager of strategic planning at Strathfield Council and had the responsibility of considering all rezoning matters, providing advice relating to major development sites and offering expert advice to Strathfield Council's executive and councillors. He supported the conclusions of Mr Sanders and Mr McKenzie. He believed that the southern portion of the subject land would have been zoned "10 Mixed Use" under the Strathfield PSO. He also said that the DCP 20 Masterplan would be applied to the use and development of such portion of the subject land. Accordingly Mr Pepping considered the southern portion of the subject land would be suitable for six storey buildings fronting Parramatta Road and three storey buildings abutting the M4. He said this of Mr Wynne's proposal for eight to twelve storey development:
"The option for 8-12 storeys would not be supported due to the overall impact on the character of Parramatta Road and the potential for excessive overshadowing."
43 He concluded that the northern portion of the subject land would have been zoned "2(b) Residential" under the Strathfield PSO. He considered that such zoning conformed with the residential development in surrounding areas to the northern portion of the subject land which was limited to townhouses and villa houses by virtue of the controls under DCP 3. He believed that Strathfield Council would maintain consistent development in this locality and ensure that excessive traffic did not generate from more intense development. For these reasons Mr Pepping did not support Mr Wynne's development proposals for the northern portion of the subject land. He said:
"I would not be prepared to support the option for 3-6 storey buildings on the northern portion of the site on the grounds of its incompatibility with the future character of the adjoining residential [sic] within the Strathfield Municipality of townhouses and villas, the potential impacts of excessive traffic generation which would impose on Ismay Avenue and in turn impact on the operation of the intersection of Ismay Avenue with Pomeroy Street and the significant overshadowing which would occur."
44 Mr Pepping agreed with Mr McKenzie that Strathfield Council would be strongly committed to maintain part of the subject land for a public access pedestrian or cycle link. He assumed such access would be along Powells Creek and overlie the flood prone land and riparian vegetation corridor. Mr Pepping made the point that the selected sites considered by Mr Wynne and Mr Smith with buildings greater than six storeys in height should not be used as examples for typical development in the Strathfield Municipality. They were approved by Strathfield Council before the implementation of any comprehensive residential housing strategy. He demonstrated that each of the "selected sites" had a special feature which in the absence of a housing strategy justified special consideration by Strathfield Council.
45 Cowdroy J said:
"Mr Pepping disagreed with the opinions of Mr Wynne and Mr Smith that the subject land would be given special consideration for development potential similar to the 'selected sites' referred to above because of its size. Mr Pepping stated:
In response to the suggestions made by both Mr Wynne and Mr Smith that the subject site because of its size would be given special consideration for development potential similar to previous sites is not supported. In 2000, Council successfully introduced a comprehensive Residential Housing Strategy which took into account a broad analysis for development and the cumulative impact across the whole of the Strathfield Municipality. This has provided a long term development strategy recognising various opportunities and constraints throughout the Municipality."
46 Mr Richard Sydney Marshman, a town planner, was employed with the Concord Council as manager of its approvals unit from October 1997 to October 1998 and subsequently as the Council's assistant general manager of Environment Planning and Development. He possessed a detailed knowledge of the strategic planning controls of Concord Council and provided an assessment of the likely response from Concord Council if the subject land was included in the redevelopment masterplan. Mr Marshman believed that Concord Council would not have approved a floor space transfer from the subject land to the Arnott's land as suggested by Mr Wynne. The council would have been concerned about the additional traffic impact, building bulk and effects on the amenity of the neighbouring areas. He believed it unlikely that Concord Council would have agreed to a joint environmental planning instrument with Strathfield Council to implement site specific controls for the Arnott's land.
47 Evidence was called before Cowdroy J about site constraints. Mr Eddie Lucas, the manager of the Civil Environmental Unit of Cardno Willing (NSW) Pty Ltd, gave evidence about the cost of removing or encasing Sydney Water sewer mains and the relocation of Energy Australia transmission lines. Evidence was also given about dealing with the possibility of flooding and the remediation costs for industrial contamination. Consideration was given to traffic constraints. Mr Craig McLaren of McLaren Traffic Engineering observed that "either of the development proposals in the Wynne report would be contrary to the available traffic studies". He said that Mr Wynne's development proposals would comprise an intense form of development and impose unacceptable traffic impacts. Mr Tim Rogers, the consultant traffic engineer for the appellant, concluded that the appellant's appraisal of the potential development yield would "generate a modest amount of additional traffic" but should not be regarded as constraint.
48 The acoustic experts for both parties submitted a joint report outlining the areas of agreement and disagreement. The experts disagreed upon the suitability of the subject land for residential development and the feasibility of the various residential options proposed by the parties. Cowdroy J summarised this evidence.
49 Evidence was also given about the retention of vegetation and general conditions and terms imposed by the Department of Land and Water Conservation having regard to the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948. The condition imposed on the western side of Powells Creek constrained development potential of the subject land.
50 Cowdroy J summarised the extent of the impact of the site constraints as follows:
"98 Mr Wynne believed that the range of easements including electricity transmission lines, sewerage and drainage easements which affected the land could be relocated to accommodate his proposed developments. Mr Wynne acknowledged that access to the subject land from Parramatta Road could be restricted, but noted that Allen Street could be utilised. Mr Wynne considered the contamination of the subject land, and regarded it as minor and easily remedied. He did not regard the rows of fig trees on the subject land as a serious impediment to development of the subject land.
99 Mr McKenzie for the applicant contended that development of the subject land would be limited to areas unaffected by the existing easements, potential for flood inundation, access, adjoining residential development, tree preservation, land contamination and the M4. With respect to the easements, Mr McKenzie made enquiries of Sydney Water and Energy Australia to ascertain the feasibility of relocating or removing the easements. Sydney Water advised that two of the easements within its control could be relinquished but all other easements are required to carry out their activities. Energy Australia advised that the costs of relocating the transmission line which traverses the subject land underground was $3,000,000 and would take approximately eight to twelve months to complete.
100 Mr Sanders said that he would have advised a hypothetical purchaser that the subject land was constrained by electricity easements, flood liability, road access, acoustic impacts, vegetation, contamination, the M4 and the requirement for a riparian zone."
51 Both the appellant and the respondent tendered valuation evidence. The appellant relied upon the evidence of Mr Brian Dudakov. Mr Dudakov, for the purpose of his valuation, adopted the development proposals suggested by Mr Wynne and allowed for the cost of relocating three easements posing an impediment to future development of the subject land identified by Mr Lucas. No allowance was made for inundation as Mr Dudakov did not consider it to be a constraint. He took account of remedying contaminated land. Mr Dudakov undertook two valuations. The first treated the subject land as a separately saleable parcel. He relied upon Mr Wynn's calculations and said:
"The total achievable development area assessed by Wynne is 30,000m2, which reflects a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.80 on the total site area. I have estimated a total development yield of 316 residential units for the site based on Wynne's estimate, which is calculated on an average gross area of 95m2 per unit (ie including common areas but excluding services areas, balconies and car parking areas). This area has been adopted based on my analysis of average gross unit sizes in other nearby projects."
52 His Honour said:
"103 Mr Dudakov stated that he adopted the 'direct comparison approach' with the 'principal unit of comparison being the rate per potential residential unit'. He assessed the sale price per m2 of land and sale price per m2 of floor space at fourteen allegedly comparable sites. From such comparable sites Mr Dudakov adopted a general amount of $50,000 per residential unit, which equated to an unencumbered residential value of $15,800,000 for 316 units. Such amounts reflects a figure of $526/m2 of potential development area and $947/m2 of land area, which accords with the parameters reflected by the comparable sales.
104 Deducting the approximate costs of $3,000,000 to relocate the transmission line, $75,000 to relocate easements and $200,000 for remediation expenses, Mr Dudakov reached an amount of $12,525,000 as the estimated value of the subject land as at the date of acquisition."
53 The second valuation approach was to adopt Mr Wynne's alternative proposal to consider the subject land and the Arnott's land as one parcel of land. Mr Dudakov was advised that 236 "at grade car parking spaces" would be developed on the northern portion of the subject land. Allowing savings from this Mr Dudakov concluded that the value of the subject land on his hypothesis was $16,840,000.
54 Mr Kent Wood was the valuer for the respondent. He considered the site constraints in detail for the purpose of valuation. He used Mr McKenzie's assessment of the highest and best use of the subject land which was townhouse and villa development on the northern portion of the subject land and development compliant with the "10 Mixed Use" zone on the southern portion.
55 He made his valuation by two separate approaches in accordance with Mr McKenzie's report, firstly, on the basis that the overhead transmission line remained in situ and then assuming that the transmission lines had been located underground. Cowdroy J said:
"108 Mr Wood considered sales evidence of sites in the immediate locality to decide the sale prices which could be expected for residential units, villa houses and townhouses. In respect of option one he calculated that the subject land would yield eight townhouses at $100,000; two detached houses at $150,000; and thirty-nine apartments at $70,000 making a total of approximately of $3,830,000. To this amount $711,360 must be added to represent the value of 11,856m2 of open space at $60/m2. In total the valuation of the subject land was assessed by Mr Wood to amount to $4,540,000.
109 For the second option Mr Wood assessed the yield of the subject land at eighteen townhouses at $115,000; two detached houses at $170,000 and fifty-three apartments at $80,000 totalling $6,650,000. To this he added an area for open space of 6,931m2 at $60/m2 which amounted to $415,860. Therefore the total value of the development yield for option two was $7,065,860. Mr Wood however made a deduction of $3,000,000 for the cost of relocating the electricity transmission line easement reducing the development yield to $4,065,860.
110 Adopting the total development yield of option one, being the greater sum, Mr Wood subtracted $119,713 for the cost of the acquisition of Sydney Water easements, and $750,000 for remediation costs. The final valuation reached by Mr Wood for the whole of the subject land on this basis is $3,700,000.
111 Mr Wood stated that a severance claim as provided for by s55(c) of the Act is not warranted to these proceedings. Mr Wood alleged that the applicant could not maintain any loss due to severance since the subject land and the Arnott's land are located in two different local government areas and are therefore subject to distinct planning controls."
56 Ms Kerry-Anne Hogan, a valuer employed by the State Valuation Office, provided a valuation of the subject land taking into consideration the development as proposed by Mr McKenzie, the site constraints and town planning considerations. She developed a valuation on the basis of option one as proposed by Mr McKenzie and option two as proposed by Mr McKenzie. Cowdroy J said:
"113 Ms Hogan concluded that option one is preferable as it did not incorporate any costs of achieving the development proposed in option two. Accordingly on Ms Hogan's assessment the highest value of the subject land at the date of acquisition was $4,400,000.
114 As to the applicant's severance claims Ms Hogan agreed with Mr Wood and did not support it. Ms Hogan stated that the subject land was noted as being reserved for recreational purposes in the proposed masterplan submitted by the applicant to the City of Canada Bay Council for the redevelopment of the Arnott's land. Subsequent to the lodgement of such masterplan there was no indication from either Strathfield Council or from the City of Canada Bay Council that car parking would be permitted on the subject land. Therefore Ms Hogan maintained that there is no evidence to suggest that the acquisition of the subject land directly reduces the value of the applicant's land."