Scarfone v Blacktown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 114

Scarfone v Blacktown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 114

The Special Uses—Drainage zoning was properly disregarded because it was directly linked to the public purpose of acquisition and was a step in the resumption process. The evidence, particularly from Mr Rhodes and Mr Bewsher and the Council's own correspondence, showed that without that zoning the land would probably have been included in the Residential 2(b) zone applied to most of Deposited Plan 15587. The Council did not establish any basis for an extended Pointe Gourde disregard of that surrounding residential zoning. On a Residential 2(b) assumption, the Court adopted a conservative 10 dwelling yield, $85,000 per dwelling, $200,000 costs, and a 10 per cent risk allowance for internal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Objection Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, S 66(1) Against the Amount of Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Objection upheld; compensation determined in the sum of $631,265.
Legal Topics
['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value' 'pointe Gourde Principle' 'planning Affectation' 'underlying Zoning' 'residential 2(b) Zoning' 'special Uses—drainage Zoning' 'disturbance Compensation']
['compulsory Acquisition of Land' 'land Valuation and Compensation' 'planning and Environment'] ['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value' 'pointe Gourde Principle' 'planning Affectation' 'underlying Zoning' 'residential 2(b) Zoning' 'special Uses—drainage Zoning' 'disturbance Compensation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Objection Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, S 66(1) Against the Amount of Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 5(a) Special Uses—Drainage zoning of the acquired land should be disregarded as a step in the resumption process when assessing compensation.' 'Whether, after disregarding the Special Uses—Drainage zoning, the probable underlying zoning of the land was Residential 2(b) or Rural 1(b).' 'Whether the Pointe Gourde principle required the Court to disregard the Residential 2(b) zoning of the surrounding Eskdale Street precinct.' 'What market value should be attributed to the land on the correct planning assumption, including dwelling yield, access and development risk.' 'What total compensation was payable, including agreed disturbance loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Special Uses—Drainage zoning was properly disregarded because it was directly linked to the public purpose of acquisition and was a step in the resumption process. The evidence, particularly from Mr Rhodes and Mr Bewsher and the Council's own correspondence, showed that without that zoning the land would probably have been included in the Residential 2(b) zone applied to most of Deposited Plan 15587. The Council did not establish any basis for an extended Pointe Gourde disregard of that surrounding residential zoning. On a Residential 2(b) assumption, the Court adopted a conservative 10 dwelling yield, $85,000 per dwelling, $200,000 costs, and a 10 per cent risk allowance for internal...

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; compensation determined in the sum of $631,265.

Orders

  • ['Objection upheld.' 'Compensation is determined in the sum of $631,265 made up of market value $595,000 and disturbance $36,265.' 'Exhibits be returned.' 'Question of costs be reserved.']