COMPULSORY ACQUISITION — objection to compensation — assessment of compensation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) — whether change in value of land pursuant to s 55(f) was caused by public purpose — determination of market value
Quick Take
1Where an acquiring authority is proponent of both the public purpose for which land is acquired and a separate infrastructure project (here the OSO) that affects residue land value, the shared proponent status alone does not establish the direct causal link required by ss 55(f) and 56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act; the decrease must be caused by the carrying out of the specific public purpose, not by a separate purpose pursued independently even if factually influenced by the public purpose
2An applicant claiming that a planning designation on residue land should be disregarded bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that, absent the public purpose, the designation would not have affected the land; a hypothetical alternative corridor route that has not been subjected to detailed feasibility analysis and does not satisfy the stated objectives of the separate project is insufficient to discharge that onus
3In determining comparable sales adjustments for englobo industrial land, a material difference in wastewater servicing readiness and government fast-tracking between precincts can justify a substantial location adjustment (here 25%), and the relevant comparison date is the date of acquisition, not the earlier dates at which option prices were struck where the market already anticipated imminent rezoning and servicing
