Water corp easement rights on your property

Hi property forum,

I have near Perth (midland area) a hobby farm property (10ha) that is going to be rezoned sometime in the near future to higher density residential zoning from its current zoning of rural residential. It is less than 1km from the urban sprawl.

Currently watercorp has (older) existing water pipe on the other side of the road to my property. They now want to build a new pipe on an easement of 4 metres from the road on my property. 10 metres from the road on my property will no longer be allowed to be built upon by me which will lower the development opportunity once the rezoning takes place. Water corp has briefly discussed that compensation will be paid to me for the easement they require. Should I decide I do not want any part of my property to become part of water corps easement, what rights under the law do I have to refuse?

Cheers everyone

 

The Water Corp is a Statutory Authority which, if it fails to negotiate an easement with you beforehand, it will compulsorily acquire the portion of land required.

If the WC is to acquire an easement 4 m in from the road, why are you going to lose 10m not just the easement (you will still have the normal setback requirements and the pipe would sit in this space).

Refer to the compulsory acquisition act for WA.

What is the proposed zoning? Minimum lot sizes may be 2000 m2 (rural living vs residential) so may have minimum impact on subdivision.

 

Have you confirmed this information is correct. I agree with @Scott No Mates that it sounds a bit unusual

 

The info I described was what I recollected from a 10 min conversation earlier today with Water Corp. Am meeting with them next week to get the full and correct details. My apologies in advance if my post is laden with errors.

From the research and your responses it seems I have little chance of successfully rejecting the plan to put pipes through my property. Assuming it will go ahead, I would want to be compensated fairly. Fairly in my mind is what the land will be worth once the rezoning takes place which will be occurring in the near to middle term. I was approached to sell the property to a buyer a number of months ago but declined with the intention of realising the future value of the property once rezoning takes place. Do I have a legal case to claim compensation for the not-too-distant future value of the land (post-rezoning)?

Thanks

 

Almost certainly not. How far away and how definite are the rezoning plans?

 

Your compensation will be based on the highest and best use of the land at the time that the easement is taken. ATM the land is zoned rural and unless there's a draft LEP showing residential, it's rural.

Why is the pipe so far into the land? Can that be redesigned to have less impact? ie closer.to the road. What impact will it have on future subdivision and englobo sale to a developer? Is the road to be widened?

 

Sketch please!

Is this sewer or water?
Water is normally in the verge

Agree with Scott. They can do what they like, just try and get a few extras out of them (plus compo) while they're around new driveway perhaps

 

You may want to engage a TP in your area to advise you of the various ways to argue the value and have the easement without it stuffing future use.

 

A valuer may be if more benefit.

 

UPDATE:
Met with Water Corp representative regarding the easement they want to put in. At the informal meeting over coffee they showed me (preliminary) plans of the easement and the pipe they want to install along my property but could not provide me a copy of the prelim plans after asking for one.
- No technical details of the pipe were explained nor provided in writing to me.
- No specific details of what I can or can't do on the part of my property once the easement is put in place.
- There is an existing easement and pipe across the road which they mentioned was unfeasible to touch and they would not put the proposed pipe in the existing easement. I have doubts whether they CAN'T do it, and suspect they would rather not do it as building a new easement is cheaper for them. I believe they need to show that they necessarily require part of my land for the easement--I would suspect just because it is cheaper to create an easement on my property would not justify it being necessary to build on my property IF they are technically able to replace/build alongside the existing pipe.
- No details of compensation other than the fact that compensation would be proposed and paid AFTER the installation of the pipe and easement.
- They provided a couple page statement for me to sign off agreeing that I accept Water Corp using part of my land as an easement then and there (I refused to sign without a lot more information being provided to me such as methodology of compensation, technical details of the easement, etc).

Without too much further research, I believe there is a lot wrong with how the Water Corp has dealt with this matter. Does anyone have an opinion or can point me in the right direction (towards legislation, court cases, similar situations, etc) regarding this matter?

 

See if they're able to concrete encase it, that way you'll be able to build on it in future.

 

Option 1 - appoint a valuer

• Listen to their advice
• Don't accept their first offer or design (though you have little say in design)
• Don't grant access until the S88b is lodged, registered and you've been paid.

Option 2 - proceed to compulsory acquisition

• Appoint a valuer
• Acquiring authority pays valuation cost
• Listen to their advice