Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Donnellan v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWLEC 1462
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Steve Donnellan
Ku-ring-gai CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10955 of 2008 CORAM: Hussey C KEY ISSUES: Section 96 Application :- Modify the s 94 contributions imposed on a development consent for a residential flat building LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 CASES CITED: Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council (2006) NSW LEC 776 DATES OF HEARING: 19/11/2008 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 19 November 2008 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
Ms R. Dawes, solicitor
of Lindsay Taylor LawyersRESPONDENT
Mr P. Marincowitz, solicitor
DLA Phillips Fox
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESHussey C
10955 of 2008 Steve Donnellan v Ku-ring-gai Council19 November 2008
This decision was given extemporaneously.
It has been revised and edited prior to publication.
JUDGMENT
1 This appeal was lodged against council’s refusal to s 96 application to modify the s 94 contributions imposed on a development consent for a 32 unit residential flat building development at 26-30 Marion Street, Killara.
2 The details of the various components of the s 94 contributions are contained in the Statement of Facts and Contentions and I rely to these. During the appeal there has been conferencing between the parties, resulting in an agreement to the revised s 94 contributions and consequently that has lead to the parties also agreeing to consent orders.
3 The sole issue in this matter was the quantum of the s 94 contributions based on council’s s 94 contributions plan. However, in another matter, which was Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council (2006) NSW LEC 776, the s 94 contribution plan was challenged. His Honour Justice Talbot reviewed some of the components in that plan and the amount of contributions was reduced.
4 I understand that the subject contributions have been reviewed in light of that judgment by an independent planner and the adjustments are now reflected in the agreed consent orders. The adjustments refer to the occupancy rates, the amount for community facilities, the arts centre and traffic studies and as I noted these comply with the findings in Justice Talbot’s judgment.
5 In these circumstances, there are no further questions that this court has to answer. Therefore I consider that it reasonable to make the consent orders.
6 The Court orders by consent :
- 1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development consent No. 0820/07 be modified by the deletion of condition 37 and in lieu thereof the substitution of the following condition:
- a ’37. Section 94 contribution - residential development.
- A contribution pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as specified in Ku-ring-gai Section 94 Contributions Plan 2004-2009 for the services, per person , detailed in column A and for the amount detailed in Column B is required.
Column A Column B
Community facilities $376.95
Park acquisition and embellishment works $6,384.75
Sportsgrounds works $1,318.32
Aquatic/leisure centres $27.82
Traffic and transport $63.51
Section 94 plan administration $100.04
Total contribution per person $8,271.39
Net increase in population 65.24 persons
Total contribution $539,625.80
- The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition) or prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate (whichever comes first). The charges may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plan to reflect changes in land values, construction costs and the consumer price index. Prior to payment you are advised to check the contribution amount required with Council.
___________________
- R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
ljr
08/01/2009 - 23-30 Marian Street changed to 26-30 Marian Street - Paragraph(s) 1
- AGLC
- Donnellan v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWLEC 1462
- Case
- [2008] NSWLEC 1462
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed the issue by reviewing the contributions in light of a previous case, Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council (2006) NSW LEC 776, where Justice Talbot had reduced the contributions based on certain components of the contributions plan. Following this review by an independent planner and subsequent conferencing between the parties, the contributions were adjusted to align with Justice Talbot’s findings. These adjustments pertained to occupancy rates, community facilities, arts centre contributions, and traffic studies.
Given the agreement on the revised contributions and the consent orders proposed by both parties, the court found it appropriate to uphold the appeal and modify the development consent. The court accepted the consent orders, which specified the new section 94 contributions, the payment timeline, and the conditions for any future adjustments based on changes in land values, construction costs, and the consumer price index. The court concluded that no further questions remained, and the consent orders were reasonable.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.