Rose Consulting Group v Baulkam Hills Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 101

Rose Consulting Group v Baulkam Hills Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 101

The Commissioner erred in law by embarking on his own calculation of reasonable contributions using alternative data, projections, formulas and earlier or current contribution plans, instead of deciding whether the existing conditions imposed in accordance with the approved contributions plans were unreasonable and then disallowing or amending them consistently with s 94(11) and s 94(12). Although ordinary unreasonableness, not Wednesbury unreasonableness, is the correct test under s 94(12), that power does not permit the Court to rewrite or disregard an approved contributions plan.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Concerning Development Consent Conditions Imposed Under S 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Appeal From Commissioner Nott's Decision and Orders on Development Consent Contributions
Outcome
Appeal upheld; proceedings referred back for re-hearing.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'section 94 Monetary Contributions' 'contributions Plans' 'reasonableness of Conditions' 'land and Environment Court Appeal Jurisdiction']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'section 94 Monetary Contributions' 'contributions Plans' 'reasonableness of Conditions' 'land and Environment Court Appeal Jurisdiction']

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

Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Concerning Development Consent Conditions Imposed Under S 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Appeal From Commissioner Nott's Decision and Orders on Development Consent Contributions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner erred in determining for himself reasonable monetary contributions instead of determining whether the s 94 conditions imposed by the council were unreasonable.' 'Whether s 94(12) permits the Court to disallow or amend a condition imposed in accordance with a contributions plan on the basis of ordinary unreasonableness or only Wednesbury unreasonableness.' 'Whether the Court may amend s 94 conditions otherwise than in accordance with an approved contributions plan.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner erred in law by embarking on his own calculation of reasonable contributions using alternative data, projections, formulas and earlier or current contribution plans, instead of deciding whether the existing conditions imposed in accordance with the approved contributions plans were unreasonable and then disallowing or amending them consistently with s 94(11) and s 94(12). Although ordinary unreasonableness, not Wednesbury unreasonableness, is the correct test under s 94(12), that power does not permit the Court to rewrite or disregard an approved contributions plan.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; proceedings referred back for re-hearing.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Proceedings referred back to Commissioner Nott for a re-hearing.' 'Matter listed for call over before the Registrar at 9am 3 July 2002.']