Bresact Pty Limited and Estia Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2010] NSWLEC 1137

Bresact Pty Limited and Estia Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2010] NSWLEC 1137

The Court found that the appeal should be dismissed because the modification sought was not unreasonable in the circumstances; the relevant contributions plan (Manly Section 94 Contribution Plan 2004) applied, and the s94E Direction capping contributions was not retrospective and therefore irrelevant to the consent in question. There was insufficient evidence to find the required contributions unreasonable, and the applicant's submissions did not demonstrate a basis for reducing or disallowing the contributions for the residential or car parking components.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'section 94 Contributions' 'modification of Consent' 'reasonableness of Conditions']
['planning Law'] ['development Consent' 'section 94 Contributions' 'modification of Consent' 'reasonableness of Conditions']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the modification sought is substantially the same development as originally approved' 'Whether the Section 94 monetary contribution condition (DA274) is unreasonable in the circumstances and should be modified, especially in light of the Minister’s s94E Direction']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appeal should be dismissed because the modification sought was not unreasonable in the circumstances; the relevant contributions plan (Manly Section 94 Contribution Plan 2004) applied, and the s94E Direction capping contributions was not retrospective and therefore irrelevant to the consent in question. There was insufficient evidence to find the required contributions unreasonable, and the applicant's submissions did not demonstrate a basis for reducing or disallowing the contributions for the residential or car parking components.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The exhibits are returned.']