Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council; Mountview Grange 88 Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1098

Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council; Mountview Grange 88 Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1098

The contributions sought by the Respondent are not unreasonable and are of a kind allowed by, and determined in accordance with, the Contributions Plan adopted by Cessnock City Council and in force at the time of determination, especially after the lifting of the Ministerial cap to $30,000 per lot. The conditions relating to the staging of development and associated infrastructure are reasonable, necessary and consistent with the planning instruments, control plans, and expert evidence. There is no basis to disallow or amend the quantum of contributions or the contested conditions of consent in this case.

Parties
Applicant: Johnson Property Group Pty Limited; Applicant: Mountview Grange 88 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Cessnock City Council; Intervener: Transport for NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Final Judgment on Appeals From Deemed Refusals of Development Applications
Outcome
All three appeals upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions of consent as finally settled between the parties and as specified in Annexures A, B and C.
Legal Topics
Development Applications, Infrastructure Contributions, Subdivision, Urban Release Areas, Conditions of Consent, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Environmental Law Local Government Law Development Applications Infrastructure Contributions Subdivision Urban Release Areas Conditions of Consent +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson Property Group Pty Limited

Applicant

Mountview Grange 88 Pty Ltd

Applicant

Cessnock City Council

Respondent

Transport for NSW

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Final Judgment on Appeals From Deemed Refusals of Development Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable quantum of local infrastructure contributions payable under s 7.11 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for development consents within Bellbird North Urban Release Area?
  2. 2 Are the conditions requiring staging and infrastructure upgrades (roads, open space, recreation) reasonable and supported by the contributions plan?
  3. 3 Should the applicable contributions cap be $20,000 or $30,000 per lot considering Ministerial Directions and timing of proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The contributions sought by the Respondent are not unreasonable and are of a kind allowed by, and determined in accordance with, the Contributions Plan adopted by Cessnock City Council and in force at the time of determination, especially after the lifting of the Ministerial cap to $30,000 per lot. The conditions relating to the staging of development and associated infrastructure are reasonable, necessary and consistent with the planning instruments, control plans, and expert evidence. There is no basis to disallow or amend the quantum of contributions or the contested conditions of consent in this case.

Court Disposition

All three appeals upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions of consent as finally settled between the parties and as specified in Annexures A, B and C.

Orders

  • Appeal 2019/275365 (DA 8/2017/459/1) upheld; development consent granted for 355 residential lots and associated works, subject to Annexure A conditions.
  • Appeal 2019/275377 (DA 8/2017/460/1) upheld; development consent granted for 439 residential lots and associated works, subject to Annexure B conditions.