GHD Pty Ltd v Pristine Waters Council

The appellant maintains that the contribution plan provides insufficient demonstrable nexus for the six items under this heading. It is said that no analysis is provided that gives a basis to conclude that the existing facilities are not adequate and sufficient to cope with the demand generated by the increase in population.

As with open space embellishment, I do not accept the appellant's submissions in this regard. The population at 1995 was less than half the expected population in 2001. Taking the items that comprise community amenities individually it can be seen that the increase in population will generate additional demand over and above that which exists, and which additional demand will need to be met with additional expenditure.

Dealing with the individual items under community amenities:-

(i) The toilet block. With an increased use of the sports field, the multi-purpose centre (the hall), and the area generally, there will be an increase in demand that will need to be satisfied by either a new toilet block, or some augmentation of the existing block. This should be allowed. (ii) The multi-purpose centre next, which is the hall. This is a community hall erected predominantly from funds collected from the local community and the Community Area Assistance Scheme. There was a small Council contribution to the cost of its erection. The hall could be better utilised by the installation of demountable partitions. Its present use is curtailed due to an inability to divide the hall into smaller areas for different use at the one time. Partitions will allow this to occur. Given the existing use of the hall, and the increase in demand for its use, this is a reasonably related extra expenditure linked to the increase in population.

(iii) The sports field. Mr Exley says that the figure of $64,000 for this item was for works to assist in accommodating extra and new activities. This was what was forecast in 1994 and history has proved it was a correct forecast. New activities since then, namely baseball and a pony club, have commenced and works are required to improve these facilities for them.

(iv) Corindi foreshore. This expenditure, $20,000, is said to be for the carpark, improved access to the beach and erosion control measures in the sand dunes. It is obvious that more than double the population will create activity which needs to be provided for and this should be allowed.

(v) The tennis courts. There were two tennis courts erected, one of which, some two years ago, was converted to a skate park for the local children. The evidence is that the existing tennis court is fully utilised, hence any increase in population and a doubling of the population warrants a new tennis court and this should be allowed.

(vi) The cycleway. The proposed cycleway is to run alongside the road between the school and the beach where the shop, tennis court, and skate park are located. It terminates some 800 metres from the nearest lot in the proposed subdivision. The reason for it is conflict between vehicular traffic and cyclists along the road. In my view it would be of major benefit to residents in this subdivision.

The 1995 Contribution Plan identifies a need for upgrading of Coral Street flowing from increased residential development. Mr Jenkins, Council's Divisional Manager of Technical Services, explained that Coral Street is the main access road for the entire Corindi urban area. He cited a 1994 traffic study by the present applicant, which concluded that upgrading Coral Street would be required by an increase in population in Corindi Beach, (see p 16 of exhibit C).

In the face of that evidence I reject the submission by Mr Webster that there was no evidence of the relationship of the demand generated by the increase in lots in this subdivision with the proposed works in Coral Street. A matter of some concern, however, was the inability of Council to identify how the roads figure of $275,000 for the upgrading of Coral Street was calculated. No data was available to show how it was arrived at, or sourced.

Mr Jenkins analysed the cost of the upgrade of Coral Street using 1995 estimates as being then, in 1995, some $947,177. The nominated and, in my view, already apportioned figure for roads, namely the $275,000, does not readily appear as an appropriate allocation or calculation out of a figure like $950,000. If the new population of Corindi Beach of 821 was to bear its rateable portion of this sum the amount would be some $549,362. However Coral Street also services Red Rock, another small beach side community about five kilometres to the north of Corindi.

The 1994 GHD Traffic Study, annexure B to Mr Jenkins' statement of evidence, exhibit C, shows that in 1992 both locations, that is Corindi Beach and Red Rock had populations of a similar size, and similar dwelling numbers, (see exhibit E to Mr Brady's statement of evidence, exhibit 1). If one makes a general assumption that the rate of population increase would be approximately the same in each area and that the use of the improved Coral Street would benefit both Corindi and Red Rock, then in percentage terms one can arrive at a figure approximate to $275,000 when the total cost is split between these areas and there is apportionment between the old and projected or new population.

Both Mr Brady and Mr Jenkins used traffic counts to try and prognosticate the impost that should be arrived at for the contribution for roads. Traffic counts of course reflect the use of vehicles by residents in houses. If one makes the reasonable assumption of average traffic counts per vehicle per lot, then one can use a percentage analysis of past and future lots approximating to, and for my purposes sufficiently close to, the use of traffic counts, and that is what I propose to do.

Mr Webster submitted that the absence of nexus of the need to upgrade Coral Street with increase in population was demonstrated by Council's own records. These showed little or no expenditure on the components of the works program in Schedule 1, and no existing or planned intent to carry out the nominated works. In Mr Brady's statement of evidence there is an annexure of Council's records relating to what has been collected under s 94, and what has been spent since 1995 for roads under Contribution Plan Number 4; $32,120 has been collected, but none of it spent. For community facilities and open space, $55,213 had been collected, of which $13,982 had been spent.

The Council's Draft Plan of Management for 2001 to 2004, adopted by Council on 20 June 2001, which is annexure R to exhibit B, was highlighted by Mr Webster as allegedly showing no forward planning for the implementation of the works in Schedule 1 to the 1995 Contribution Plan Number 4, nor the allocation either of monies collected under s 94 for those works, nor the collection of further s 94 funds to carry them out.

He submitted there was a single reference to s 94 monies for Corindi Beach, namely $15,000 for footpath reconstruction at Corindi Beach which is found on p 18 of that document. Whilst that is so, the plan does identify $407,765 coming from s 94 contributions to be utilised for road projects and a much smaller sum of $7,100 for community facilities. That is to be found on pp 20 and 23 of that document, albeit those amounts are not allocated to Corindi Beach, but appear as general figures.

Mr Webster submitted that s 94(6) required the expenditure of funds within a reasonable time and that these records demonstrated this had not happened and was, in his submission, not likely to happen. To reach that conclusion would, in my view, require more accurate analysis of what has happened over the last six years. The information I have referred to does not allow any reliable conclusion to be drawn as to what has been collected and applied. Further, what is a reasonable time for the application of contribution monies collected under s 94 for this council at Corindi Beach may be starkly different from what would be a reasonable time for a Sydney metropolitan council. No evidence was called as to the timeframe for the collection of monies and the implementation of works, albeit estimates are given in the Schedule to the Plan, but in my view it would be highly speculative to infer what may or may not be a reasonable timeframe given the state of the evidence as it was left at the conclusion of the hearing.

The records to which I have referred and the inability to conclude what may or may not be a reasonable timeframe lead to the conclusion that this head of challenge fails.

Mr Webster contended that all of the figures in Schedule 1 to Contribution Plan Number 4 ought be apportioned. In particular he points to the provisions in the plan following a scheme set out in Pt 4 to the Regulations to the EP&A Act which acknowledge and provide formulae for apportionment of contribution between existing and new population. He referred in particular to par 8 of the Plan, and in relation to community amenities par 17, and for roads par 20.

However, Mr Whitehouse submitted that the figures in Schedule 1 were already apportioned and had been arrived at after the formula had been applied to base figures. This was to be found, he said, from two sources. Firstly, from each of the items in Schedule 1 the heading "Percentage Responsibility" was shown as a hundred percent. This could only mean, he submitted, that the figures shown were not to be the subject of further apportionment, but rather were the actual figures arrived at when apportionment had been applied for the new population.

Secondly, Mr Whitehouse submitted that Contribution Plan Number 4 states plainly in its introductory section on p 5 that the contribution rates "are contained in Schedule 1 and have been determined in accordance with part C of this plan". As part C contains the apportionment formula (albeit their inputs and mathematics are erroneous), then the Schedule 1 figures are what have been deduced after apportionment. In my opinion, Mr Whitehouse's approach is correct.

The final figures shown in Schedule 1 without any additional apportionment as contended for by Mr Webster, and when one applies correct mathematics to the application of contributions for the lots in this consent, are in my view reasonable in the context of the estimates of expenditure otherwise set out in the myriad of records and documents tendered.

The s 94 Contributions Plan uses an assumed occupation rate of 3.0 persons per allotment. The applicant says that the evidence points rather to an appropriate rate of 2.2 persons per allotment. The Council's rate of 3.0 persons per allotment was sought to be supported on two bases. Firstly, Mr Jenkins analysed aerial photographs and counted the number of lots built upon, something one would expect Council to have had records of in any event. Against the total number he applied known population figures to arrive at a figure of 2.8 persons per lot.

Secondly, there was in evidence a study by Sinclair Knight in 1997, which was to provide estimates for augmentation of sewer works. This was based on occupation rates obtained in 1986 and 1991 of 2.80 and 2.84 respectively. For their purposes Sinclair Knight concluded that 3.1 should be used for the purpose of their calculations, (see annexure J to Mr Jenkins' statement of evidence exhibit C).

For the appellant Mr Brady analysed the historical information contained in the 1993 Allen draft plan, to arrive at the rate of 2.2 per allotment. Prior to 1992 the rate was 2.2, but in that year it fell to 1.85 per allotment. He said, and I accept, that it was reasonable to apply an eight per cent per annum increase in dwellings such that in 1995 when there was a known population of 600 there would be 276 dwellings. I note that Mr Jenkins used the number of 274 dwellings as at 1995. Hence Mr Brady concluded an occupancy rate per lot of 2.2.

This approach by Mr Brady is more likely, in my view, to arrive at an accurate estimate of the correct occupancy rate. Mr Jenkins, counting from aerial photos, in my view would have a margin of error, and Sinclair Knight's sewer study estimates were for engineering purposes for which it is prudent from an engineering point of view to over design. Hence I adopt the occupation rate of 2.2.

What should be the appropriate calculation then for condition 32 of consent? It is obvious that as it stands it is unreasonable, if only for mathematical inaccuracy. The three items of challenge total $162,796, that is $3,970 per lot. The total items in Schedule 1 amount to a gross figure of $579,000.

The projected population increase of 821, with an occupancy rate of 2.2 persons per lot, yields 373 lots. That is $1,551 per lot (in lieu of $3,970) per lot. This is a total for the 41 lots of $63,611 in lieu of the previous total of $162,796.

If one applies this approach to each of the three contribution types in Schedule 1, first by dividing each by 821 to give a rate per additional resident, then by multiplying by 2.2 to give a rate per new lot, and then for this subdivision of 41 lots by multiplying by 41, one arrives at the correct impost for each component. Individually those components then are to be altered as follows. For arterial and major road upgrade the new figure ought to be $30,213, for public open space $6,591 and for community amenities $26,807, giving a total, as I have said, of $63,611. I so order. Formally:

2. Condition 32 will be varied in the manner I have indicated.

3. The exhibits are to remain with the papers for 28 days and then be returned to the parties.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.