Wechsler v Ku-ring-gai Council

CITATION : Wechsler v Ku-ring-gai Council [2001] NSWLEC 216 APPLICANT PARTIES : Robert Wechsler RESPONDENT Ku-ring-gai Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10053 of 2001 CORAM: Sheahan J KEY ISSUES: Question of Law :- development consent - appeal against conditions - validity of s 94 contribution plan LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 94 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 Billbergia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2000] NSWLEC 94; Easeport Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Municipal Council (2001) 112 LGERA 376; King & Campbell Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (2000) NSWLEC 11; CASES CITED: Levadetes & Anor v Hawkesbury Shire Council (1988) 67 LGRA 190; Parramatta City Council v Peterson (1987) 61 LGRA 286; Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council (10911 of 1995, Pearlman J, 10 July 1996); S&I Investments Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (40026 of 1997, Sheahan J, 7 July 1997) DATES OF HEARING: 14/09/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/28/2001

16. The implications of cl 26(1), especially particular (g), and the general operation of plans, were considered, in the class 1 context, in Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council (No.10911 of 1995, Pearlman J, 10 July 1996). On the application of merits review principles to the operation of conditions, see Parramatta City Council v Peterson (1987) 61 LGRA 286, and an example in Billbergia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2000] NSWLEC 94, at pars 100-130. On the question of spending the money within a reasonable time, see King & Campbell Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 11, especially par 64. On class 4 proceedings taken to obtain a refund see Levadetes & Anor v Hawkesbury Shire Council (1988) 67 LGRA 190, and my judgment in S & I Investments Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (40026 of 1997, 7 July 1997).

(2001) 112 LGERA 376

[2000] NSWLEC 11