Rose Consulting Group v Baulkham Hills Shire Council

(2003) 58 NSWLR 159; [2003] NSWCA 266

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Land and Environment
2. › Development contributions
3. › Conditions of development consent
4. › Monetary contributions under contributions plan
5. › Reasonableness of conditions
6. › Power of court on appeal to disallow or amend unreasonable conditions
7. › Whether court constrained by contributions plan
8. › Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 94(2), 94(11), 94(12), 94B
1. Administrative Law
2. › Standard of review
3. › Unreasonableness
4. › Whether Wednesbury unreasonableness required under s94(12)
5. › Reasonableness tested according to ordinary connotation
6. › Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 94(12)
1. Land and Environment
2. › Land and Environment Court
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Class 1 appeals
5. › Whether court exercises original jurisdiction on appeal
6. › Appeal by way of rehearing
7. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 17(d), 39

Quick Take

The Land and Environment Court on appeal under s94(12) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) may disallow or amend a condition as unreasonable even if the amended condition would no longer conform with the contributions plan. The standard of unreasonableness is not Wednesbury but ordinary reasonableness. Subsections 94(11) and (12) operate cumulatively: s94(11) constrains the council, not the court on review. Contributions plans are not a form of delegated legislation and do not immunise conditions from merits review.