Development agreements are entered into in relation to a development application or a change to the local environmental plan. On the basis of an assessment of the access road works made available to the Council, the Council brought an action, claiming that the developer was required to pay it an outstanding amount of USD 729 680 for development contributions. The developer contested the obligation to pay this amount on the grounds that the evaluation of the works was too low and had not been carried out effectively in accordance with WIKA. The planning agreement prescribes a number of public benefits in the form of land use, capital works and cash contributions, including: A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales highlights difficulties that may arise in assessing in-kind contributions under agreements between a board and a developer under section 94(5)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). Paragraph 94(5)(b) of the EPA Act provides that a certification authority may accept the provision of a significant public benefit (usually work) in full or partial compliance with a condition requiring development contributions under section 94(1) or (3). The court held that there was no reason to conclude that the parties intended the construction of the reservoir to be considered part of the construction of the access road. As a result, the proponent would be entitled to a credit note in respect of its contribution liability under section 94 for work that was to be performed under separate consent conditions. In addition, the construction of the reservoir was not included in the description of the work as part of the Commission`s contribution plan, so the Commission could not accept the construction of the reservoir under an in-kind contribution agreement. Home > vagueness > evaluation of benefits in kind – a reminder As this case shows, when preparing benefits in kind, care must be taken to ensure that the evaluation process and the appropriate scope of work are clearly defined. If this is not the case, it could have an impact on a Council`s ability to compensate for any lack of contributions to development. A condition set out in Article 7.11 may be fulfilled „in kind“ by a benefit in kind (WIK) between the applicant and the Council. A WIK agreement cannot provide for the allocation of land to meet a condition under Article 7.11. Rockdale City Council v Calibre Construction Corp Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1980 concerned a dispute concerning the estimated value of the contribution of an access road built by a developer under a substantive agreement (WIKA).
The value of the work was to partially satisfy a condition of approval that required the payment of development contributions under section 94 of the EPA Act. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the surveyor`s finding did not meet WIKA`s requirements, as it did not take into account the costs associated with the removal of the roadways, the excavation and the clearing of the overburden, all of which were necessary for the construction of the access road. Our adopted WIK guideline and template for the WIK agreement can be downloaded below: The question ultimately revolved around the appropriate structure of WIKA. A planning agreement (also known as a voluntary planning agreement) is an offer made by a developer to the council to dedicate land, make monetary contributions, or provide any other material public benefit to be used or applied for public purposes. Explanation – Annex 4 of the LTL in Focus Planning Agreement is primarily aimed at public sector and development professionals working in the fields of planning, environment and government. So you can review your organization`s social media policies before posting comments. It goes without saying that we expect all comments to maintain a certain level of respect and professional courtesy. A quantity surveyor has been mandated. However, the proponent argued that the surveyor`s alleged determination of the estimated cost of road construction was not made in accordance with WIKA and was therefore not binding. As the surveyor did not properly perform his duties as required by WIKA, the decision was not binding on the proponent and the Commission`s request for additional payment from the proponent failed.
Our „General Guide to Work in The Course of Natural Procedure“ provides general information on how we handle WIK applications until the end of the project. The guide can be downloaded below: The planning agreement requires the proponent to provide biodiversity compensation land near Wakefield Road, Ryhope, including: Proponents/applicants may submit a WIK proposal that will be assessed in accordance with our WIK policy. WIK`s proposals will be forwarded to our Finance Committee for review in accordance with section 7.11. The proposal must relate to work (or part-time work) listed in our contribution plans under section 7.11. We have developed a WIK agreement template to accelerate this process. This model should be used for WIK arrangements. Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 empowers boards, when determining an application for development, to grant approval subject to a condition under section 7.11 for the provision, expansion or expansion of public facilities and utilities, provided that the condition is approved by an assessment plan. General Guide to Substantive Procedures (PDF, 10 MB) At the heart of the dispute was whether the quantity surveyor had erred in excluding the work associated with the construction of the container. The proponent submitted that these costs should be included in the calculation of the costs of constructing the access road. The Council argued that this should not be the case. As part of WIKA, the developer agreed to build the new access road, which was to be built on a concrete rainwater tank to be built as part of the development. WIKA provided that the value of the access road contribution was to be determined by „a quantity surveyor mandated by the Council in accordance with paragraphs 4.3 to 4.7“.
Under the planning agreement, the Council is required to reclassify roadland from agricultural land to Community land once it has been transferred to the Council in order to support the proposed end-use as a biodiversity offset. LTL appreciates your comments and comments on our publications. However, all comments will be moderated and we reserve the right not to post comments for any reason. When you leave a comment, you must provide your email address, which will not be published on the website. When the moderator posts your comment, the name you provide will be published with your comment – it`s up to you to choose whether you provide your full name or just your first name. If you provide your full name, we may attempt to verify your identity before posting your first comment. If you want your comment to be addressed only to the author or moderator, please specify this – the NFP or Not For Publication flag is the easiest way. Thank you for your support and have fun reading – Matthew McNamara, CEO.
. WIK proposals should be addressed to the Director General. If you have any questions, please contact our Asset Management Engineer (Section 7.11) Siva Karthigesh or our Developer Contributions Manager Dennis Bagnall on 02 9839 6000. Responsibility as a public land user and effective warning signs It also requires the provision of 119.24 hectares of conservation land and the payment of endowment funds of approximately $1 million (plus indexation) for this environmental corridor. The agreement also requires the proponent to maintain the following facilities for five years after completion: to legally impose a condition under section 7.11, we must be satisfied that the proposed development will create or is likely to create demand for new public facilities. There is a general requirement that contributions under a condition under section 7.11 are reasonable . . . .