WODONGA Council has acted unfairly towards a developer, according to a Supreme Court judge.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Justice Michelle Quigley found it was wrong of the city not to give Kinchington Estate its reasoning for not amending two clauses in a planning agreement.
They centred on helping fund the duplication of Beechworth Road, from Huon Creek Road to Yarralumla Drive, and sport fields for the North Leneva area.
Kinchington claimed that changes after the s 173's registration in 2007 demonstrated the clauses were no longer required.
On February 19 the council told the firm it did not agree with the requests to amend the s 173.
The next day solicitors for Kinchington sought a statement of reasons from the city, as they believed the company was due under the Administrative Law Act.
The council's lawyers refused that request, arguing the city was not obliged to under the act because it was not seen to be a tribunal in making its decision.
In submissions to the Supreme Court, Kinchington's counsel contested that point and said the firm had not received "procedural fairness".
Justice Quigley found the council had to act with procedural fairness, the council was a tribunal on February 19 and Kinchington "has a right to a written statement of reasons".
She ordered the council to provide that document.
Ratepayers are set to be saddled with a large bill from the legal action with the council ordered to pay Kinchington's costs.
The Border Mail on Tuesday asked the council a series of questions in relation to the case, which was decided in the Supreme Court on Monday.
They included how much was spent on the matter by council, who in the city decided to fight the matter in the Supreme Court and will the council appeal the finding and if not when will it hand the reasons to Kinchington.
A council spokeswoman initially replied she could not answer those questions on Tuesday and would need more time to respond.
A statement attributed to chief executive Mark Dixon was later provided.
"We are now taking the time to understand the ruling and the implications," Mr Dixon said.
"We are awaiting the legal summary following the decision which we will then need to review.
"A briefing on the matter will be presented to councillors at the earliest opportunity."
JMP Developments director Andrew Stern, who is overseeing the Kinchington project, declined to comment on the result to The Border Mail.
Armed with the reasons, Kinchington would be able to go to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to argue against the council's applying the s 173 clauses.
