More than $91,000 was outlaid in legal expenses by Wingecarribee Shire Council during the month of March.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The monthly total was $91,463 with a further $10,200 for consultant expenditure.
Both figures were well up on the February totals of $6395 for legal fees and $1925 for consultant expenditure.
The details regarding legal expenses were tabled at the Ordinary General Meeting of Council on May 13.
The report pointed out that the expenses were associated with council-related matters in the Land and Environment Court, including those matters completed since the last report to council.
READ MORE:
- Man injured at Bowral road work site in stable condition in Liverpool Hospital
- Chevalier College students secure a near perfect result in Beef School Steer Spectacular
- Out-of-town inquiry could help maintain Southern Highlands property market
- How our eight new freedoms will work as COVID-19 restrictions ease from Friday
- Lawn bowlers roll up for practise under eased COVID-19 restrictions at the Bowral Bowling Club
It was noted that the total cost (Life to date) associated with these cases as at the time preparation of the report was $1,100,444.
Finer details of the legal proceedings involving council and legal advice obtained by council were not revealed as they were "confidential and attract legal professional privilege."
The report to open council noted that the status of cases were to to be included in a closed report.
It said the report on the status of legal affairs involving council contained information and advice that was privileged on the grounds of legal professional privilege and contained information that, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on parties with whom council was conducting business (including opposing parties in litigation).
However, the report identified that the March legal expenses related to 17 separate cases.
It was noted that legal costs, as detailed in the Legal Affairs Report, be made public in the Business Paper on an ongoing basis.
A council spokesman said legal fees were inevitable and every council had them.
They said there was nothing remarkable or unusual about the fact that developers took council to the Land and Environment Court.
"While it's not ideal, unfortunately there's also nothing remarkable or unusual about the amount of expenses that this council incurs in Land and Environment Court appeals," he said.
The spokesman said that in the Land and Environment Court proceedings, council was required to engage an external law firm from its panel.
"The law firm charges council legal fees for representing them in the proceedings," he said.
"Because the Land and Environment Court is a jurisdiction that deals with technical issues in relation to development applications, parties to proceedings (including councils) often have to engage experts such as Engineers or Heritage Consultants who are experienced in giving evidence in court.
"These consultants charge fees for their services."
The spokesman said council budgeted for legal proceedings.
He said as it was difficult to forecast how many proceedings council would receive in a year, or how long they would run and how involved/technical they would be, the legal budget was subject to necessary variations from time to time.
However, the likelihood of recouping funds in the case of a court win was limited.
"In class 1 of the Land and Environment Court, where development appeals are heard, there is a generally an applied rule that each party pay their own legal costs regardless of the ultimate result," he said.
"Only a judge of the Land and Environment Court can order a party to pay another party's costs. This is rare and requires extraordinary circumstances."
"Where a developer amends their development application after the filing of the appeal, the court must award council the costs that are associated with the amendment.
"These costs, however, only relate to the amendment itself and what council incurs as a direct result of the amendment.
"It is important to appreciate that the practices and procedures in the Land and Environment Court are founded on an inherently conciliatory approach.
"With development appeals, there is seldom a clear "winner" or a clear "loser".
"The vast majority of matters are resolved in conciliation often resulting in a situation of the development, whilst it is ultimately approved, being amended along the way in a manner that addresses many or all of the issues that caused council to refuse, or not approve the development application in the first place."
The spokesman said the Land and Environment Court development appeals were a fundamental part of the development process.
"They give developers an enforceable right to judicially review the decisions of a council and their conciliatory approach often results in outcomes that are in the public interest and better development outcomes for the community in the long-term," he said.
"A LEP sets out broadly what types of developments are permissible (able to be applied for) in the different zones.
"A DCP is a guideline and it sets out a broad framework of controls designed to provide guidance for a consistent approach to planning in different areas of the shire.
"The reports that goes to council in respect of development applications details the controls that apply to particular applications and provide guidance in relation to compliance in that technical respect.
"A decision maker, such as the elected council, in coming to an ultimate decision, is required to weigh up many factors.
"Whilst one of those factors is the report and the how the application does or does not comply with applicable controls, there are many other factors to specific applications.
"These include the suitability of particular sites for the specific development proposed and community views/expectations."
The spokesman said the elected council, as a decision-maker, sometimes made a decision that differed from the recommendation in the report, as the final decision-making function was the role of the elected council in these circumstances, not the report writer who provided background, guidance and recommendation.
"It's also true that the our elected council as a decision-maker sometimes makes a decision to refuse an application where, for instance, the report indicates that it complies with development controls, there is nothing to suggest that the elected council is neglect to properly turn their minds to the those controls or to the reports in their decision-making process," he said.
"From the level of debate that occurs in our chambers when considering development applications - it could be argued that our elected councillors have given significant regard to these matters - regardless of what their ultimate decision is in respect of the particular application."
