Email: info@aedoninternational.com

Works in Kind Agreements

WIK applications must be submitted to the Victorian Planning Authority, which can further assist you with your application. You can also find model WIK agreements and WIK guidelines on the Victorian Planning Authority website and on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) website. 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). A WIK agreement may contain a clause that restricts a person who has entered into the agreement, unless the Minister of Planning has obtained the approval of the Minister of Planning through operations with: Land or work must be located in a growth area and funded by the Public Transport Fund for Growth Areas or the Fund for the Construction of New Municipalities. A person who entered into a WIK agreement to perform a LIABILITY paid the Commissioner an amount equal to the agreed value of what was done, whether complete, stage or only partially. Under the Tax Administration Act 1997, there will be a tax delay resulting in interest and penalties compared to what would have been the last day to pay the full liability of the GAIC. Parties to a WIK agreement include the Chief of Detention, the Minister of Planning and other parties may also be involved, e.B.B other ministers and landowners. Based on a road access assessment submitted to the Commission, the Commission appealed alleging that the supporter was required to pay the Commission an outstanding amount of $729,680 for development contributions. According to wiKA, the developer criticised the obligation to pay this amount on the grounds that the evaluation of the work was too low and had not been carried out effectively. Home > > the value of works of art – a country of memories or works must be located in a growth zone and financed by the “Growth Areas for Public Transport” fund or the Fund for the construction of new communities. If a person has entered into a WIK agreement and fails to perform that agreement or any stage of the agreement by the due date, and if GAIC`s liability has been deferred or is subject to a instalment payment agreement, GAIC`s entire liability is due immediately. Despite the delay, the person is responsible for the performance of his contractual obligations under the WIK contract. 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. As this case demonstrates, when preparing in-kind contributions, 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. Home > focus > assessment of benefits in kind – a reminder A substantive agreement (WIK agreement) is an agreement between a person who is required to pay the Infrastructure Contribution for Growth Areas (GAIC) and the Minister of Planning. Under a WIK agreement, the responsible person agrees to provide land and/or works (construction of public infrastructure) instead of a cash payment to meet his or her GAIC liability, in whole or in part. Rockdale City Council v Calibre Construction Corp Pty Ltd [2015] 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. 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. The land or work must be located in a growth area of a type that can be funded by the Growth Areas Transit Fund or the New Communities Building Fund. 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. A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales highlights difficulties that can arise in assessing benefits in kind under agreements between a board and a developer under section 94(5)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). Despite the delay, the person remains liable under the WIK Agreement for the performance of his obligations under the contract. As noted in this case, when developing a substantive contract, it should be noted that the evaluation process and the appropriate scope of work are clearly defined. Otherwise, it could have an impact on the Council`s ability to recover from possible development contribution deficits […].

About the Author