Court approves ambitious modification

The Supreme Court of Victoria has just approved one of the most ambitious modifications to date in a contested case, approving a four unit development on a parcel of land of 978sqm.

The decision of MacLurkin v Searle focused on the precedential effect of a modification application largely by reason of the fact that the closest beneficiaries did not object to it.

The Court held that the modification to the single dwelling and building materials covenant would not occasion substantial injury to beneficiaries in the terms meant by s84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 by reason of the subject land’s relative disconnection to the hinterland of the residential estate.

This is good news for applicants for modification, however, it seems the applicant will be limited to building a design generally in accordance with the plans tendered at the hearing:

82 It is true that in the First Easton Report the plans were just a sketch. But in the Second Easton Report the plans are much more detailed and, although plainly reduced from a larger size to an A4 size to fit the report, there did appear to be measurements and the like that would enable there to be some precision so that one could provide for the development to be substantially in accordance with those plans. The fact that they may not have been through the planning approvals process of the Responsible Authority may have the result that the plaintiff is not permitted to build substantially in accordance with those plans, but that is the plaintiff’s problem.

Once again, this highlights the importance of putting forward a design in a modification application that one can be confident will be approved by the Council or VCAT in the subsequent planning approval process.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
http://www.vicbar.com.au/profile?3183
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Building materials covenants still have work to do in Victoria

In Gardencity Altona v Grech [2015] VSC 538 Associate Justice Lansdowne refused an application to remove a covenant requiring the main walls of any dwelling or shop on the land to be of brick and/or stone, on the basis that it could not be said that the covenant was obsolete, or that it’s removal would not occasion substantial injury to those with the benefit of the covenant.

No single dwelling covenant attached to the land, and so arguably, only the building materials covenant prevented the applicant from realising his development plans for the land.

Instrumental to her Honour’s reasoning was that the defendants had a genuine preference for the use of brick as a building material.

Her Honour also left open the possibility that if it were shown that removal of the brick or stone restriction would make a taller building less likely that may be a further benefit conferred by the restriction and so further reason why the restriction is not obsolete.

Significantly, the application was made in a neighbourhood found to be predominantly constructed with brick or stone:

142 I find on the whole of the evidence that the buildings in the neighbourhood predominantly have their main walls constructed in brick or stone. As indicated, I refer in this finding to the actual incidence of the use of brick or stone, rendered or exposed, not the visual incidence of exposed brick. By ‘predominantly’ I mean well more than half, and on a broad estimate at least two thirds.

This feature of the case will require close scrutiny for parties wishing to rely on the decision as a precedent.

Of particular interest is that the Court declined to apply the 1956 decision of Jacobs v Greig [1956] VLR 597, often cited as authority for the proposition that a requirement to build out of brick requires ‘double brick’ construction rather than brick veneer:

134 Having regard to Mr McLaughlin’s expert evidence that brick veneer is now an acceptable use of brick in construction, I consider the particular outcome in Jacobs v Greig to be limited to its particular facts and time. On the principle identified in that case, I find that an ordinary resident of Victoria would consider the covenants here in question do not now exclude brick veneer. Accordingly, I find that for this case at least, brick veneer is ‘brick’ for the purposes of the covenants, and like covenants in the area.

This is a welcome development given that double brick is now rarely used in Victoria for reasons of cost and energy efficiency.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
http://www.vicbar.com.au/profile?3183
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

The importance of choosing the right planner in a covenant modification application

Once again, we’ve seen the importance of choosing an appropriately experienced town planner when applying to the Supreme Court for the modification of a restrictive covenant.

In Re: Morrison, the Plaintiff selected a town planner that hadn’t been involved in a contested covenant case before and the report in support of the application read like a report for a permit application under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

In handing down his judgement, Associate Justice Derham dismissed this approach: “Looking at the expert reports, it is clear that Mr Chapman had a primary focus on planning considerations, considering his emphasis on restrictive covenants generally being an out-moded form of controlling development that had been largely rendered redundant by the introduction of planning schemes.”

In other words, the planner was downplaying or dismissing the need for restrictive covenants on the basis that any amenity impacts could be adequately protected by the planning scheme.

Unsurprisingly, this wasn’t accepted by the Court: “Ultimately, the planning process is a separate process with different objectives and considerations to be taken into account. As pointed out by the defendants, restrictive covenants are given explicit priority over the planning process in s 61(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). On the basis of these authorities, I do not consider that the amenity concerns of the defendants can be appropriately met through application of the planning scheme.”

Plaintiffs sometimes succeed in using town planners with little or no covenant experience in non-contested cases, but this strategy is soon exposed once put to their proof by a well-advised defendant. The better strategy for applicants is to chose the correct town planner from the start of the process and to craft the application with suitable precision.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
http://www.vicbar.com.au/profile?3183
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

The Court reaffirms defendants’ right to costs, notwithstanding Calderbank offers

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle in Re: WIthers [1970} VR 319, that in restrictive covenant cases, defendants are ordinarily entitled to their standard costs, even if they lose the contested proceedings.

In a carefully considered decision, in Wong v McConville & Ors (No.2) [2014] VSC 282, AJ Derham rejected the plaintiff’s application for indemnity costs, notwithstanding that she made two “Calderbank offers”, or offers of compromise foreshadowing an application for indemnity costs should the defendants achieve a worse outcome at trial than the offer contained in the Calderbank letter.

Although a number of aspects of his Honour’s judgement turned on the particular facts of the merits hearing (see Wong v McConville & Ors [2014] VSC 148), the decision underscores the difficulty Plaintiffs face when endeavouring to settle an application to modify or remove a restrictive covenant prior to a contested hearing.

Some principles emerge from the case:

Calderbank offers are unlikely to be effective before all relevant evidence has been circulated:

There are usually no pleadings in cases of this kind, and there were none in this case. At the time the offer was made, and closed, the defendants had not, and had not been required to, file their evidence, including expert evidence. Nor had significant evidence in response to the evidence of the defendants, notably the Supplementary Report of Mr Easton, been filed or served. Thus the stage at which the offer was made preceded a full consideration of the relevant material. The prime focus of that material was the expert opinion of Mr Gattini, upon whose views the defendants were well entitled to depend in considering the offer, and Mr Easton’s response to it in October 2013. Another important element of the defendants’ evidence was the evidence of Mr Zhang concerning the effects of the proposed modification on the amenity of his, and his family’s, occupation of the neighbouring land. The defendants were entitled to consider the entirety of the evidence when considering their position. [Emphasis added]

Additional time, relative to ordinary proceedings, should be allowed to consider a Calderbank offer given the difficulty of getting instructions from a large group of objectors:

30… 14 days was allowed. Considered in isolation, that time is not umeasonable. This factor, however, must be considered in this case in conjunction with the first factor. The ability of the defendants, as a group, to consider the offer and arrive at a reasoned view must necessarily have been affected by the fact that they are brought together as neighbours. They were apparently not otherwise associated with one another. They lived at quite separate locations within the subdivision. They were encouraged by the Court’s orders to combine their resources so as to reduce costs. This, I infer, was likely to make it more difficult and time consuming to arrive at a decision. This is a matter that the plaintiff’s advisers ought to have known. Having regard to the state of the evidence at the time, either the offer was made too early, or insufficient time was given for them to consider the offer. [Emphasis added]

A good deal of ingenuity will be needed to devise an offer that is both attractive to defendants, but that will bind future owners of the land

35. The submission by the defendants that the concessions offered by the plaintiff in relation to setbacks and landscaping, in each of the 8 August and 10 October offers, could not form any part of an order of the Court modifying the covenant, has particular significance in this case. In this regard, the plaintiff submitted that the setback provision in the offer of 8 August could be made the subject of a negative stipulation (for example, that any dwelling at the rear of the burdened land shall not be closer than three metres to the southern boundary). The plaintiff’s counsel also submitted that the other elements of the offers could also be the subject of negative stipulations. I do not think that this is correct. It is, in my view beyond human ingenuity to turn a positive agreement to plant tall screening plants along the western and southern boundaries of the land into a negative stipulation. It must be remembered in this context, that it is immaterial whether the wording of the covenant is positive or negative. What is essential is that the covenant is negative in substance: Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham (No 2). [Emphasis added]

Read as a whole, the decision does not suggest Calderbank letters will be of no use in restrictive covenant cases. Rather, it perhaps suggests that they are unlikely to be effective much earlier than immediately before trial and that considerable efforts will be needed to devise an offer that is unreasonable for the defendants to reject on the merits. Solicitors will need to do far more than offer to reimburse the defendants’ costs in exchange for their collective capitulation.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
http://www.vicbar.com.au/profile?3183
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

AsJ Lansdowne discourages planning experts from relying on Stanhill v Jackson [2005] VSC 169

In the course of argument in the matter of Gardencity Altona Pty Ltd v Grech & Ors SCI 2012 05752, a case concerning an application to remove or modify a “brick and stone” restrictive covenant, AJ Lansdowne suggested that planning consultants might wish to think twice before relying on the Stanhill v Jackson [2005] VSC 169.

MR TOWNSEND: … the point remains that he relied on re Stanhill to form the basis for his report.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR TOWNSEND: And it’s now a discredited decision.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Not of course the only expert in this jurisdiction to that – – –

MR TOWNSEND: No, no. I – absolutely. People – – –

HER HONOUR: And perhaps the message should be broadcast more broadly.

MR TOWNSEND: Yes. … people still think wistfully of Stanhill – – –

HER HONOUR: Yes.

For a more recent interpretation of what constitutes “substantial injury” in s84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958, see Freilich v Wharton [2013] VSC 533 (22 October 2013), per Bell J.

Supreme Court keeps “substantial injury” applications alive

While Justice Bell in Freilich v Wharton [2013] VSC 533 appeared to close the door firmly shut on applications to modify covenants in reliance on section 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958, the so-called “substantial injury” test; Associate Justice Derham has pushed it back slightly ajar in Wong v McConville and Others [2014] VSC 148, albeit on a basis not expressly considered by Justice Bell.

Wong concerned an application to modify a single dwelling covenant on Pascoe Vale Road, in Strathmore, to allow the construction of two dwellings.

Relying on the precedent created in Hermez v Karahan [2012] VSC 443, the Plaintiff in Wong tabled concept plans that showed the sort of development contemplated should the court agree to allow the modification.

Associate Justice Derham placed weight on the near equivalent amenity impacts that a single dwelling would create, should the present application fail:

67 In relation to the concerns that Mr Zhang has regarding potential overlooking and overshadowing of his backyard, I observe that they are minor matters having regard to the surrounds and other aspects that I have pointed to above, and:
(a) These are matters that will and should be addressed in the planning process; and
(b) It is as likely as not that, given the nature and pattern of residential development in the neighbourhood, these concerns will arise with the construction of a single dwelling on the Land, especially if it were a double-storey dwelling with a substantial footprint.

On this basis, he allowed the modification to the covenant.

Although this decision should give hope to landowners keen to subdivide their land, but presently constrained by a single dwelling covenant, there were locational factors present in Wong, that might not be present in other cases. In particular, the land was at the periphery of the subdivision subject to the covenant; had direct access to an arterial road; and was in close proximity to a freeway overpass.

What the case does highlight, however, is the continuing relevance of planning controls in cases to modify covenants purusuant to the Property Law Act 1958–not so much for reasons of public policy, but for predicting what form a development may ultimately take.

Rethinking the usefulness of the Planning and Environment Act process

Reliance on cl52.02 of the relevant Planning Scheme (often referred to as the Planning and Environment Act (Act) process, as distinct from the Property Law Act process) for the removal or modification of restrictive covenants has a deservedly poor reputation for applicants, by reason of the conservative construction and application of s60 of the Act. As described by DP Gibson of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Hill v Campaspe SC [2011] VCAT 949, s60(5), at least, is “a high barrier that prevents a large proportion of proposals.”

However, a decision was handed down by VCAT last year that might cause applicants for the removal or modification of covenants to reconsider whether the Planning and Environment Act process remains an option in some cases involving covenants not fairly described as obsolete.

The case was King v Stonnington CC & Anor [2013] VCAT 939. It is notable for the fact that the application to vary a single dwelling covenant to allow the construction of a dual occupancy development was advertised to no fewer than 130 persons [see para 8]. And despite this, no beneficiary objected to the proposal to modify the covenant.

This case serves to illustrate that opposition can be predicted to a certain degree by the demographics of any given area. King v Stonnington concerned land in Malvern East–the area in which Chadstone shopping centre can be found. If one was making a similar application in Grange Road, Toorak, such a muted response might not be expected.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
http://www.vicbar.com.au/profile?3183
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

An overview of the process for modifying a restrictive covenant under the Property Law Act 1958 with some basic precedents

Originating motion in support of an application to modify or remove a restrictive covenant

If you are yet to decide which process to follow to modify or remove a restrictive covenant, you should read this article first. If you have already elected to pursue the Property Law Act 1958 or Supreme Court process, then the following discussion is an overview, along with some precedents you may wish to use. These are updated regularly.

To begin, when applying to remove or modify a covenant in the Supreme Court, an Originating Motion will need to be prepared, setting out the relief sought. Most applications will only need a simple Originating Motion such as this or this. More complex examples that incorporate applications for declarations can be found here and here.

In determining how to phrase the modification sought, you should seek the minimum change necessary to achieve your objectives. That is, if you are after a dual occupancy, seek to replace ‘one dwelling’ with ‘two dwellings’ or draft a variation to allow a particular form of development. Although a practice has been to vary covenants with the addition of the following words “… but this covenant will not prohibit the construction of any development generally in accordance with the development described in the plans prepared by ABC Architects dated 1 July 2016 numbered A00 to A30”, this technique known as the ‘proviso’ has recently fallen out of favour because it means attaching plans to an instrument of transfer that may sit in the Office of Titles for decades to come. For this reason, orders that incorporate a simple building envelope are preferred. The broader point, however, is that if you ask for removal of the covenant and you don’t actually need it, you may attract unwarranted opposition. Moreover the Court is increasingly unwilling to allow the complete removal of anything but entirely obsolete covenants.

No summons is required at this time given that the first hearing will ordinarily be ex parte.

While the schedules of parties may have been removed from the following examples, such a schedule is ordinarily not added until after the first return of the application, for the identity of the Defendants is not yet likely to be known.

Overarching Obligations Certification and Proper Basis Certification should also be provided.

The Court will also want an application form completed.

A helpful Guide for Practitioners has also been prepared by the Supreme Court. This provides a checklist for applications and some draft precedents. This version has been updated by the Court in December 2016, but to be prudent, download the latest version from the Supreme Court website.

Affidavit in support of and in opposition to an application to remove a single dwelling covenant

The Originating Motion should be accompanied by an affidavit in support by either a solicitor or the plaintiff. An additional example of a plaintiff’s affidavit can be found here. A comprehensive draft in Word by a solicitor can be found here. A potentially significant tactical question arises here, given that authors of affidavits ordinarily need to be made available for cross examination, and there may be reasons why you might not want to call your client to give evidence.

Substantively, the critical task is to provide the Court with reliable information about the covenant, its purpose, who enjoys the benefit and the burden of it and the essential circumstances of the application. Ensure you have an up-to-date certificate of title for the land and that the application is made on behalf of that party or those parties. If the name or names are not the same, provide an explanation with any authorities to act on affidavit. If the applicant is a conditional purchaser of land, exhibit the contract of sale.

If a particular form of development is sought to be achieved, this should be included in this affidavit or in the report of the planner, discussed below. If relying on a map showing the location of beneficiaries, ensure the map is legible and accurately reflects the location of beneficiaries.

The quickest and most cost-effective means of establishing who has the benefit and the burden of the relevant covenant is to call a professional title searching service such as Feigl and Newell on (03) 9629 3011. Dinah Newell should be able to provide you with a colour-coded cadastral plan such as this. However, you should double-check any advice you receive to identify transcription or other errors. Mistakes made at this point of the process can be expensive to fix later on.

Evidence in support and in opposition to the modification of a covenant

Once you have the above information, you can provide it to a town planner for the preparation of a planning report. Two further examples can be found here and here. This version was in support of an application to modify a covenant restricting the height of a dwelling and was praised by the Court for its clarity. A letter instructing a town planner in a s84 application can be found here. If you want the names of planners to prepare evidence in support of (or against) an application to modify or remove a covenant, find someone who has given evidence in a contested s84 application. You can look through Supreme Court cases in relation to restrictive covenants here. Unfortunately, all too often, planners approach the task as if it were a common or garden planning application in VCAT relying on principles of public policy rather than analysing impacts on proprietary rights. This evidence will almost certainly be useless.

A planning report is ordinarily sufficient substantive evidence in support of an application to modify or remove a covenant provided it covers the key issues raised in the application, for instance, addressing any injury that might be said to be substantial under s84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958.

Resist the temptation to run a case under the three or four different limbs in s84(1). Ordinarily, s84(1)(c) provides the broadest scope for discretion and is the only ground required. Adopting a shot-gun approach to your application just generates unnecessary work for everyone and in many cases grounds relating to s84(1)(a) (obsolescence and reasonable user) are abandoned at trial when the applicant belatedly realises how difficult they are to establish.

A planning report should include photographs of the neighbourhood so the Court can gain a reasonably clear understanding of the context in which the application is being made.

A good planning report will also identify land within the parent title that has been varied since the time of the original subdivision, whether this is by order of the Court, planning permission or simply a breach that has gone unchallenged. Evidence demonstrating how that change has occurred, should be annexed to the planning report when available.

Applicants are sometimes keen to lodge the application without planning evidence to save costs or time, but this risks the application being dismissed for being improperly supported. Certainly, the planning evidence should be before the Court at or before the first return of the application.

In some cases, lay evidence may be sufficient, at least in opposition to a modification or removal application. For instance, in Gardencity v Grech, the defendants were successful despite the absence of any expert evidence, for the Court found the plaintiff had failed to prove the absence of substantial injury. Evidence from the defendants in that case can be found here, here and here. An example of an expert report in support of an application to oppose a modification can be found here.

For a separate discussion about what to include in an objection, look here.

The first return of the application

At the first hearing of an application, which is usually done ex parte, the Court is likely to make further orders, similar to the following for a sign to be placed on the land and for direct notice to be given to the closest beneficiaries. This raises a further tactical question for applicants for it may be prudent to suggest to the Court that all beneficiaries be notified directly rather risk attracting the attention of non-beneficiaries via a sign on the land.

On the other hand, the Court has been known to be content with simply a sign on the land and no direct notification if there are no nearby beneficiaries.

In recent times, the Court has directed applicants to notify the beneficiary at the address indicated on title and at the street address, if different.

As always, practitioners should attend the Court with draft orders, preferably forwarded to the Court a few days beforehand. A further example is here. The normal standards expected of practitioners in ex parte applications apply, and you should disclose to the Court any necessary countervailing facts even if they are not helpful to your case. For instance, if your client is running a simultaneous application to modify a covenant elsewhere (which isn’t a good idea), the Court will want to know about it.

The second return–if the application is opposed

Once advertising has been carried out, an affidavit should be prepared that describes the advertising process undertaken, the nature of responses received and whether any beneficiaries objected. This is a short example and a more comprehensive example. Leave sufficient time to complete this as it may be time consuming. In answering queries from third parties, including beneficiaries, avoid giving advice about who has the benefit of the covenant. Inquirers need to make their own investigations about their entitlement to participate in the proceedings and the answer is not always clear. Record details of all phone calls and emails as a summary should also be included in the affidavit of compliance.

The Court may then make orders providing for the further provision of evidence and the listing of the matter for hearing. Two examples can be found here and here. Once again, the schedules of parties may have been removed.

Given the multiplicity of parties and their often divergent views, cases such as this are ordinarily not set down for mediation, although negotiation often occurs at the first return of the application and further negotiations can always happen informally.

The second return–if the application is not opposed

If no person seeks to become a Defendant, draft orders should be provided to the Court along with an affidavit to that effect (see examples above). Try to get the papers to the court three or four days in advance of the directions hearing so that the judge has time to read them before the hearing. Two examples can be found here and here.

Significantly, you may find that despite the absence of any defendants, you may still need to make out your argument for modification on the basis of the evidence provided. For instance, in Re Jensen, and Re: Morihovitis the Court refused relief despite the absence of any objectors.

A written outline of argument setting out why the variation or removal of the covenant should be provided to the Court, preferably in advance of the hearing. Two examples can be found here and here.

Submissions in support and in opposition to application to modify a single dwelling covenant

If the matter runs to a contested hearing, you will need to prepare a more comprehensive outline of argument. Submissions in support of a modification application can be found here: from Wong v McConville (opening); Wong (closing) and Re: Milbex. Submissions in opposition to a modification application can be found here from Re Pivotel; Suhr v Michelmore; and Prowse v Johnstone; and Re: Morrison.

To improve your client’s costs position in the litigation, a Calderbank letter or offer of compromise may well be appropriate to disturb the defendants’ presumption that their costs will be reimbursed by the Plaintiff at the conclusion of the proceedings, irrespective of the outcome. A Calderbank letter needs to be drafted with precision and according to established principles if it is to be effective. Examples can be provided upon request.

Needless to say, all applications are different and great care should be taken to ensure that the relevant matters are placed before the Court.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers
https://www.vicbar.com.au/profile/6975
townsend@vicbar.com.au (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

The importance of Calderbank letters in restrictive covenant cases

The final orders in Suhr v Michelmore are a timely reminder of the importance of Calderbank letters in restrictive covenant cases, with the court ordering solicitor/client costs after an offer of compromise (in the form of a Calderbank letter) was made and rejected before the commencement of the merits hearing.

An informative paper on Calderbank offers and Offers of Compromise is attached, with thanks to my colleagues Daryl Williams SC and Andrew Downie.

VCAT confirms 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is only useful for removing “deadwood” restrictive covenants

In the Red Dot decision of Giosis v Darebin CC [2013] VCAT 825, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal comprised of Senior Member H. McM Wright QC confirmed that 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) is useful for little more than removing “deadwood” or non-contentious restrictive covenants.

The case concerned an applicant seeking to review the decision of the Darebin City Council to refuse a permit to vary a restrictive covenant burdening land at 26 Maclagan Crescent, Reservoir (refer detail from Land Victoria, plan below).

The part of the covenant sought to be varied vary provides as follows.

(c)           no shops, laundries, factories or works shall be erected on this Lot and not more than one dwelling house shall be erected on any one Lot and the cost of constructing each house shall not be less than Four Hundred Pounds (inclusive of all architect’s fees and the cost of erecting any outbuildings and fences). [emphasis added]

The variation sought to replace the words “one dwelling house” with the words “three dwellings” thereby enabling the application to be made to redevelop the land for three units or dwellings.

There were five objectors, three of which were beneficiaries, all of whom lived 100m away from the burdened land.

The Council had refused the application on the grounds that:

The proposed variation to the Covenant … to allow not more than three dwellings to be constructed on the lot will result in detriment to beneficiaries and is therefore contrary to Section 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

60(5) of the Act provides:

(5)          The responsible authority must not grant a permit which allows the removal or variation of a restriction referred to in subsection (4) unless it is satisfied that –

(a)          the owner of any land benefitted by the restriction (other than a owner who, before or after the making of the application for the permit but not more than three months before its making, has consented in writing to the grant of a permit) will be unlikely to suffer any detriment of any kind (including any perceived detriment) as a consequence of the removal or variation of the restriction; and

(b)          if that owner has objected to the grant of the permit, the objection is vexatious or not made in good faith.

The Tribunal quoted from the second reading speech of the Planning and Environment (Amendment) Act 1993 (Vic) that inserted section 60(5) into the Act. This speech coined the term “deadwood” covenants or covenants without a continuing purpose:

The effect of the clause is that permits should be granted only for “dead wood” covenants if no owner benefitting from the covenant objects to its removal or variation. The alterative avenues to remove or vary a covenant remain in place, being applications to the Supreme Court under the Property Law Act 1958 and the preparation of a planning scheme amendment.

After quoting from Carabott and Ors v Hume City Council (1998) 22 AATR 261 that considered the effect of s60(5) of the Act in some detail, the Tribunal raised a particular flaw with the proposal before it—the absence of plans:

17           Unlike many applications for a variation of a restrictive covenant the present applicant has not concurrently sought approval for any particular form of development. This makes it difficult for the responsible authority to be satisfied as required by paragraph (a) because it must consider all possible forms of three unit multi-dwelling development and conclude that it is unlikely that any of them would cause detriment to a benefitting owner.

The Tribunal found in the absence of a firm development proposal there were an infinite number of three unit or three dwelling developments that could take place in consequence of the variation of the covenant and that it could not be “positively satisfied of a negative, namely, that there is unlikely to be detriment of any kind”:

21           … In my view it is simply not possible to say that none of those developments would be likely to have a detrimental impact of some kind on the benefitting properties, particularly the adjoining units at 28 Maclagan Crescent. The application for permit therefore falls at the first hurdle.

This case therefore underscores the limited utility of applying to VCAT to modify or remove a covenant in the face of heartfelt opposition on the part of one or more beneficiaries. The absence of plans simply made the task more difficult.

Image