Original source · versioned page text
ATTCH 5 - IR Response - Covenants (Anderssen Lawyers)
Attached to the e-mail RAL17/0501 IR Response email 3 of 4.
Our Ref: DBE:313767
Contact: Dale Ellerman
Direct Phone: 07 3234 3103
Direct Email: [email protected]
Direct Fax: 07 3211 8014
16 November 2017
Mr P R U Cumming
Urban Systems Pty Ltd
6/7 Avebury St
WEST END QLD 4101
By email: [email protected]
Dear Peter
Kenlynn Developments Pty Ltd - development application RFI response
We refer to item 12 of the request for information dated 7 September 2017.
Council's letter provides:
"Council has concerns with the administration and ongoing maintenance of the covenant areas and the access
easement.
Information Required
12. Provide draft covenant and easement documents that clearly define the administration and ongoing
maintenance responsibilities of the relevant areas."
In relation to the covenant we have reviewed the draft Vegetation Management Plan for the operational
phase of the development prepared by Cardno which is to form a part of the response. That VMP provides
for the management of the site into defined areas during the post-construction phase of the project.
Notably, in this phase, the VMP identifies obligations that are to be imposed upon individual lot owners only
after a significant level of restoration work has taken place during the constructions phase / creation of the
six subdivided lots.
It is our understanding (based on advice from our client's ecologist Mr Delaney) that by the time the lots are
created that the Environmental Covenant (Habitat protection) Area and Covenant (Bushfire Risk and
Stormwater Management) Area shown on the VMP will require little, if any, active management. Individual
lot owners can therefore be required to comply with Council's standard from of covenant in the orthodox
way (titles office reference for the form of covenant is 715597513).
We therefore do not currently understand why it is asserted that the administration and ongoing
maintenance of the covenant areas will be problematic. If the nature of the concern is more clearly
articulated we would be happy to amend the covenant to deal with anything that might arise.
In relation to the easement for access purposes, again the situation appears to us to be orthodox from a legal
perspective. We attach a draft form of easement document which we have prepared. The basis for the
easement is that:
[FolioID:842224]
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 1 page
Page 2
2. All lots will be burdened by / have the benefit of reciprocal access easements over the common driveway such that the driveway may be accessed by all lot owners / their contractors / invitees etc; All lot owners will be required to share in the cost of maintaining the easement in accordance with the proportions set out in clause 7 of the draft. The easement to be registered over proposed lot 714 will be the subject of an additional covenant to permit the parking of cars within the visitor parking spaces identified on page 4 of the Sheehy and Partners letter dated 8 November 2017 which forms part of this response. If there is some more specific concern which the council requires us to deal with in relation the drafting of the easement please advise. Regards Anderssen Lawyers Pty Ltd