Council archive · source document
Attachment 1 - Letter from Thomson Geer - Condition 63 · 132007.12.8
Attached to the e-mail 132007.12. 8 - Second Response to Information Request.
3
(b) Provide for the maintenance of the road reserve in those parts affected by the private
services,
(c) State that the applicant is responsible for obtaining approval for the design and
construction of the various services from the relevant authority,
(d) State that the design and construction of the services shall be wholly at the applicant's
expense and shall not entail a financial encumbrance on future purchasers of the
proposed lot, and
(e) Be to the satisfaction of the Department of Natural Resources and Water (DNR&W). If
DNR&W does not consent to the private services crossing their land the applicant shall
find an alternative means of providing services to the balance of Lot 4 prior to the use
commencing.
3.2 As the heading suggests, this condition was inserted as part of the Negotiated Decision Notice
process that resulted in the first version of the development approval, granted on 7 March 2008.
3.3 The current change application is directly relevant to this Condition 63, as the new built form is
proposed for that part of Lot 4 that is separated from the existing development by the road
reserve area. No substantive built form has been constructed on that separated part of Lot 4 to
date, which has meant that compliance with this condition has not yet been necessary.
4 Discussion
4.1 In substance, Condition 63 requires the installation (and ongoing maintenance) of appropriate
infrastructure (e.g. power, water) to service the part of Lot 4 that is separate from the existing built
form.
4.2 We do not consider that an infrastructure agreement is necessary or desirable to achieve that
substantive purpose. The relevant area that the services need to traverse is a dedicated road
reserve. Whilst it is relatively narrow (approximately 5m in width) and is used as a public footpath,
legally it is no different to any other roadway.
4.3 There is no necessity for the outcomes sought in Condition 63 to be imposed by way of
infrastructure agreement. We say this because:
(a) It is lawful for the Council to impose conditions on a developer/applicant requiring works
in the existing public roadway. Councils regularly impose conditions on approvals
requiring road upgrades (additional lanes, kerb and channel etc) and/or installation of
services under roadways (e.g. bringing a water/sewer main under a road to service a
development). Moreover, those conditions often require that the works be undertaken at
the developer/applicant's cost; and
(b) It is lawful for the Council to impose conditions requiring the ongoing maintenance of
those services. Again, Councils regularly impose conditions that require aspects of a
development to be maintained on an ongoing basis, whilst the approved use is operating.
4.4 Furthermore, it is in fact less desirable for the parties to enter into an infrastructure agreement (as
contemplated by the condition), particularly from the point of view of the Council, as:
(a) There are costs associated with drafting, reviewing and then implementing an
infrastructure agreement (for both parties) that can be readily avoided by utilising a
condition of approval instead;
(b) Condition 63, in its current form, already requires the developer/applicant to seek further
approvals for the works (likely to be operational works approvals). Those further
approvals represent an opportunity for the Council to appropriately condition any detailed
Legal/50662979_1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Attachment 1 - Letter from Thomson Geer - Condition 63.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 149 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.