Legal advice regarding Viridian submission · MCU18/0015

2, identified on DA Form 1 the location of the premises as being 27
Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads and Lot 27 on RP89506 (“Lot 27");

3. was accompanied by a land owner's consent from David Neate, the
registered owner of Lot 27.

Subsequently, in the response to information request, the Development
Application was changed to reduce the overall number of lots (by the
deletion of one of the house lots) and to reduce the number of detached
dwellings from 3 to 2.

Access to proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be provided from Attunga Heights
whilst access to proposed lot 3 will be achieved through an easement which
benefits Lot 27, through the adjoining Viridian development.

The Viridian Submission

The Viridian Submission alleges that the Development Application is not
properly made because:

“It is a requirement that the premises that are completely or partly
included in the proposed development must be identified and in this
case the development application form 1 does not correctly identify
all of the land which is the subject of the development because it
does not include the scheme /and.

Once the land is correctly identified, owner consent is required to be
obtained. The only consent that has been given is the consent from
Mr Neate.

Whilst we recognise that consent is not required in circumstances
where a party has the benefit of an easement it is clear that this
development is inconsistent with the terms of easements M, L & P
benefitting Mr Neate as the owner of lot 27 on RP 89506.”

The reference to easements M, L and P is a reference to the fact that Lot
27 has the benefit of easements over some parts of the land owned by
Viridian.

Easement L

Easement L benefits Lot 27 (and therefore Lot 27 is the dominant tenement)
and provides:

Advice (00009799)