Skip to main content

Development Application Approval Without Owner's Consent - New South Wales



This post is a follow up on the earlier article Development Application for Strata Common Wall.

Residential owners corporation reached out to surveyor and found out deposited plans that show the boundary is face of the wall on the commercial strata side. That means the applicant (commercial strata) submitted development application without consent from the owners of the wall.

This was pointed out to the Council and the applicant as follows:

"Section 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) provides for the making of a development application (DA) subject to compliance with the requirements of the regulation.  Clause 49 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) (regulation) mandates that a DA needs to be either made by the ‘owner’ of the land affected by the DA or any other person so long as the owner has provided consent in writing.

 DA Number was made by Applicant_Name and the owner specified is Proprietors of Strata Plan Commercial. However according to the deposited plans and strata plans (all attached to this email just in case) the existing wall where proposed development will take place is not owned by Proprietors of Strata Plan Commercial. Even though the drawings provided by applicant indicate strata boundary, in reality as per deposited plans plans their strata boundary is face of the wall and doesn't include the wall. The wall belongs to SP Residential. SP Residential didn't consent for this development. Therefore without our consent DA Number has been submitted not compliant with the regulation.

 We just would like to point out that DA was not compliant with the regulation from the beginning. It is clear from the reference to the EPA Act above and documents that support our position."

The Council responded:
"I have taken your response back to our legal Advisors who have stated that their previous advice stands and they have no further advice to provide to you.

If you do not believe that the advice given to you previously is correct you have the right under Section 123 of the EPA Act to challenge the validity of the consent issued by Council in the LEC.

In this particular case the DA consent in the opinion of Council is valid and will not be withdrawn."

For some reason the Council didn't cite any legislation that allowed them to approve DA without owner's consent, but cited only the section 123 of EPA Act. Council works for the people. :)

Applicant disregarded the documented evidence and started construction process on the property that doesn't belong to them. The notice was sent to Residential owners corporation last Thursday 14/08/2014 that the construction work commences this Monday 18/08/2014.

More fun to come!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scrum - Team Culture and Wall Manifesto

In the Scrum framework one of the key components is the wall and daily stand-up. In some organisations I worked with the whole concept of the wall is not accepted by many developers, because of the stand-up necessity and "time waste". Very often all that methodology is used for the sake of methodology and not to achieve what we actually do - adding or creating value to our customer (usually called "The Business"). I can understand frustration that is caused by the wall and stand-up process. From the software developer perspective it is really a waste of time for the following reasons: 1. In 95% of cases developers are head down working like hell delivering valuable outcomes that they are accountable for. Extra effort to go to the wall, staying there for 15-30 minutes and listening or not listening to what others were doing yesterday and will be doing tomorrow is annoying for them; 2. The mere fact of having to do something mandatory to do that looks like
Post a Comment
Read more

Construction issues resolution in Sydney - part 17

It's been a while since  the last post In January 2016 the owner lodged an application to NCAT against owners corporation to fix three major defects: - waterproofing of large windows in the living room and bedroom which led to windows full replacement - bathroom drain fix - planterbox fix The owners corporation didn't come to mediation and tribunal ordered to fix all defects within 2 months (the deadline was 8th July 2016). The owners corporation as usual didn't rush to comply with the order regarding two items: bathroom and planterbox. The windows works started end of April 2016. At the same time owners corporation decided to check whether it's a warranty and original builder should fix the issues. That was also related to the fact that the variation was submitted by the current contractor who started fixing the defect. So the owners corporation stopped all works in the middle and went off for a month to "make decision". The decision was mad
Post a Comment
Read more

Wine - 2011 Brown Brothers Crouchen Riesling

Very nice wine with fruity taste - peach and pear: Consumed with Hungarian salami. Tasting notes .
Post a Comment
Read more