Removing caveat to redevelop ?

[mxp]

Just wondering if anyone here has gone through the process of removing building caveats?

I'm looking at an opportunity with a older property on a decent sized fairly flat block in the city of knox (Melbourne), and the section 32 shows a caveat regarding development of the land.

It's from the mid 1960's, and says the land will only have 1 dwelling (excluding garage, shed etc..) and will not be used for multi dwelling developments.

Accountant seems to think we can pay to have it removed, and the council suggest if planning meets requirements, and the development adds value, they'll be ok with it.

Has anyone come across this kind of situation? Are these old caveats able to be waivered and removed?

 

[Aaron_C]

You mean covenant, right? Caveats are completely different beasts...

To answer your question, this is quite common. It can be removed so long as the person who owns the covenant is paid out to their satisfaction. Is it the council's covenant?

 

[mxp]

You mean covenant, right? Caveats are completely different beasts...

To answer your question, this is quite common. It can be removed so long as the person who owns the covenant is paid out to their satisfaction. Is it the council's covenant?

Ok, thanks.

No, not the councils. It was put on by the initial land owner when he subdivided it and the adjoining 6 blocks around it. My understanding is there is none of these restrictions sitting over any other houses in the street.

From the records, once the house was built, it was sold off, and the restriction went across.

 

[Aaron_C]

See http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning...and-regulations/restrictive-covenants#removal

 

[jrc77]

There is a convenant on my PPOR that "no part of the land shall be used for the sale of fermented or spirituous liquor".

 

[Marjac]

It may depend on the council, however in Vic I believe that you may also require the consent of all the other land owners that the covenant also applies to.
In your case it appears to be only 6 others so may not be such a problem.

I know in Ormond (different Council) a large number of properties have a covenant that prohibits land being used as a quarry and or removal of soil etc (apart from digging foundations).
An owner wanted to install an inground pool and you guessed it, the council decided that this was a breach/against the Covenant and to gain the consent of all the other owners and/or apply to the Supreme Court would been cost prohibitive

 

[wobbycarly]

There is a convenant on my PPOR that "no part of the land shall be used for the sale of fermented or spirituous liquor".

*snap* We had the same on our last place! Although we weren't even allowed to make it!

 

[Stacey Survey]

Aaron's hit the nail on the head with that link. Some good info there!

Also a quick heads up- from many of our projects where this has come up as an issue it seems to take quite a while to pass through. Not sure if it's a common trend across the state! It seems every time I deal with council it is far more difficult than it really should be.

Cheers,

 

[mkm]

It can be removed and it was done so recently on a property in Boronia (City of Knox). In this instance the owner had the covenant removed and applied for a 14 apartment development on the site. The residents kicked up a storm and it got a lot of coverage in the local knox leader. There was a discussion in the council meeting last week on 24th April. Check out the agenda/minutes of meeting on knox website.