2 There are quite a number of pieces of land that have the benefit of the relevant covenant. Notice of the application for a permit to remove the covenant was given to the numerous owners of land benefiting.

3 Only one objection was received. It was received from Mr. Harold Gold of 23 Wilkinson Street, Hoppers Crossing. The reason for the objection was that it was observed that it would allow Mr. Bingham to apply for the construction of a second dwelling on 25 Durham Crescent and that increasing the density of the area could have the affect of lowering the value of properties in the area.

4 Having received that objection the Responsible Authority proceeded to refuse the application on the grounds stated above.

5 Subsequently, it received a letter from Mr. Gold dated 15 April 2004 which, omitting formalities, reads:

"Having considered the matter further, I wish to withdraw my objection to the applicant's proposal to remove the covenant from the property at 25 Durham Crescent, Hoppers Crossing. I do not wish to attend the V.C.A.T. hearing on 3rd May 2004."

6 The Responsible Authority considers that the removal of the covenant is unlikely, in the terms of s.60(5) PE Act, to cause any detriment in relation to Mr. Gold. This is because his property is at some distance from the review site and in another street, and also because he has withdrawn his objection. So far as other owners of land benefiting are concerned, they have not objected, which might be expected if they consider that they would suffer detriment by the removal. In any event, so far as Mr. Gold is concerned, his withdrawal of his objection might be seen as tantamount to consenting to the grant of the permit, thus taking him out of consideration in relation to the likelihood or otherwise of suffering detriment under s.60(5)(a). I agree with the Responsible Authority in it being satisfied that the owners of land benefited are unlikely to suffer detriment of any kind in the circumstances.

7 Although the Responsible Authority, and on review this Tribunal, must be also satisfied in relation to s.60(5)(b) where that provision is applicable, it appears to no longer be applicable in this case. It provides that the Responsible Authority must be satisfied, if the owner of land benefited by the covenant has objected to the grant of a permit, that the objection is vexatious or not made in good faith. Although Mr. Gold's objection might well have been an obstacle under this provision when the matter was considered by the Responsible Authority, he having formally withdrawn his objection at this stage. I consider that it should be treated as if it was not made and that, on this basis, there is no further requirement of satisfaction needed, and no further obstacle, under s.60(5)(b).

8 This provides a basis for being satisfied, as required under s.60(5), and for deciding that that sub-section does not prevent the granting of a permit in the circumstances of the present case.

9 I am faced with a situation where the Responsible Authority consents to the grant of a permit for the removal of this restrictive covenant, where the applicant (of course) consents, indeed seeks, its removal and where the only objector has withdrawn his objection. I see no reason why the permit should not be granted in these circumstances and I propose to grant it.

10 The Responsible Authority has proposed the inclusion of a condition. In one sense it is hardly necessary, in that the PE Act probably really deals with the situation in any event. However, as the matter is by consent I will include that condition.

11 It also suggested the inclusion of some notes. These notes are not part of any permit, and not part of my order. I will not include them. If they are included in the permit document, they appear there only as a means of conveying information, and not as a part of the permit.