The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Each lot shown on the endorsed plans must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Infrastructure Manager).

The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority's requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

Before a Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner must remove or vary the restrictive covenants recorded in Instrument of Transfer Nos. 1770776 and 1770775 in such a way that a single dwelling may be lawfully constructed on each of the lots to be created by the subdivision.

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:-

(a) the subdivision is not certified within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

(b) the subdivision is not registered within five (5) years of the date of certification;

(c) the covenant in Instrument of Transfer No. 2255898 is not removed within 2 years of the date specified in this permit.

1 This matter involves a proposed two lot subdivision and removal of the relevant "one dwelling per lot" restrictive covenants restricting the relevant certificates of title, in relation to the land at 2 Fenton Crescent Frankston ("subject land"). Council had issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the proposal, on the strength of Council's belief that the proposal would not satisfy the strict test for a permit to be granted for the removal of a restrictive covenant under Section 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("Act").

2 This matter came before me for a hearing on 19 January 2006. Council and the Applicant attended at this hearing and advised me jointly that:

•

there had been on-going private negotiations between the Applicant, the various beneficiaries/objectors and Council;

•

it was common ground that Council did not oppose the proposed two lot subdivision on the ordinary planning merits;

•

in relation to the various neighbours who had objected, they either had withdrawn their earlier objection to the subdivision on the ordinary planning merits or in fact had never made any objection on the ordinary planning merits;

•

with respect to the relevant "one dwelling per lot" restrictive covenants, a consensus had been reached to deal with them.

•

first, there is a slither of land involved which has a "one dwelling per lot" covenant contained in Instrument of Transfer No. 2255898, which only has one beneficiary (Mr and Mrs Tan). I was provided with a copy of the letter of consent from Mr and Mrs Tan agreeing to this covenant being removed, and hence it was common ground that there was no impediment to my making an order to that effect;

•

second, in relation to the other two relevant "one dwelling per lot" covenants arising from Instruments of Transfer Nos. 1770776 and 1770775, I was advised that the various objectors/beneficiaries had all agreed in writing to the granting of a permit for the basic two lot subdivision, on the basis of the inclusion of a permit condition providing that no Certificate of Compliance for the approved subdivision can be issued until these two covenants are removed or varied so as to allow a single dwelling to be lawfully created on each lot. I was provided with copies of the various consents from the neighbours/beneficiaries.

3 I am satisfied that the arrangements outline are in order for me to issue consent orders allowing the basic two lot subdivision and the removal of the covenant in relation to the slither of land. I am relying here on the equivalent approach taken by Deputy President Gibson in her decision of Peter Wade v Yarra Ranges Shore Council [VCAT] P2785/2004 & P3016/2004. Hence my orders set out above reflect this settlement arrangement.