Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980

The Act centres on a few discrete legal concepts. First, exchange of lands as a statutory transaction. Unlike a common law exchange, which is a bilateral transfer of property interests, this Act mandates that the transfer of the Schedule 1 land to the Crown and the grant of the Schedule 2 land to the Thompsons are linked conditions. The Thompsons must transfer and surrender their land to the Crown; upon that registration, and upon the Shire’s payment of $3697.00, the Crown must grant the Schedule 2 land. This is not a voluntary contract: the Act compels the outcome. The phrase “upon the registration … and on the payment” sets concurrent conditions. The concept of deemed unalienated land of the Crown carries significant consequences. Under Crown lands legislation, unalienated land is land that has never been granted or has been resumed and is held by the Crown free of prior interests. Section 2(a) expressly discharges the transferred land from “all trusts, encumbrances, limitations and restrictions whatsoever and from every estate or interest”. This is a statutory extinguishment of any third-party rights that may have existed over the land - easements, profits, restrictive covenants, mortgages, or equitable interests. The Act provides no notice to or compensation for holders of such interests; section 3 limits compensation claims against the Crown to the $3697.00 and any agreement under section 5. Another key concept is override of the Land Act 1958. Section 2(b) permits the grant of the Schedule 2 land “notwithstanding anything in the Land Act 1958”. That means normal procedures for Crown grants (such as public auction, ministerial consent, payment of market value, etc.) are bypassed. This is a form of legislative dispensation for a specific transaction. Deemed acquisition under the Local Government Act 1958 appears in section 4. The surrendered land, after transfer, is deemed to be land acquired by the Shire under section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958. Section 798 likely relates to the power of a council to acquire land for airports or landing grounds. The effect: the Shire is treated as though it had compulsorily acquired the land, without actually going through the acquisition process, which would have required a public purpose declaration, valuation, and compensation. The Shire avoids those steps. The concept of mandatory agreement in section 5 is noteworthy. The Shire is “authorized and required” (that is, both empowered and obliged) to enter into a written contract with the Thompsons covering fencing, a 20-metre-wide laneway and gates, a catchment dam, and “such other matters” as agreed. This agreement is not optional; it is a statutory duty. The Shire must bear all costs - construction, survey, and legal. The costs are chargeable to the Municipal Fund (the Shire’s general revenue). Finally, the concept of no compensation by the Crown (section 3) limits the Crown’s exposure. Only the $3697.00 consideration and any amounts under the section 5 agreement are payable. No additional claims for disturbance, injurious affection, or loss of value are permitted against the Crown. This is a statutory cap.

The Act directly affects four parties. First, Kevin John Thompson and Mary Margaret Thompson as executor and executrix of the will of Samuel John Thompson deceased. They are the registered proprietors of the Schedule 1 land. They must transfer and surrender that land to the Crown. In exchange they receive the Schedule 2 land (granted in fee simple, subject to Governor in Council conditions) and a cash payment of $3697.00 from the Shire. They also benefit from the mandatory agreement under section 5, which secures fencing, access, and a catchment dam on their residual land (the balance of the original title). They bear no legal costs for the exchange or the agreement; the Shire pays all survey and legal costs. Second, the Corporation of the Shire of Charlton. The Shire is required to pay the $3697.00 consideration from its Municipal Fund. It must enter into the section 5 agreement and bear the costs of fencing, the laneway, gates, and the dam. It must arrange for survey of both parcels and pay all legal costs of the Thompsons’ estate in connection with the exchange and the agreement. The Shire gains the use of the surrendered Schedule 1 land as an aircraft landing ground, deemed acquired under the Local Government Act 1958. The Shire is the entity that “wishes to use” the land for that purpose, as stated in the preamble. The Shire’s ratepayers ultimately bear the financial burden. Third, the Crown (Her Majesty), represented by the relevant Victorian government department. The Crown receives the Schedule 1 land, which becomes unalienated Crown land free of all prior interests. The Crown also grants the Schedule 2 land to the Thompsons, overriding the Land Act 1958. The Crown incurs no financial liability beyond the $3697.00 that flows from the Shire to the Thompsons, and no compensation liability except under the section 5 agreement. Fourth, holders of any trusts, encumbrances, limitations, or restrictions over the Schedule 1 land (section 2(a)). These are extinguished without compensation from the Crown. This could include mortgagees, holders of easements (e.g., for drainage, access, utilities), parties with restrictive covenants, or beneficiaries under any trust. They have no recourse under this Act. The Act also potentially affects the Shire of Charlton’s residents and ratepayers indirectly, as the Shire’s expenditure on works, surveys, legal costs, and the cash payment is drawn from the Municipal Fund, which is ratepayer-funded. Future users of the aircraft landing ground are also affected, as the land is now set aside for that purpose. The Governor in Council is affected in that he or she must decide on the covenants, conditions, exceptions, and reservations to be included in the grant of the Schedule 2 land. This is a discretionary power, but the Act compels the grant itself to be made. The Office of Titles (now Land Use Victoria) is affected as the registration of the transfer, surrender, and grant is the trigger for the exchange. The Act does not affect the general public at large; it is a specific legislative instrument for a single transaction.

The Act creates both duties and rights, primarily imposed on the Corporation of the Shire of Charlton. The Shire has a duty to pay $3697.00 to the Thompsons (section 2, as a condition precedent to the grant). It has a further duty to enter into an agreement under section 5(1) covering fencing of common boundaries between the surrendered land and the residual land, access via a 20-metre-wide laneway and gates, excavation of a catchment dam on the residual land, and such other agreed matters. This duty is mandatory: the Shire is “authorized and required” to do so. The Shire must bear the cost of constructing or installing those works (section 5(2)(a)), the cost of surveying both parcels (section 5(2)(b)), and all legal costs incurred by or chargeable to the estate in connection with the agreement and the exchange (section 5(2)(c)). The Shire may pay these amounts out of the Municipal Fund (section 5(3)). There is no right of the Shire to refuse or renegotiate the terms of the agreement; the Act specifies the minimum content (fencing, laneway, dam) and allows for other matters by agreement, but the Shire cannot avoid entering into it. The Shire also has the right, upon the transfer and surrender, to have the Schedule 1 land deemed as land acquired under the Local Government Act 1958 for use as an aircraft landing ground. That is a right to use the land for that specific purpose, but it may also be a limitation if the Shire later wishes to use the land for another purpose - the deemed acquisition is tied to the purpose under section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958. The Thompsons have the right to receive the $3697.00 payment as a condition of the exchange (section 2). They have the right to have the Schedule 2 land granted to them in fee simple, subject only to such covenants and conditions as the Governor in Council thinks fit. They have the right to enforce the section 5 agreement against the Shire, including the works, access, and dam. They are not obliged to pay any costs in relation to the exchange or the agreement; the Shire bears those costs. The Thompsons have a duty to transfer and surrender the Schedule 1 land to the Crown. That duty is not expressly stated as an obligation, but the Act is structured such that the exchange occurs only upon that registration. If the Thompsons fail to register the transfer, the exchange does not happen, and the Shire would not be required to pay or perform. So the duty is implicit: to complete the transfer and surrender to trigger the consideration and the grant. The Crown (by its relevant Minister or Governor in Council) has the duty to grant the Schedule 2 land upon satisfaction of the conditions. The Crown also has the right to impose covenants, conditions, exceptions, and reservations on that grant. The Crown has no duty to pay compensation beyond the $3697.00 and amounts under the section 5 agreement (section 3). The Crown has the right to accept the surrendered land as unalienated Crown land freed of encumbrances. The contract of sale between the Shire and the Thompsons is not a private contract; it is a statutory scheme. The Thompsons do not have the right to refuse the exchange once the Act is passed, but the Act requires their participation via the registration of the transfer and surrender. If they fail to do so, the exchange does not proceed. The Act does not impose a penalty for non-participation. The Governor in Council’s discretion over the terms of the grant is a right, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably; however, the Act provides no criteria for its exercise.

The Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 contains no express penalties, fines, or criminal offences. It does not confer a power to prosecute or to impose civil pecuniary penalties. Enforcement of the duties under the Act would likely proceed through ordinary civil remedies. If the Shire fails to pay the $3697.00, the Thompsons could withhold registration of the transfer and surrender, and the exchange would not proceed. That is a practical lever, not a penalty. If the Shire fails to enter into the agreement required by section 5, the Thompsons could seek an order for specific performance or a mandatory injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria compelling the Shire to enter into the agreement. The Act says the Shire “is hereby authorized and required” to enter into such an agreement, which makes the duty statutory, not merely contractual. Breach of a statutory duty may give rise to an action for damages (if loss is suffered and the duty is owed to a class of persons) or an order for specific performance. There is no limitation period specified in the Act, so the general limitation statutes (Limitation of Actions Act 1958) would apply. If the Shire fails to bear the costs (survey, legal, works), the Thompsons could sue for the costs as a debt due under the statute. Section 5(2) creates an obligation to “bear” those costs; it does not say they are payable directly to the Thompsons, but the Thompsons are likely the parties who would have to pay those costs initially (e.g., surveyor, solicitor) and then seek reimbursement from the Shire. The Act does not specify a mechanism for enforcement; it relies on the general law. The Crown is not subject to any penalty for failing to grant the Schedule 2 land, but if the Crown refuses to grant the land after the conditions are satisfied, the Thompsons could seek judicial review or a writ of mandamus to compel the Governor in Council to perform the duty, though such orders against the Crown are rare and may be subject to Crown immunity. However, s 2(b) says the land “may be granted” - the word “may” is permissive, not mandatory. This is a potential loophole: the payment and transfer trigger the right to a grant, but the grant itself uses “may”. If the Governor in Council chose not to grant, the Thompsons might be left without an effective remedy, as the Act does not use “shall” for the grant. This is a drafting nuance. The preamble refers to it being expedient that the Schedule 2 land be granted, so the intention is mandatory, but the operative word is “may”. A court would likely construe “may” as “shall” in context, but it is not certain. There is no regulatory agency charged with enforcing this Act. The only potential enforcement is private civil action by the Thompsons against the Shire, or possibly by the Shire against the Thompsons if the Thompsons fail to register the transfer (but the Shire would then lose its right to use the land as a landing ground). The Act does not create any public enforcement mechanism. There are no penalties for third parties (e.g., if someone trespasses on the aircraft landing ground; that would be dealt with under other laws). The Act is essentially a transactional statute; it relies on the parties’ self-interest and the ordinary courts for compliance.

The Act expressly interacts with at least three other Victorian statutes. Section 2(b) provides that the grant of the Schedule 2 land to the Thompsons may occur “notwithstanding anything in the Land Act 1958”. That means the Land Act 1958’s requirements for Crown grants - such as procedures for alienation, valuation, public auction, ministerial consent, or restrictions on the size or location of grants - are overridden for this specific grant. The Land Act 1958 generally governs the management and alienation of Crown land in Victoria. By overriding it, the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 operates as a special and later law that prevails to the extent of inconsistency. The Act also incorporates by reference section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958. Section 4 deems the surrendered Schedule 1 land to be land acquired by the Shire for the purposes of section 798. Section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958 (repealed in 1989, but in force at the time) dealt with the power of councils to acquire land for, and establish, landing grounds for aircraft. The effect is that the Shire is treated as having acquired the land under that section, with all the powers and duties that entails - for example, the power to manage the landing ground, impose fees, and the duty to maintain it. However, the Act does not require the Shire to actually use the land as a landing ground; it merely deems the acquisition for that purpose. If the Shire later wishes to use the land for a different purpose, it may need to seek a change of use or rely on other powers. The Transfer of Land Act 1958 (the Torrens title system) is also relevant because the exchange is effected by registration in the Office of Titles of a transfer and surrender. Section 2 requires registration as a condition precedent. The effect of registration under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 is to pass title free of interests not recorded on the register, except for statutory exceptions. But here, the Act itself extinguishes all prior interests in the Schedule 1 land (section 2(a) says it is discharged from all trusts, encumbrances, limitations, etc.). That statutory extinguishment might override even interests that are not registered (e.g., equitable interests). The interaction with the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 could be relevant if a party seeks to enforce a right under this Act after a long period. Section 5 creates a contractual right that might be subject to limitation periods for contract actions. There is no express interaction with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (which came later, in 1987), but the use of the land as an aircraft landing ground would likely require planning permits under later laws. The Act does not grant planning permission; it only deems the land acquired under old local government legislation. If the landing ground was never established or was discontinued, the Shire might need to consider planning controls. The Act also interacts with the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (ILA) for interpretation purposes. Endnote 1 explains that style changes and headings inserted after 2001 form part of the Act, but since this Act has no amendments, that is less relevant. The Property Law Act 1958 and general law of contract apply to the interpretation of the agreement under section 5. The Act does not create a new statutory tort or crime; it relies on existing laws for enforcement. There is no interaction with the Australian Constitution because it is a State Act dealing with land within Victoria. The Act overrides the common law rule against extinguishment of encumbrances without compensation, by express provision (section 2(a) and section 3). This limits the ability of third parties to claim against the Crown. Finally, there is possible interaction with the Environment Protection Act 1970 or Water Act 1989 regarding the catchment dam and any environmental impacts, though those Acts are not mentioned.

According to the endnotes in the published version, the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 has no amendments. The Table of Amendments (Endnote 2) states: “There are no amendments made to the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 by Acts and subordinate instruments.” The Amendments Not in Operation (Endnote 3) likewise states none. The Act therefore appears in its original form as enacted in 1980. This is consistent with its nature as a private Act dealing with a single transaction. Private Acts of the Victorian Parliament are typically not amended because they are spent once the transaction is completed. The Act came into operation on the date of Royal Assent, 23 December 1980 (section 1(2) and General Information in Endnote 1). The version noted is Version No. 002, but that likely reflects republication with updated formatting under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, not substantive amendment. The Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 authorised style changes and renumbering; the endnotes explain that headings, examples, notes, and punctuation inserted after 1 January 2001 form part of the Act, but these are presentational changes only. The Act has not been affected by later amending Acts such as the Statute Law Revision Acts that often make minor corrections. The Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 is essentially frozen in time. The lack of amendment history is itself a notable feature: the Act has survived without any legislative adjustment. This suggests either that the exchange was completed promptly and the Act is now spent, or that the Act is so specific that no later Parliament has seen a need to alter it. However, some provisions (such as the reference to the Local Government Act 1958, which was repealed in 1989 and replaced by the Local Government Act 1989) rely on an Act that is no longer in force. The reference in section 4 to section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958 may be affected by the repeal of that Act. The Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 s 14 provides that where an Act is repealed and re-enacted, references to the repealed Act are generally taken to be references to the corresponding provisions of the new Act unless otherwise provided. However, section 798 of the 1958 Act dealt specifically with landing grounds; the 1989 Act may have different provisions (e.g., councils now have general powers to acquire land for any function, so specific section references may not map precisely). If the Shire still relies on the deemed acquisition, it must determine whether the reference is picked up by the successor Act. The lack of amendment means no Parliament has clarified this interaction.

The source document for the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 does not contain any litigation history or case references. No cases are cited in the Act or its endnotes. Performing an external search (which I am not doing, as instructed to ground everything in the source) would be speculative. However, based on the structure of the Act, it is highly likely that there has been no reported litigation involving this Act. Private Acts of this kind rarely generate litigation because they resolve a specific situation by agreement of the affected parties, and the preconditions are usually satisfied without dispute. The Act itself provides a statutory mechanism that avoids the need for court proceedings. Potential sources of litigation could have included: a dispute over the agreement under section 5 (e.g., the Shire failing to fence or build the dam); a challenge by a third party whose easement or interest was extinguished under section 2(a) (though section 3 limits compensation, a constitutional challenge might have been brought for acquisition of property on unjust terms, but the Commonwealth Constitution s 51(xxxi) does not apply to State acquisitions, and the Victorian Constitution does not have an equivalent guarantee); or a dispute over the interpretation of “may be granted” in section 2(b) (the permissive vs. mandatory wording). If the Governor in Council imposed exceptionally onerous conditions on the grant, the Thompsons might have sought judicial review. The 20-metre laneway access requirement could have generated a dispute about location or maintenance. The Act also required the Shire to bear all legal costs, which could have led to a dispute about what costs were “chargeable to the estate”. However, none of these have resulted in recorded judgments that appear in the published endnotes, which explicitly state “No entries at date of publication” under Explanatory details (Endnote 4). The absence of litigation history does not mean no dispute ever arose; it means no amendments or explanatory entries have been published to note court decisions. Private settlements likely resolved any issues. For a practitioner advising on this Act today, the lack of judicial interpretation means any ambiguities (such as the effect of the repeal of the Local Government Act 1958 on the deemed acquisition) have not been authoritatively resolved. The Act must be read on its own terms, with resort to general principles of statutory interpretation and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. There is no body of case law to guide application.

Several provisions in the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 contain traps for the unwary. First, the extinguishment of all encumbrances under section 2(a) is absolute: the surrendered land is “freed and discharged from all trusts, encumbrances, limitations and restrictions whatsoever and from every estate or interest”. This includes any interests that were not apparent on the title, such as unregistered easements, equitable interests, or rights of way. A third party who had a pre-existing interest (e.g., a drainage easement crossing the Schedule 1 land) would have that interest extinguished without compensation from the Crown, and likely without notice. The Act does not provide a process for third parties to object or claim. The only compensation is the $3697.00 paid to the Thompsons, plus the section 5 works. If the third party had an interest that bound the Thompsons, the Thompsons may have breached a covenant or trust by transferring the land, but the Act does not address that. Second, the permissive word “may” in section 2(b) regarding the grant of the Schedule 2 land. The Act says the land “may be granted” to the Thompsons. If the Governor in Council decides not to grant it (or delays indefinitely), the Thompsons may be left with no effective remedy. The preamble says it is expedient that the land be granted, but the operative provision gives discretion. A court would likely imply a duty to grant, given the purpose of the Act, but the language is a risk. Third, the reference to the Local Government Act 1958 in section 4 is to a specific section (section 798) that was repealed when the Local Government Act 1989 came into force. The deemed acquisition may no longer have an operative statutory basis. A court would interpret the reference as a reference to the corresponding provision of the new Act, but if the new Act does not have a direct equivalent (e.g., if it now uses general powers rather than a specific landing ground power), the deeming may be ineffective. The Shire could find that it does not actually have the powers it believed it had. Fourth, the mandatory agreement under section 5 requires the Shire to bear “all legal costs incurred by or chargeable to the estate” in connection with the agreement and the exchange. This is an open-ended obligation. The Shire may not have anticipated the full extent of the Thompsons’ legal fees or the costs of survey. The Shire must pay these without cap. Fifth, the 20-metre-wide laneway is a very specific requirement. If the residual land is small or oddly shaped, a 20-metre laneway could consume a significant portion. The Shire must provide access “to all parts of the residual land”, which could require multiple laneways if the residual land is not contiguous. The Act does not specify who owns the laneway; it is presumably a right of way or an easement. If it is not properly registered, disputes could arise. Sixth, the catchment dam excavation is required; the Act does not specify who owns the dam or who bears maintenance. The Shire bears construction cost, but future maintenance liability is unclear. Seventh, section 3 says no compensation payable by Crown except as provided in section 2 and in any agreement under section 5. This could preclude claims for anything not covered, such as disturbance, loss of business, or injurious affection to neighbouring land. The Shire might face claims from third parties, but the Act says the Crown is not liable; it does not say the Shire is not liable. The Shire could still be sued in nuisance or for negligence if the works cause damage. Eighth, the Act does not provide a sunset clause or a time limit for the exchange to occur. The Thompsons could register the transfer and surrender 50 years later, or not at all. The Shire has no ability to compel them. The payment of $3697.00 is a condition; the Shire must pay it, but if the Thompsons never register, the Shire loses the money if it pays in anticipation. The Shire likely paid upon or before registration, but the Act does not mandate timing. Ninth, the reference to the Corporation of the Shire of Charlton - the Shire of Charlton was merged into other councils in the 1990s (part of the Loddon Shire, later into the Buloke Shire or Loddon Shire; actually the Shire of Charlton was amalgamated into the Shire of Loddon in 1995). The successor council may not be aware of its obligations under this Act. The obligations run with the corporation, not the geographic area, so the successor council is bound. If the works were never completed, the successor council could be subject to an action for specific performance. Tenth, the Governor in Council’s power to impose conditions on the grant of the Schedule 2 land is unfettered by criteria. The Thompsons could receive a grant with conditions that effectively reduce the value of the land (e.g., a reservation for public access, a condition prohibiting certain uses). They have no statutory right to challenge these conditions except on administrative law grounds such as unreasonableness.

Compliance with the Charlton (Land Exchange) Act 1980 is largely a matter of completing a single statutory transaction. For the Thompsons (as executor and executrix), the primary step is to execute a transfer and surrender of the Schedule 1 land to Her Majesty, in a form registrable in the Office of Titles (now Land Use Victoria). They must arrange for registration. They must also accept the payment of $3697.00 from the Shire. They should also participate in the agreement under section 5, ensuring that the fencing, 20-metre laneway, gates, and catchment dam are constructed to an agreed standard. They should ensure that the Shire pays all survey and legal costs as required by section 5(2); they should not pay these themselves and then seek reimbursement - better to have the Shire pay directly. They should review the proposed grant of the Schedule 2 land carefully for any covenants, conditions, exceptions, or reservations imposed by the Governor in Council. If the conditions are onerous, they could negotiate with the relevant Minister before the grant is issued, though the Act does not give them a veto. After the exchange, they should ensure the new Certificate of Title is issued and that their residual land (the balance of Volume 7729 Folio 134) is surveyed if not already. They should also note that the residual land is subject to the section 5 agreement (fencing, laneway, dam) and may be burdened by those works as easements or rights. They should register any necessary easements to record the access laneway and the dam catchment area. For the Corporation of the Shire of Charlton (and its successors), compliance involves several steps. First, pay the $3697.00 to the Thompsons at or before registration. Second, arrange for survey of both the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 lands. Third, enter into a written agreement with the Thompsons under section 5(1) within a reasonable time. The agreement must cover: fencing of the common boundaries between the Schedule 1 land and the residual land; access to all parts of the residual land by a 20-metre-wide laneway and gates; excavation of a catchment dam on the residual land; and any other agreed matters. The Shire must bear all construction costs, and all legal costs of the estate in connection with the agreement and the exchange. The Shire should ensure it obtains indemnities or warranties regarding the extent of those costs. Fourth, cause the transfer and surrender to be registered. Fifth, upon registration, the Shire must treat the Schedule 1 land as land acquired under section 798 of the Local Government Act 1958 (and its successor provisions). That means the Shire should formally resolve to use the land as an aircraft landing ground, or at least record it as a community asset. If the landing ground is not intended to be used, the Shire should consider whether the deemed acquisition still carries legal effect under the current Local Government Act. Sixth, the Shire should authorise the payment out of the Municipal Fund under section 5(3) and ensure all expenditures are properly recorded. Seventh, after the exchange, the Shire should maintain the fencing, laneway, and dam in good condition, and ensure that the access rights are not obstructed. The Shire should also monitor whether the Schedule 2 land grant has been issued and note any conditions that affect the use of the residual land. For the Crown (relevant department), compliance involves preparing the grant of the Schedule 2 land in fee simple, with such covenants and conditions as the Governor in Council thinks fit. The department should ensure that the transfer and surrender of the Schedule 1 land is registered before or simultaneously with the grant. The department should recover the $3697.00 from the Shire and pass it to the Thompsons (or ensure the Shire pays directly). The department should keep a record of the extinguishment of interests under section 2(a). Any third party with a claimed interest over the Schedule 1 land should be notified, though the Act does not require it. General compliance advice: All parties should keep complete records of the transaction, including the transfer, grant, survey plans, the section 5 agreement, and proof of payment. Legal advice should be obtained because the Act is old and may interact with current land and local government legislation in unexpected ways. The repeal of the Local Government Act 1958 means that section 4 may need to be interpreted under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. If the landing ground was never established, the Shire may need to consider whether the deemed acquisition still has effect, or whether it was impliedly abandoned. Compliance is a one-off event, but the obligations under the section 5 agreement (fencing, access, dam) may be ongoing. If the Shire has since been amalgamated, the successor council should be aware of these obligations.