For those catching up, this is the third instalment of our case study of Scheme X.
For Part 1 – click here
After resolving to appoint a specialise legal firm and raise an additional levy to go towards legal costs, the Committee happily handed control of ongoing contact with Council to the appointed firm.
The specialist legal firm quickly got to work appointing a senior civil/structural engineer to review the recommendations made by Council and to obtain an understanding of how far the implemented storm water system had strayed from Council requirements.
Scheme X was also required to make contact with previous scheme neighbours who had objected to the original development approval terms, to check whether they wished to be part of the foreshadowed court proceedings.
Scheme X’s originating application was lodged in the Planning and Environment Court at the end of July, seeking Court orders for the original development approval terms to be amended under the “minor change” provisions of the Planning Act 2016.
Somewhat predictably, the Council filed its response notice at the end of August, objecting to an order for a “minor change” to be made in Scheme X’s favour on the basis of insufficient information being provided by Scheme X to allow the Council to assess the proposed changes to the development approval.
Following two site inspections at Scheme X, it became apparent to Scheme X’s architect that other aspects of the development approval had not been complied with (certain privacy screens were incorrectly installed) making the scope of the intended application, that much more complicated.
This triggered a series of “without prejudice” negotiations between the Council and Scheme X’S appointed specialists to see whether consensus might be reached between the parties.
As at the date of this article, consensus has not been forthcoming, however, Scheme X and their specialist firm remain confident of a positive outcome.
Stay tuned for our next instalment!