Victorian Political News		www.robertclark.net

GOVERNMENT OPPOSES COVENANT PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENTS

News Release - Wednesday, 1st November 2000

The State Government has voted in Parliament against Opposition amendments which provide greater protection for home owners and residents against developers who try to override or remove single dwelling or other restrictive covenants.

The Opposition's amendments require Councils and the Minister for Planning to give proper consideration to the rights of owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties protected by a covenant before agreeing to any proposed planning scheme amendment which would remove or vary the covenant on a property.

Despite the Government's opposition, the amendments were carried in the Legislative Council on the votes of the Opposition, with the support of the National Party. The Bill, with the amendments, will now return to the Legislative Assembly, where the Government must decide whether or not to continue to oppose the amendments.

The Shadow Minister for Planning, Robert Clark, said that by voting against the amendments the Government was putting the covenant rights of neighbours at risk.

"Covenant rights are highly valued by many residents who have chosen to purchase homes in single dwelling covenant estates because of the certainty of lifestyle which such covenants provide.

"Both sides of politics proposed greater protection for covenants in their policies at last year's election.

"However, if it is not amended, the Government's proposed legislation will lead to increased pressure from developers seeking to have Councils and the Minister use planning scheme amendments to remove covenants.

"This makes it important to amend the legislation to ensure that these rights cannot be simply taken away from people without very good reason."

"The Opposition's amendments say that there must be an overriding public interest to justify depriving owners and occupiers of their covenant rights by planning scheme amendment. The Government wants to retain the power to take away those rights without being required to consider the loss such removal would cause.

Mr Clark said that the Government's argument that the amendments would create additional costs for residents by forcing developers to go to the Supreme Court to seek the removal of covenants was absurdly illogical.

"Under the Government's regime, developers will be encouraged to have two bites at the cherry - one by planning scheme amendment, and one via the Supreme Court. This doesn't reduce costs to residents, rather it creates the risk of extra cost in having to fight two applications, as well as making it more likely that the developer will end up successful in having the covenant removed."