Off-the-plan dwellings and new land single residential blocks purchased in the ACT will now attract significantly reduced stamp duty fees. Announced by the ACT Government on 4 June 2020, the scheme is part of Canberra’s Recovery Plan intended to help revitalise and stimulate the property and construction industry.
For eligible purchases up to $500,000, stamp duty liability will be waived completely. For those buyers purchasing off-the plan where the purchase price is between $500,000 and $750,000, stamp duty liability will be reduced by $11,400.
Contracts for Sale must exchange between 4 June 2020 and 30 June 2021 to be eligible for reductions.Read more
e-Conveyancing in the ACT looks to be a step closer following recent Legislative changes. Amendments introduced by the ACT Government pursuant to the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (ACT) Act 2020 (ACT) and the Land Titles (Electronic Conveyancing) Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (ACT) are set to commence on 1 June 2020. But what do these changes mean? And will the ACT (finally) join NSW and the other States in conveying real estate electronically?
There are two fundamental changes:
Together the legislative provisions provide a choice within the territory to allow fore-conveyancing.
More specifically, the changes:
As the land titles register is already kept electronically it follows that lodgements should also occur electronically. Stakeholders suggest that moving to an electronic registration and titling system will help protect against fraudulent activities.
It is clear the Territory is endeavouring to keep pace with modern property practices but is yet to fully transition to a platform allowing for electronic conveyancing to occur. The Territory has the legal framework in place and the introduction of an electronic lodgement network is what is now needed.Read more
In a case handed down on 30 April 2020, the NSW Land and Environment Court has decided that the rejection of a development application by a council is not a decision that can be appealed. The judgment, Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council (No 2)  NSWLEC 42, has implications for the rejection of DAs by NSW councils and highlights the ability of a Council to effectively veto a DA that involves the carrying out of works within a road reserve without the risk of review by the Court.
Johnson Property Group lodged a DA with the Lake Macquarie City Council for the construction of a cycleway and intersection improvement work in October 2019. Six days later the Council rejected the DA on the sole basis that the DA was not accompanied by the written consent of the (same) Council as the roads authority and owner of the public roads where the intersection work was proposed. Johnson appealed against that decision and sought an order that the Council assess and determine the DA. The Council’s sole contention in the appeal was there was no appeal right. It did not raise any concerns with the merits of the proposal.
Johnson pointed to s.8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which provides that an applicant who is dissatisfied with the ‘determination’ of an application by a consent authority may appeal to the Court, arguing that such a determination must include a decision to reject a DA. Johnson also relied on an earlier decision of the Court in Parkes v Byron Shire Council (2003) 129 LGERA 156 (Parkes) where it was held that, upon a proper construction of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations as they were then in force, the decision to reject a DA was a decision from which a right of appeal to the Court was available.
The Council argued that on a proper construction of ss 8.6(1) and 8.7(1) of the Act an appeal was limited to a “determination” rather than a “decision”. It was argued that a determination is made pursuant to s.4.16 of the Act to either refuse or approve a DA, whereas the rejection of a DA is a “decision” to reject the DA and operates to treat the DA has never been made (as per cl.51(3) of the Regulation). The Council also argued that Parkes could be distinguished and, in any event, the decision was wrong and should not be followed.
The Court carefully analysed the language used in each of the relevant provisions in Division 8.3 of the EP&A Act, the Division of the Act that provides an appeal right relating to the determination of an application for development consent. The Court held that:
As a consequence, the Court concluded that there was no ability for Johnston to appeal against the rejection of its DA by the Council.
Johnson’s case is significant because it highlights the ability of a council to unilaterally veto a development proposal where the development involves works within a council road reserve. A council’s ability to reject a DA under the Regulations is limited to the first 14 days after the DA is being received. This case shows, however, that if a DA is rejected on proper grounds within that period, the rejection cannot be made the subject of an appeal. This would avoid the possibility of the Court itself furnishing the landowner’s consent on behalf of the Council pursuant to s.39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
For more information or to discuss a development application, call BAL Lawyers Planning, Environment and Local Government Team on 02 6274 0999.
 Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council  NSWLEC 4 [at 20].
 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl. 51.
 Cf. Sydney City Council v Ipoh Pty Ltd  NSWCA 300 in which the Court held that s.39(2) empowered the Land and Environment Court, on the hearing of an appeal, to give the consent of the owner of land to the making of a development application where the owner is the authority whose refusal of consent is the subject of the appeal.Read more
BAL Lawyers is delighted to announce that six of our Canberra lawyers have been recognised among The Best Lawyers™ in Australia (2021 Edition). Additionally, John Bradley was named the Best Lawyers 2021 Real Property Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Canberra.
Our six recognised lawyers and their practice areas are:
Alan Bradbury has been recognised 12 years’ running in the practice area of Planning and Environmental Law, whilst John Wilson made his ninth appearance. Mark Love and John Bradley are in their eighth years and both Ian Meagher and Bill McCarthy are in their second year of recognition.
John Bradley was previously named “Lawyer of the Year” in 2016, and Alan Bradbury in 2014 and 2015. This accolade recognises individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback in their practice area in a given geographic area.
Above (L-R): John Bradley, Alan Bradbury, John Wilson, Mark Love, Ian Meagher, Bill McCarthy.
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected attorney ranking service in the world. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. 83,000 industry leading attorneys are eligible to vote from around the world, and Best Lawyers received almost 10 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honour.Read more