Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Business

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

Finally a lease resumed

By johnboy - 28 May 2013 9

Simon Corbell has the happy news that the ACT has finally terminated an undeveloped lease:

The Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) has undertaken termination proceedings against the lessee of a residential Crown lease for a block that had remained undeveloped since 2006, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, said today.

As a consequence of the action by ESDD to terminate the lease, and the subsequent legal challenge, the land has been cleaned up by the lessee and then surrendered to the bank holding the mortgage.

“The ACT Government has been forced to act because of the prolonged failure of the lessee to develop this land as contained within the Crown lease for over six years. The bank will now sell the land so that it may be developed,” Mr Corbell said.

“This type of sanction is the strongest available to the Territory, and highlights the Government’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the ACT leasehold system and tackling the long standing problem of land speculation or failure to progress a site development within a reasonable period of time.

“The community is tired of these blocks remaining vacant for years on end and the Government is committed to investigating these complaints and tackling this issue head on,” Mr Corbell said.

The ACT leasehold system requires that all lessees comply with the building and development covenants in their Crown lease.

Typically, development on a residential block must start within 12 months and be completed within 24 months from the date the Crown lease commences.

Simon’s office informs us the land is a residential block in West Belconnen.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Finally a lease resumed
beardedclam 2:42 pm 29 May 13

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-cancels-lease-on-land-20130528-2n9wa.html

extensions cost a couple of hundred dollars?

read this and tell me how a six year delay could be a couple of hundred dollars

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/12436/Guide_to_fees.pdf

well?

beardedclam 2:35 pm 29 May 13

MelonHead said :

This post brought to mind the Pizza Hut site in Braddon that stood vacant for more years than most can remember, and then the adjacent Solo Service Station site, which seems to be going nowhere.
Also the tyre shop a few doors down is a marvelous addition to the cityscape.

This Government seems not to care. I could be wrong. Please, someone, anyone, have evidence to the contrary.

Those sites you mentioned had existing buildings, just because a building on a lease is gone, does not mean the original lease or the covenants within the lease do not exist. Covenants forcing NEW lessee’s to commence complete construction, may not necessarily count toward a knockdown rebuild.

HiddenDragon 12:55 pm 29 May 13

MelonHead said :

This post brought to mind the Pizza Hut site in Braddon that stood vacant for more years than most can remember, and then the adjacent Solo Service Station site, which seems to be going nowhere.
Also the tyre shop a few doors down is a marvelous addition to the cityscape.

This Government seems not to care. I could be wrong. Please, someone, anyone, have evidence to the contrary.

Add to that the service stations killed off by supermarket discount vouchers and still waiting for the “artist’s impression” of residential/retail/professional suites to become a reality, and a fair chunk of Fyshwick, particularly the older bits, with more and more for lease/sale signs and dwindling prospects of tenants or buyers.

MelonHead 12:28 pm 29 May 13

This post brought to mind the Pizza Hut site in Braddon that stood vacant for more years than most can remember, and then the adjacent Solo Service Station site, which seems to be going nowhere.
Also the tyre shop a few doors down is a marvelous addition to the cityscape.

This Government seems not to care. I could be wrong. Please, someone, anyone, have evidence to the contrary.

p1 11:24 am 29 May 13

itsallme said :

True, it is a solution to the problem, I just take issue with the media spouting that a crown lease has been terminated/determined/resumed (whatever terminology you use) when in fact all that happened is the ACT Government initiated proceedings, then the mortgagee became aware of those proceedings, called in a default event and took possession. The ACT Government did not take the land back and to my knowledge, despite a number of attempts, has never been successful in doing so.

From the governments point of view, is there any difference between the former “owner” of the block, and the bank which now holds it? Really, it makes little difference. The territory should actually reclaim it, then sell it to someone themselves.

Might make banks a little more cautious about letting developers to this type of thing if there is a chance of their money disappearing.

itsallme 9:43 am 29 May 13

Tetranitrate said :

itsallme said :

If the mortgagee has taken possession and is selling it, then the crown lease has neither been resumed or terminated.

Sounds more like the ACT Government started proceedings to terminate, and failed to do so.

It’s not really a failure. The lessee’s now out of the picture and the bank will seek to offload the lease ASAP to someone who will actually build on the site. It’s a fairly decent result – it’d be nice if they were a bit more trigger happy though. One of the few decent things about the planning system here is that you don’t have the disgusting land-banking that exists in other cities where speculators deliberately hold land off the market – it’s particularly blatant in Melbourne, where even just walking a few blocks through a suburb you’ll tend to see several vacant lots.

True, it is a solution to the problem, I just take issue with the media spouting that a crown lease has been terminated/determined/resumed (whatever terminology you use) when in fact all that happened is the ACT Government initiated proceedings, then the mortgagee became aware of those proceedings, called in a default event and took possession. The ACT Government did not take the land back and to my knowledge, despite a number of attempts, has never been successful in doing so.

IrishPete 8:08 pm 28 May 13

Interesting timing, Corbell was getting stick yesterday on 666 and the ACTPLA Chief(?) today about charging fees for blocks that haven’t been built on. Methinks someone needed a “good news distraction”.

IP

Tetranitrate 7:44 pm 28 May 13

itsallme said :

If the mortgagee has taken possession and is selling it, then the crown lease has neither been resumed or terminated.

Sounds more like the ACT Government started proceedings to terminate, and failed to do so.

It’s not really a failure. The lessee’s now out of the picture and the bank will seek to offload the lease ASAP to someone who will actually build on the site. It’s a fairly decent result – it’d be nice if they were a bit more trigger happy though. One of the few decent things about the planning system here is that you don’t have the disgusting land-banking that exists in other cities where speculators deliberately hold land off the market – it’s particularly blatant in Melbourne, where even just walking a few blocks through a suburb you’ll tend to see several vacant lots.

itsallme 4:27 pm 28 May 13

If the mortgagee has taken possession and is selling it, then the crown lease has neither been resumed or terminated.

Sounds more like the ACT Government started proceedings to terminate, and failed to do so.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site