An anchor placed underground, which is used to stabilize earth, sand or rock in addition to mental work and can be safely relaxed or removed after the work is completed. Note: The structural integrity of your building should not be compromised as the anchor strands are inserted into the rock under the building and then stretched. As shown in the video, a diagonal hole is drilled and the anchor is inserted, the ends cemented, and then the anchor ropes are stretched and locked. Under the proposed regulated regulations, regulated designs prepared for construction work with ground anchorages extending to the neighbouring property must now comply with the information set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulated Designs Regulation. Consent must be documented in the form of a license agreement. The license agreement should also cover other important elements such as compensation, safety and convenience issues, expiration reports and repairs, the process by which ground anchorages must be dismantled or removed, as well as the insurance and compensation to be provided by the developer and others. However, it is not uncommon for developers to ask their neighbors to quickly sign a license or consent document (often in exchange for a case of beer or a bottle of Scotch) and suggest that the owner (or the owner company) does not need legal advice on the document. However, these documents often provide insufficient or no compensation and do not adequately address the security, convenience and other issues at stake. The case concerned a large mixed-use development in Rhodes. To facilitate development, the applicant (the proponent) attempted to install a series of rock anchors under its property and adjacent parcels. The rock anchors would support the pile system that must receive the surrounding land after excavation.
The developer requested an easement that would allow underground access to the neighboring property to install the rock anchors and relieve them within two years. The owners of a neighboring property, Mr. Lee and Ms. Lai (the neighbors), objected. Neighbours argued that the easement would prevent any significant excavation of their land during the period when the rock anchors remained tense. Excavation would be possible once the rock anchors were de-stressed, but it would be more expensive and difficult. This was important for the neighbors because they had their own development plans. When the developer was unable to negotiate an easement with the neighbors, it filed a lawsuit to apply for an easement under section 88K of the Assignment Act 1919 (NSW). The first thing a homeowner should do after receiving an application for easement or rock anchoring deed for the installation of rock anchors is to contact a lawyer to seek legal advice. The lawyer can help ensure that the owner`s rights are protected by receiving reasonable compensation and reimbursement for the landlord (if any), informing other required professional advisors, and ensuring that condominium owner corporations comply with the requirements of the Condominium Scheme Management Act, 2015. We have dealt with many such issues and we could help you.
Most people don`t know they are entitled to compensation for providing a ground anchor permit (or consenting to ground anchors). Even fewer would know the amount of compensation that is usually negotiated. The amount often refers to the number of anchors installed. Owners (or owner companies) must also be reimbursed for all attorneys` fees, administrative agent fees and fees payable to the consultants concerned in connection with the issuance of such a licence. Our recent section 88K easement electronic alert outlined the five points the court will consider when deciding on the imposition of an easement. In addition to these issues, in this case, the court had to decide whether the developer`s proposed use could really be imposed by an easement or whether the developer was seeking a right that was more like a joint occupation. Some of the Court`s main findings are set out below.1. Was the developer looking for an easement or a right that was more like a joint occupation? One of the conditions for granting a valid easement is that the rights cannot constitute joint occupancy rights or deprive the owners of the service good of legal ownership or possession. If the granting of an easement leaves the owner of the serviced dwelling house with very few rights to that property, the rights claimed do not constitute an easement, but rights of the co-user.
Neighbours argued that the easement would give the developer an exclusive or unrestricted right to use their land. The proponent disagreed, arguing that the easement would be underground and that the rock anchorages could be relieved over time. The Court held that the easement would give the developer extensive rights with respect to the underground portions of the land and that the rights would largely eliminate the neighbours` ability to use and take possession of those portions of the land, including by conducting extensive excavations. In addition, the rights would represent a significant practical restriction on the development of the country during this period. .