Ownership of Council assets on private land

Mark Evans and Ryan Post • September 5, 2024

Public infrastructure like sewerage pipes and stormwater pipes were often constructed a long time ago with no development approval or accurate record keeping. Over time, these assets have remained in place and often the local council authority either has no record of the infrastructure or knowledge of the history of construction of the asset or its ownership. Ideally, Council would have an easement registered on title to the subject land. This can cause huge problems when seeking to develop land with old infrastructure emplaced within the subject site.



This article discusses historic public infrastructure in private land and the rights of landowners and Councils.



Introduction


Section 59A of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA 1993) gives Councils the power to install and repair water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage pipes on private land without an easement. The Council owns “all works of water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage installed in or on land by the Council,” irrespective of whether the Council owns the land or not. The provision further outlines a right for Councils to access the land, without an easement, to “operate, repair, replace, maintain, remove, extend, expand, connect, disconnect, [or] improve” to ensure the efficiency of the works for the purpose of which they were installed.


The terms of s59A are similar to the terms of an easement and the overall effect of s59A is that the Council is granted a broad power to enter property, even that which is not owned by them, for the maintenance of pipes. Moreover, discretion is vested within the Council to decide when this is appropriate and necessary. This, however, comes with significant implications for property rights. 


As noted above, the Council does not require an easement to conduct these works. The provision ensures that the Council retains control over water supply infrastructure, even if it is installed on private or non-council land. While not requiring an easement is beneficial for Councils as they can efficiently repair and maintain these systems, vested property rights are impacted by the Council’s ownership of the works. Importantly, this can affect the property owner’s use and enjoyment of the land.


Landowners may have no idea the infrastructure is located on their land because it may not appear on a title search. s59A states that it is one of the exemptions to indefeasibility of title under s 42 of the Real Property Act 1900


It is important to understand the scope and extent of section 59A and how it can influence your property rights. This was discussed in a recent case before the New South Wales Land and Environment Court, Lismore City Council v Gurpal Kaur Singh [2021] NSWLEC 49.


Case Law


Lismore City Council v Gurpal Kaur Singh [2021] NSWLEC 49


Facts


The Lismore City Council (Council) intended to carry out “sewer renewal works” on Gurpal Kaur Singh’s (Respondent) property, and those neighbouring it. These works included decommissioning an existing sewer line and installing a separate sewer pipe in a different part of the property, as well as the digging of a trench to connect the house to the new pipes. The Respondent denied the Council entry to carry out the works.


The effect of the works would be to relocate the existing pipe to another position on the property. The landowners did not consent to the relocation of the pipe as it would interfere with the ongoing use of the land. 


The Council, who own the existing pipes and other sewerage infrastructure per section 59A of LGA 1993, contended that the existing clay sewer pipes were not functioning efficiently and that maintenance was necessary to clear the pipe. The Respondent disputed the necessity of these works.


The Council’s proposal centred around the idea of decommissioning the existing pipe and installing a new pipe to converge with the functional part of the existing pipe. The works were scheduled to take three weeks to complete and the neighbouring properties had signed “Consent to Enter” declarations to allow the Council to carry out the works. The Respondent complained about past maintenance procedures on the existing pipes – namely, high pressure water cleaning – and objected to the proposed works.


The key issue for contention was whether the proposed works of the Council were capable of falling within the power vested in them by Section 59A(2) of the LGA 1993.


The Council argued that their proposed works should be characterised as works to “replace” its previous works, arguing that the provision should be read as a reference to the operational characteristics of the sewerage system, rather than the physical location of the works.


The Respondent opposed this submission, arguing that the proposed works could not constitute a replacement as the existing sewer pipe would remain on the property and the new one would be in a different location, further burdening the land.


Decision


Duggan J found that the Council’s proposed works were new works and did not “replace” the existing pipe, but rather install a second pipe in a different location on the Respondent’s property. It was found that, should the proposed works be completed, the Respondent would be burdened with two pipes in different locations on the property, which is a significant inconvenience to the use of the land. 


As a matter of statutory construction, Duggan J stated that section 59A should be construed in a manner causing the least burden to the property owner and their rights. Here, this meant that the proposal would be considered a new work rather than a replacement, and that is a significant burden to the land. 


Council’s summons was dismissed, and they were unable to carry out the proposed works.


Consideration


This case establishes that although the power vested in Councils regarding maintenance of the works under subsection (2) of s59A is broad, there are limitations to the works that Council can undertake on private land. These limitations are designed to protect the vested property rights of the landowner and minimise the disruption of the maintenance and installation of the water supply, sewerage and stormwater systems.


Regarding the scope and extent of the section, this judgment highlights that it does not bestow upon Councils the power to install new works at will, but rather allows them the right to maintain the works that they own, even on private lands. Furthermore, this judgment indicates that the section is to be read in a manner which ensures the least possible interference with the property rights of the landowner, which limits the power that Council has to undertake the works. 


Key Takeaways


  • Section 59A of LGA 1993 does not create a power to install new infrastructure, but rather to ensure continued ownership and use by Council.
  • The section is to be construed in a manner that causes the least interference with vested property rights.
  • The terms of s 59A are not directed to the operational purposes of the works but rather the physical infrastructure once constructed for that operational purpose (see [42]).
  • As such, the section does not have as broad application as its wording would imply, and the Courts will take into consideration to effect on the use and enjoyment of the land and the landowners’ vested property rights.
  • The section does not confer ‘unconstrained rights,’ and, hence, the scope and extent can be limited.


Disclaimer

The contents of this article are a general guide and intended for educational purposes only. Determination of the types of issues discussed in this article is complex and often varies from case to case and involves an understanding of matters of fact and degree. Opinions on those matters can vary and be matters on which reasonable minds may differ. 


DO NOT RELY ON THIS ARTICLE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE.


Require further assistance? please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 9145 0900 or make an enquiry below.

A man in a suit is sitting on the steps of a building.

Servicing all of NSW, Whiteacre provides expert property law and planning and environment law advice and assistance.

Planning Law Advice

Land and Environment Court Appeals

Voluntary Planning Agreements and Contributions

Development Control Orders and Enforcement

Property Development Advice and Due Diligence

Title Structuring

Easements and Covenants

Strata and Community Title legislation

Book an initial consultation through our website with our planning law solicitor. Whether it's about planning and environment law or property law, you can approach us and discuss your matter to make sure we are a good fit for your requirements.

BOOK ONLINE
By Mark Evans May 4, 2025
This article provides a general overview of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, followed by a discussion of the tax implications of establishing a biodiversity stewardship site for Councils. What is the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (the Scheme ) is a market-based scheme that is administered by the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ( Department ) and aims to help address the loss of biodiversity and threatened species in NSW. It seeks to do so by creating incentives for landowners to improve or maintain biodiversity values as a means of offsetting impacts on other areas. The Scheme is established by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ( BC Act ) . How the Scheme works Councils can establish a ‘biodiversity stewardship site’ ( Stewardship Site ) on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement ( Stewardship Agreement ) with the Department: s 6.17 BC Act. In doing so, Councils commit themselves to enhancing and protecting biodiversity values on the Stewardship Site. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits which are created by the Department. The amount of biodiversity credits are calculated by the Council’s accredited ecologist (and verified by the Department) in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Biodiversity Assessment Method ( BAM ): s 6.7 BC Act. Biodiversity credits are created in respect of existing biodiversity values on the land and management actions to be carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. A biodiversity credit remains in force unless it is cancelled or retired: s 6.18 BC Act. The market value of the biodiversity credits is calculated by the Department at the time of creation. Sale and transfer of biodiversity credits Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer (or in parcels to a number of buyers) seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. The sale price of the biodiversity credits is determined by agreement between the Council and the buyer. Alternatively, biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 : s 7.15 BC Act. The Council may transfer biodiversity credits to a buyer or third party: s 6.19 BC Act. The transfer is made through an application to the Department by the parties to the transfer. The transfer is not effective until the transfer is authorised by the Department and registered in the register of biodiversity credits: s 6.20 BC Act. On the registration of the first transfer of the biodiversity credits, the Total Fund Deposit ( TFD ) specified in the Stewardship Agreement (or a proportion, if not all the credits are transferred) is required to be paid by the buyer of the biodiversity credits into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund (the Fund ): s 6.21 BC Act. The TFD is a fixed amount of money used to cover the long-term management costs of a Stewardship Site. It is a calculated value representing the present value of future payments needed to fund the agreed management actions. Contracts for the sale of biodiversity credits between the Council and purchasers will state that the credit owner is entitled to the full amount of the agreed sale price of the biodiversity credits, including the TFD, and that the credit owner will have the obligation to pay the TFD. Once the credits have been ‘used’ to offset negative biodiversity impacts and to permanently secure the conservation of biodiversity, they are ‘retired’ such that they can no longer be used for any other purpose: s 6.27 BC Act. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement: s 6.34 BC Act. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund can help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity conservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement. Capital Gains The ATO deems that a capital gains event (type D4) occurs on entry into a Stewardship Agreement: s 104-47(1) ITAA. The landowner makes a capital gain if the “capital proceeds” are more than that part of the “cost base” of the land that is apportioned to the covenant. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on entry into Stewardship Agreement When the Department and the Council enter into a Stewardship Agreement, the Council makes a taxable supply by entering into the agreement in return for the biodiversity credits issued by the Department and the Department makes a taxable supply of biodiversity credits in return for the Council entering into the agreement. These are non-monetary transactions. The Department and the Council (if both are registered for GST): are required to pay GST in respect of their supply, calculated on the estimated value of the credits; and can claim an input tax credit (ITC) in respect of the tax invoice received from the other party. If a Council is registered for GST, the Department will issue a Department GST invoice and Recipient Created Tax Invoice (RCTI) on behalf of the Council when the Department sends the registered BSA to the Council. The Department will use the estimated market value of the biodiversity credits for the purposes of these invoices. As the GST payable and the input tax credit that can be claimed are the same amount, the net GST position for both the Council and Department is zero. This means that these invoices do not need to be paid. However, both the Department and the Council are required to account for the GST payment and the input tax credit in their business activity statements (BAS). Capital gains from sale or transfer of credits A CGT event (type A1) occurs upon the sale of biodiversity credits. The Council may make a capital gain or loss depending on the capital proceeds and cost base of the credits: s 104-10(4) of the ITAA. A biodiversity credit constitutes a CGT asset: s 108-5 of the ITAA. CGT event (type A1) happens when the Council disposes of biodiversity credits: s 104-10 of the ITAA. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on sale of biodiversity credits For the purposes of GST, the sale of credits is a taxable supply of goods. This means that the biodiversity credit price should include GST that the Council then needs to pay to the ATO. Receipt of annual payments from the Biobanking Trust Fund Annual payments from the Fund made by the Department to the Council are a contractual payment for the performance of services and should be ordinary income and assessable for income tax purposes. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA . GST on annual payments The supply of stewardship services by the Council to the Department in return for payment of the annual payment should be a taxable supply. The Department will issue a recipient created tax invoice (RCTI) and include an amount for GST when making the annual stewardship payments for management actions the Council delivers. Conclusion Councils can establish biodiversity stewardship sites on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements with the Secretary of the Department. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. Biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out by Council. Some of the proceeds of the sale of biodiversity credits must be paid into the Fund to cover ongoing management actions and costs. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund could help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity preservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement.
Navigating Land and Environment Court
By Mark Evans March 20, 2025
Expert Legal Insights on Development Approvals and Appeals with Planning Lawyer Mark Evans
Physical Commencement of Development Consents
By Mark Evans February 27, 2025
Development consents granted after 15 May 2020 face stricter requirements to determine whether they are substantially commenced and thus remain valid. This article reviews recent case law in New South Wales (NSW) and outlines the types of work that can qualify as physical commencement.
shared driveways
By Mark Evans February 13, 2025
Shared driveways A common example of a shared driveway is where a right of carriageway passes through one neighbours’ (burdened) land into the other neighbour’s (benefited) land.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 27, 2024
In Part 1, we considered tiny homes and caravans on private land. That article can be accessed here Part 1 . In Part 2, we turn our attention to tiny homes and manufactured homes.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 22, 2024
In this article we explore tiny homes, caravans, and manufactured homes.
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson November 14, 2024
The general rule is that a development application ( DA ) is to be determined based on the law applicable at the time of determination of the DA, not at the time of lodgement: Sofi v Wollondilly Shire Council (1975) 31 LGERA 416.
When subdivision may not be considered development carried out on land
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 31, 2024
Subdivision, alone, may not constitute development “on land” and thus trigger development restrictions. 
Biodiversity Credits
By Mark Evans October 18, 2024
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a summary of workshops and stakeholders’ submissions concerning the functioning of the NSW Biodiversity Credits Market.
Development
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 10, 2024
It is now well established that a development consent cannot be obtained to authorise works that have already been carried out. The classic example is a building that has been built without development consent.
More Posts