# 1.4 Review Development Approvals/Consents

![The fourth of eight steps in the Land and Development Rights Audit phase. ](https://4233489709-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FyYnvwygMcflD48NtYxIw%2Fuploads%2F6KcH9nTdXpcgEa2zVB1H%2Fland%20and%20dev%20rights%20audit%20step_4.png?alt=media\&token=3b80c2d1-f045-46a3-90ba-a33f568a7672)

All existing development approvals and/or consents need to be reviewed in the context of the outcome of the [Land Audit](https://cahf.gitbook.io/primary-transfer-toolkit/land-legal-toolkit/land-and-planning-regularisation-toolkit/step-1-land-and-development-rights-audit/1.2-land-legal-constraints) undertaken thus far. 

### What then are the most common issues which then prohibit the opening of a Township Register? 

{% hint style="info" %}
This includes problems, omissions, impediments that so often render the development approvals and/or consents flawed
{% endhint %}

* The conditions of approval cannot be effected as these conditions do not accord with the underlying property(s) title deed conditions.
* The conditions of approval do not adequately address the constraints other than title deed conditions of the underlying property(s). 
* The are conflicting conditions of approval arising from the SPLUMA consent.
* The Approval/Consent issued do not accurately reflect/record the legal parameter(s) of the properties contained and/or affected by the POF. 
* The Conditions of Approval/Consents do not correctly record the title deed conditions that must be registered with the Certificate of Consolidated Title defining the **POF**. 
* Municipal Departments are not willing to sign off on existing/historical Planning Conditions due to issues such as encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas etc. (Ie: the actual position on the ground and the position provided for in historical planning conditions differ materially and can no longer be achieved).