Council

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER

Mike Day recommends six planning actions for councils, developers and planners to ensure regional township projects are embraced by the community:

1. Councils could develop building codes and guidelines which reflect and respect their distinctive local settings. Mike says developers and planners should respect a town’s character by integrating complementary developments into the existing urban pattern rather than introducing conventional suburban subdivision patterns and built form.

2. Engage and consult early with the community. Local residents are inevitably ‘local experts’ that have travelled extensively. When they are involved early in the planning process they can provide feedback and advise the changes they want to see to create a town they are proud of and will love to continue calling home. Councils and planners can get meaningful input from the community through engaging with residents, planning design forums where the community and stakeholders explore solutions and design ideas through interactive workshops, and social media. By capturing residents’ feedback, designers and planners can ensure the community’s views are reflected in the design and development of any future projects.

3. Create jobs for the local community. Creation of mixed-use neighbourhoods or business hubs and Government projects will attract business and work opportunities for local residents. In Mike’s extensive experience on regional projects, he has found residents are very receptive to development plans that provide local jobs, particularly for the youth of a community, which invariably assists in addressing many social issues.

4. Reinforce and expand existing walkable neighbourhoods. Compact, mixed-use, walkable neighbourhoods provide opportunities for social connection and a reduced reliance on cars. With remote working becoming more popular, living in closer proximity to local amenities can reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness, and will also foster a stronger community and sense of belonging, particularly among new residents moving from major cities.

5. Provide housing diversity. Communities that combine single dwelling homes, townhouses, apartments, and specialised housing such as seniors housing integrated with the township, enables ageing in place and attracts residents of all ages and incomes. Regional communities are receptive to diverse housing options if they maintain the essence and unique character of their townships.

6. Maintain community engagement in perpetuity. Mike says councils, planners and developers must get feedback from the community at all stages of planning and development. Interactive mapping and community forums provide locals with the opportunity to voice their opinions and achieve built form outcomes they feel meet local needs. Mike highlights the importance of getting a true cross-section of the community, not just the vocal minority, through expressions of interest for community involvement. Ongoing community input on regional projects will ensure the critical attributes of the town is retained.

Mike Day is a partner at award-winning Australian urban planning and design practice Hatch RobertsDay
</body></html>

Mike Day recommends six planning actions for councils, developers and planners to ensure regional township projects are embraced by the community

Planners must avoid ‘suburbanisation’ of regional towns, Community is Key: Mike Day

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Urban Taskforce today welcomed the completion of the NSW Productivity Commission’s final Report into Infrastructure Contributions and calls upon the Government to implement the recommendation as a matter urgency to drive economic activity and support our recovery from COVID-19.
The Productivity Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review over the past ten months. The report goes a long way to curb the poor practices which have evolved through the morass which is the NSW Planning System – and no time should be wasted before its recommendations are implemented. Government Departments and agencies have been extensively involved in the development of this Report. It’s time to get on with it.
Key outcomes in the report are: 
<ul>
<li>removing the disincentive for councils to accept development and growth by allowing for the local government rate peg to reflect population growth </li>
<li>ensuring charges can be properly factored into feasibility studies by requiring contributions plans be developed prior to rezoning ▪ introducing a direct land contribution obligation for landowners following rezoning to provide early and adequate funding for land</li>
<li>managing costs and complexity of section 7.11 local contributions plans by using benchmark costs and focusing the role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in reviewing plans</li>
<li>removing barriers to construction and improving project feasibility by deferring payment of local contributions to the occupation certificate stage</li>
<li>providing a simpler option for councils by increasing the maximum rate of section 7.12 fixed development consent levies to 3% in certain circumstances ▪ limiting the use of state and local planning agreements to direct delivery of works and supporting infrastructure for ‘out-of-sequence’ developments</li>
<li>addressing insufficient and ad hoc section 7.24 special infrastructure contributions (State Government infrastructure levies) through implementation of modest and simple broad-based regional charges</li>
<li>ensuring the beneficiaries of major transport investments contribute to the cost by implementing an additional state contribution for rezoned properties within station service catchments </li>
<li>taking pressure off household water bills by transitioning to cost reflective charges for water connections </li>
<li>making the system easier to navigate and comply with by providing and maintaining clear and rationalised guidance and comprehensive digital tools </li>
<li>being more transparent in reporting on how much money is collected and where it is spent.</li>
</ul>
The Report calls for the practice of “value capture” to be curtailed. Instead, planning agreements should be limited to the recovery of development costs that are over and above those that were anticipated to occur without the development taking place.
The practice of Councils seeking to tax new development to fund historical shortfalls in infrastructure investment must stop. To assist with this, the Report recommends that Council rates will now be linked to population growth in the first major change to the rate pegging system in decades.
Both Councils and the State Government will be required to be open and transparent on contributions they have collected and expenditure made. This should see an end to Council’s stashing infrastructure contributions into a safe and letting developers cop the blame for the lack of public amenity.
Importantly, the Report also acknowledges that affordable housing levies do not fit into a principles-based infrastructure contributions framework (see page 82). The Report clearly states that “the creation of a small quantity of “affordable housing”, may be at the cost of making other housing more expensive”. Taxing new home buyers to fund broad social goals is not efficient or fair. Government should fund affordable housing, or approve more housing thus driving prices down.
Councils will be encouraged to take advantage of the historic low interest rates and borrow to fund infrastructure rather than taking the lazy option of hitting new home-owners for the full cost of new, often unrelated infrastructure. Funding for bio-diversity will also be separately collected and funding for public open space will be required to have a direct nexus to the development.
Tom Forrest is the CEO at Urban Taskforce
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

NSW report into infrastructure funding released, time for action: Tom Forrest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Local governments are <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/Fact_sheet_supporting_businesses_0.pdf">not eligible for the JobKeeper Payment</a>, while major industries like construction are. Although the JobKeeper scheme has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-130-billion-jobkeeper-payment-what-the-experts-think-135043">broadly welcomed</a>, it is a mystery to business why Australia’s <a href="https://alga.asn.au/about-alga/">537 local councils</a>, which provide vital support for industries like construction, are not eligible. The failure to include local councils (and their wholly owned corporations) will undermine the economic and social impact these policies are meant to have.
This just doesn’t make sense to business or local government. Business and industry are depending on their partnerships with local government to get through the coronavirus crisis. But local councils, which <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6248.0.55.002">employ almost 200,000 people</a>, are already <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-07/local-gov-struggle-to-keep-staff-coronavirus-jobkeeper-payments/12125312">laying off thousands</a>.
Since construction directly <a href="http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/GainInsights/IndustryInformation/Construction">employs about 1.2 million people</a> (9.2% of the workforce) and indirectly many more, construction sites remain “exempt” as the government closes down all non-essential businesses to combat coronavirus. As Urban Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/clear-messages-from-government-construction-work-is-exempt-from-the-close-down-and-will-continue/">said</a>:
The building and construction industry will be a critical player in driving the economy through this crisis.
The federal government’s A$130 billion wage subsidy will cover businesses paying their employees A$1,500 a fortnight each for up to six months. Private businesses (including not-for-profits) will be <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/risk-management/emergency-management/coronavirus-information-and-support-for-business/jobkeeper-payment">eligible for the subsidy</a> if they meet the criteria.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323914/original/file-20200330-146705-7jrmw3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a>
Self-employed individuals will similarly be eligible to receive the <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/risk-management/emergency-management/coronavirus-information-and-support-for-business/jobkeeper-payment">JobKeeper Payment</a>.
Registered charities will be eligible if their turnover has fallen or will likely fall by 15% or more relative to a comparable period.
Non-government schools and private vocational education providers are also eligible.
What is happening to local government?
Local government misses out. Yet revenues have been hit extremely hard since local government raises only <a href="https://alga.asn.au/policy-centre/financial-sustainability/">3.6% of its income from taxation and 90% from its own sources</a>. These include rates and fees for services – many of which have had to close.
As a result, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/councils-bleed-revenue-as-costs-from-coronavirus-surge-20200401-p54g58">city council revenues have plummeted</a>. For example, Blacktown City Council in Sydney estimates its monthly revenue has fallen by about A$1.7 million. The council employs around 2,300 people who serve a population of 400,000 people.
Like all local governments, it is responsible for a wide range of critical local services that support industries like construction that are exempt from current shutdowns. Councils provide planning and development approvals, childcare centres (26 in Blacktown’s case), waste management, infrastructure (such as roads and footpaths, parks, sporting grounds and swimming pools), housing, community amenities, transport and communications, recreation and culture and general public services.
The majority of freight tasks, which are central to keeping the economy going, start and finish on local government-controlled roads. These roads add up to about <a href="https://cdn.alga.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/ALGA-2019-Local-Government-Roads-and-Transport-Agenda.pdf">662,000km in length</a> – about 75% of the total national road length. Of 251.2 billion kilometres travelled in 2016, <a href="https://cdn.alga.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/ALGA-2019-Local-Government-Roads-and-Transport-Agenda.pdf">142.1 billion occurred in capital cities</a>.
Local councils also fund and support major construction projects. To return to the example of Blacktown, the A$76.5 million <a href="https://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/About-Council/What-we-do/Transformational-Projects/Warrick-Lane-redevelopment">Warrick Lane development</a> is part of the city centre transformation, which will provide major economic and social benefits for the people of Blacktown.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DAifmbBs8NU?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
The Warrick Lane redevelopment is a major construction project that wouldn’t be happening if not for the city council.
Another Blacktown City project is the <a href="https://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/About-Council/What-we-do/Transformational-Projects/International-Centre-of-Training-Excellence">International Centre of Training Excellence</a>, a multisport high-performance education, sports medicine and accelerated recovery facility. It’s due to open in 2022.
Nationwide, local government owns and manages non-financial assets with an <a href="https://alga.asn.au/policy-centre/financial-sustainability/">estimated written-down value of A$408 billion</a> in 2015-16. Operational spending by councils totalled about A$35 billion in that year.
A partner of industry and business
Local government spending goes into providing industry support and services across the nation. If you take these services and supports away you undermine government efforts to stimulate industries like construction to get us through this crisis and recover from it.
You also introduce the risk that development approvals are granted without thorough assessments. That’s likely to lead to new problems down the line.
As the federal government says, keeping people in work and businesses open will lay the foundations for a stronger economic recovery once the coronavirus crisis passes. But local government support is key to this strategy. Most people would be concerned to know their local councils are not being supported in the same way as private businesses – some of which have accumulated millions in profits and are incorporated overseas.
The federal government rightly talks about partnership, collaboration and collective responsibility to get through this crisis. Local council activities are critical to the productivity, well-being and liveability of local communities and cumulatively to the nation at this time.
Disaster management experience and <a href="https://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/dmg/Pages/DM-Guideline.aspx">guidelines</a> tell us the response to any crisis must be bottom-up as well as top-down. This means local government’s role is crucial. How can this be achieved without a functioning local government supporting industry and communities to get through this pandemic?
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-loosemore-4690">Martin Loosemore</a>, Professor of Construction Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lack-of-help-for-local-councils-in-coronavirus-package-undercuts-industry-support-135700">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Lack of help for local councils in coronavirus package undercuts industry support

<html><body>
The NSW Government has announced it would fund the increase in the emergency services levy for NSW councils this financial year to meet the cost of new workers’ compensation for firefighters.
Acting Premier and Minister for Regional NSW John Barilaro and the Minister for Local Government Shelley Hancock said the State’s 128 councils would not have to pay the additional $13.6 million this financial year.
They said the NSW Government was doing this primarily to take the strain off of regional and rural areas badly affected by the drought.
Minister for Emergency Services David Elliott said firefighters risk their lives to keep the people of NSW safe every day and it’s important they receive the full support of the communities they serve.
“The new laws enable eligible firefighters diagnosed with one of 12 cancers to automatically be presumed to have acquired that cancer because of their firefighting work,” Mr Elliott said.
“These changes will ensure current and former firefighters – both volunteer and paid – who need care and support receive their entitlements immediately.”
Mrs Hancock said the Government will continue to support local councils to deliver for their local communities.
</body></html>

NSW Government to increase funding for council emergency services levy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Urban Taskforce has established ‘Council Watch’ that will transparently measure how critical councils are performing in relation to housing supply and the effective processing of planning applications.
Increasingly it is councils that are the regulators of the planning system that determine how long it takes to get approvals for major housing projects.
With the NSW Government moving away from amalgamating councils that would have created more efficient structures we believe we will need to monitor the performance of key metropolitan Councils in Sydney. The Urban Taskforce has therefore set up ‘Council Watch’ to actively monitor the most critical councils across Sydney.
We are doing this to protect consumers of new housing from excessive purchase prices of new homes that could be inflated by increased council levies and extended planning processes that increase holding costs that get passed on to the end purchaser.
High on our list will be council policies that may impact on the supply of new housing which the NSW Government says is a priority. With the state government lifting the cap on infrastructure levies, we believe bullish councils are likely to add up to $50,000 to the cost of a home. The growing trend to add levies to new housing to contribute a percentage as affordable homes back to the council will also increase the cost of new housing.
We have polled our members to identify the top 10 councils that have significant potential for large numbers of new homes and where planning policies will be critical to ensuring maximum numbers of new homes are approved and built.
The top 10 councils are:
1 Blacktown 
2 Camden 
3 Canterbury-Bankstown
4 The Hills
 5 Liverpool 
6 North Sydney
 7 Parramatta 
8 Penrith 
9 Ryde
 10 City of Sydney
The Urban Taskforce believes that transparency of decision making is very important and that this must include the logic behind actual policy decisions. Willoughby City Council, for instance developed a new city centre planning policy based on economic advice by private consultants.
Clearly the economic advice underpins all the planning decisions but despite submitting a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) request council has refused to make the economic reasoning for policies that are now stopping housing supply public.
We are concerned that many councils seem to base policies on economic reports but then refuse to make these reports public. Council Watch will be high-lighting where we believe these reports should be public.
A second group of councils that are important to watch are:
1 Bayside 
2 Campbelltown
 3 Cumberland
 4 Fairfield
 5 Northern Beaches
6 Willoughby 
7 Wollondilly
A third group that may drop out of the Council Watch process over time but will be included initially are:
1 Georges River
2 Inner West
 3 Ku-ring-gai 4 Lane Cove
5 Randwick
6 Woollahra
7 Hornsby 
8 Waverley
9 Sutherland
10 Burwood 
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Urban Taskforce establishes ‘Council Watch’ to help purchasers of new homes

<html><body>
Woollahra Council has made an eleventh hour attempt to avoid the proposed merger with Randwick and Waverley municipalities.
It had told the Local Government Boundaries Commission of inquiry it was best suited to instead merge with the City of Sydney should the State Government insist on forced amalgamations.
"While our communities are against being forced, if the government is hell bent then the majority of my councillors support a merger with city of sydney as opposed to this government proposal of a merger with Randwick and Waverley where there is no community of interest or synergy," the Woollahra mayor, Councillor Toni Zeltzer said yesterday.
"We are of the view that City of Sydney would protect what we value most, better than Randwick and Waverley.
"Like City of Sydney we are a habourside council not a coastal council.
"We value our trees and our heritage just like they do.
"We have legible, discernable precincts just like they do at Sydney.
"Waverley on the other hand has a highrise belt in Bondi Junction, Bondi Beach on the coast and everything in between is a homogenised mess with little legiblity or precinct character."
Another key reason was to see the emergence of a strong heritage Oxford Street shopping precinct in response to international shopping tourism trends.
It currently has both Sydney and Woollahra control.
Woollahra have previously refrained from nominating any merger preferences in its submissions to the State Government because the IPART report provided confirmation that the amalgamation of Woollahra Council with neighbouring councils would result in a significant net cost to the Woollahra community. 
"It makes better sense to leave Woollahra Council well alone,” the Woollahra mayor, Councillor Toni Zeltzer has long said.
But on 18 December the NSW Government released its plan for Woollahra Council to be merged with Randwick and Waverley Councils to form a new eastern suburbs council.
Passing on the Global City Council, the state government agreed the City of Sydney had sufficient scale and capacity to remain a stand-alone council without any boundary changes. 
The likely to be displaced Woollahra community have until 28 February to lodge submissions on the merger plan with the Government’s appointed delegate, Dr Robert Lang, as part of the public inquiry into the merger.
"The vast majority - some 80% - have told us loud and clear that they don’t want to merge with Randwick and Waverley," said Woollahra mayor, Councillor Toni Zeltzer.
Woollahra Council has waged a campaign to stay as a stand-alone council, while Randwick and Waverley have volunteered to merge.
The possibility that Woollahra ratepayers would pay up to $17 million more in annual rates under an amalgamation with Waverley and Randwick Councils due to high land values in Woollahra has been a key issue.
Woollahra’s average residential property value of $1.061 million is 1.7 times more than Waverley’s average of $620,000 and 2.2 times more than Randwick’s $477,000 average residential property value. 
It has volunteered to fund an assessment of the cost benefit of any merger with the City of Sydney.
The City of Sydney was excluded from amalgamations although an initial ILGRP report recommended an amalgamation of Botany Bay, Randwick, Sydney, Waverley and Woollahra councils.
The City was forcibly amalgamated with South Sydney in 2004, which mayor Clover Moore said was enormously disruptive.
Under the Act, Dr Lang has been delegated the function of examining and reviewing the Minister’s proposal into the amalgamation of Randwick City, Waverley and Woollahra Municipal councils, taking into consideration the views of the public and the factors outlined within the Local Government Act through verbal and written submissions. 
Under the Act, consideration of other merger suggestions are not within the scope of Dr Lang’s delegated responsibilities.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Woollahra seeks refuge within City of Sydney as mandatory mergers near

<html><body>
Following on from community engagement about the Plaza car park in Port Macquarie, the local council wrote to the NSW Minister for Lands seeking an opportunity to negotiate the sale of the Plaza Car Park site.
Port Macquarie-Hastings Council wrote to the NSW Minister for Lands seeking similar terms those given to Woolworths.
The NSW Government then opened an expressions of interest (EOI) process <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://pmhclistening.com.au/plaza-car-park-future-commercial-use/photos/12124" target="_blank">for the site</a> with a very tight deadline.
“It will be very difficult for any company other than Woolworths to meet the deadline for submissions, given the amount of information required for a professional, detailed development design,” said Mayor, Councillor Peter Besseling advised.
“This process has clearly been designed to “tick a box”, for the government to be seen to meet a commitment to the community. It is not designed to get the best possible development outcome for the foreshore and is a token effort at best.”
“When the previous Labor government rammed through mining decisions just prior to the last state election, there was outrage.
"Now this (Liberal) government is trying to do exactly the same thing with our public foreshore.”
“Council intends to put forward an expression of interest, to keep the foreshore in public hands and to make sure that the community wishes to see a pedestrian friendly, interactive, commercial space that caters for parking are met,” said Councillor Besseling.
It has been especially galling that the Plaza car park reserve is Crown Lands for which council is the current trust manager. 
In 2010 a Foreshore Master Plan was developed which included this site.
Following significant community engagement, a draft Plan of Management was sent to the Minister for approval and placed on public exhibition but was not adopted.
The plan was changed and again placed on public exhibition by the State Government in March 2012.
Community concern has been expressed that a supermarket development on the land may not be the best and highest use of this important site.
</body></html>

Woolworths wants Port Macquarie crown land car park

<html><body>
Brisbane, like other metropolitan cities in this first half of 2014, has had somewhat of a buying frenzy amongst both home buyers and investors.
Having recently procured a property there, I uncovered something rather alarming during my due diligence process.
It turns out that some councils within the metropolitan area of Brisbane have introduced different pricing for their council rates based on the type of buyer you are. If this sounds unfair, it is probably because it is. In fact, the story has recently <a href="/news/qld/31650-margaret-lomas-heads-campaign-fight-against-higher-council-charges-for-investors" target="_blank">gained momentum in Property Observer</a>, with industry expert Margaret Lomas adding her views to the matter.
The thinking behind this policy is that home owners are ‘doing it tough and need a helping hand’. There is an assumption by some Queensland councils – such as Mackay, Brisbane City, and Logan City – that investors can afford to pay higher council rates simply because they are investors.
I purchased a property on 5 May in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Zillmere</a> (Brisbane’s northern suburbs) and was advised that my dwelling and ownership/usage structure (as an investor, so non owner-occupier) placed me on a ‘Category #14’ pricing of 42.8 cents per unit. Had I been an owner-occupier, my rate for the same property would fall under ‘Category #1’ (incurring a rate of 30 cents per unit).
This is clearly discrimination based on the ‘assumed’ status that investors are more cash-flow rich than owner-occupiers. The rate structures are not means-tested so there is no factual base for this pricing, rather just an assumption.
<blockquote>
This discriminatory approach in some councils throughout Queensland is merely a price-gauging and revenue-raising strategy at the expense of those trying to secure their financial future. 
</blockquote>
It’s unfair because council rates are paid to ensure that services to the suburb area such as rubbish collection, council clean-ups, bushland and fire levies, library and park maintenance; are provided for all dwelling occupants living in the area. Regardless of the occupant residing there, all occupants are entitled to the same services provision.
The biggest mistake these councils have made in their assumption of investor wealth, is that investors are cashed up and aren’t also ‘doing it tough’.
If councils want to penalise those who scrape together their savings to try and provide a better future for themselves and their families via investment, is this not discrimination? 
Regardless of how small or seemingly inconsequential the rate difference is between the two ownership types, it is the principle of the matter that needs to be challenged. This is because this council initiative may set future a precedent that other property related service industries may enlist.
I’ve observed in my investment career instances where one council will form a new policy and other neighbouring councils will adopt a similar policy in the years ahead.
Imagine if you were an investor and needed to send a plumber out, yet the plumber advised you that their service rate to you would be higher because you are an investor. Or if strata management companies gave owner-occupiers a discount at the expense of a rate hike for those lot owners who happen to be investors.
What makes this more embarrassing for some of the councils involved, particularly Brisbane City Council (BCC), is that the owner-occupier rate is not discounted, meaning that the rate hike for investors is clearly a revenue raising strategy.
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Are councils neglecting the value that investors bring to their suburbs?
Investors actually bring revenue to an area when they buy and in some instances greater revenue than owner-occupiers. 
Why?
Think of the housing they provide for residents who aren’t yet able to afford their own ‘owned home’. Think of the job creation for the local community in terms of ongoing real estate agents managing and representing the property, bringing wage growth into that local business and council area.
Even when looking at the logical rationale behind this move; there simply isn’t one. Why? Because rates are currently structured to be paid per-household regardless of occupant volume residing in that household. If discrimination is to occur based on ownership status, why are these councils not also discriminating based on occupant volume?
Is occupant-volume a fairer way to price-structure council rates?
Think about what these rates cover. These are things that if rate pricing structure is to be introduced logically should be based on occupant volume of the property, not the type of occupant that resides there. 
For instance, a single person occupying a four bedroom house is likely to produce much less rubbish and stormwater drainage wastage each week, than say a family of five, occupying that same house.
The single occupant may only even put their bins out once every two to three weeks, yet the family of five may be putting an overflowing bin out, every single week. Surely this would be a better standard of measure to determine the rates that occupants pay.
This kind of ‘user-pays’ services approach is employed in several places around the world such as Singapore and ensures that services usage is minimised and costs kept down as much as possible, for all.
Is this pure discrimination and revenue-raising?
This discriminatory approach in some councils throughout Brisbane and greater Queensland is merely a price-gauging and revenue-raising strategy at the expense of those who are just trying to establish and secure their financial future. 
Oh and the other thing is this, specifically the Logan City Council (LCC) as well as Brisbane City Council (BCC) have formed these policies in recent times. Is it just coincidence that these two council areas (and their encompassing suburbs) have had the highest investor penetration in the last two years out of all of Brisbane metropolitan area and would stand to benefit most from an increased rate revenue from the investor community?
The trend could be on the rise with other city and municipal council areas in Brisbane and Queensland. So if you are either an owner of an investment property or you are thinking of buying one in this state, ensure you call the council of the area your property falls under during your due diligence phase.
How can investors stand up against this?
My recommendation as a due diligence point for any investor, in any Australian suburb, is to call the local council and find out what their rate policies and pricing structures are. If you feel you are being charged a higher rate unfairly, you should challenge them on this in writing. 
It is likely that the matter is not financially viable to pursue from a legal perspective; however, the more noise created about this strategy the more the spotlight is placed on councils to consider changing their pricing policies.
I personally will be challenging my higher-rate status with Brisbane City Council in light of this, purely out of principal.
</body></html>

cmcevoy-Go82SmsJA9

Variable council rates for investors is blatant revenue raising and discrimination

<html><body>
Following an investor complaint about Brisbane City Council’s differential rating system, Property Observer looks at the other Queensland councils that charge higher rates for non-owner occupied properties.

Last week, television host and Destiny Financial Solutions director Margaret Lomas <a href="/news/qld/31650-margaret-lomas-heads-campaign-fight-against-higher-council-charges-for-investors" target="_blank">launched a public campaign against the practice</a> on social media, urging investors to “band together to force these money- grubbing councils to stop targeting property investors”.

<a href="https://twitter.com/MargaretLomasAU" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="/images/2014/05/27/lomas-tweet-may-27.jpg"></a>

In Brisbane City Council, single residential properties are largely categorised as either “Residential – Owner Occupied” or “Residential – Non-owner occupied or mixed use”.

Owner occupied residences are described as: “residential dwelling houses and dwelling units where the sole use is as the principal place of residence of the owner/s. In this instance, eligible ownership is limited to individuals only and does not include premises owned or partially owned by a company, trust, organisation or any entity other than an individual. This is regardless of whether the premises are occupied by a shareholder or even the sole shareholder of that company, trust, organisation or entity.”

That rules out rental properties, holiday homes and anything that’s owned under your company’s name. These properties attract a rate of 0.3064 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $503.40.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=90087]

Category 7 or “Residential – Non-owner occupied or mixed use” properties are defined as “predominantly residential premises" where:

"(a)      the premises is not the principal place of residence of at least one person who constitutes the owner of the property; and/or "(b)      the owner or occupier conducts non-residential activities upon the property not in excess of [certain limitations that would see it defined as a commercial property]." 
These properties attract a rate of 0.3904 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $628.72 in Brisbane.

While Lomas has been tagging her posts on the topic with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/equalratesforpropertyinvestors?src=hash" target="_blank">#equalratesforpropertyinvestors</a>, it is not just investors who see higher rates than owner occupiers. If you own a house in Noosa that you visit four times a year, you will be paying a higher rate than an owner occupier, even though you don’t generate income from your holiday home.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94758]

A pensioner now living in a retirement community, but still holding on to her old house – perhaps to allow relatives to stay in it, or because she’s waiting for the right time to sell – will pay higher rates in Brisbane than an owner occupier.

There is no evidence to suggest that non-owner occupied properties present a greater burden on the council than owner occupied homes. In fact, when investor Andrew Hancock enquired about the rates to the Brisbane City Council, they offered the following explanation:

“This is done to ensure that properties that are the principle place of residence of their owners do not pay as much as those which are income producing. Income producing properties also have the advantage of being able to offset such expenses against taxation. Council’s principal motivation is to ensure, through its differential rating system, that the owner-occupied, single unit dwelling sector of the community contribute to a level that is affordable and value for money.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29167]

The following Queensland councils charge higher rates for non-owner occupied homes than owner occupied homes:

<ul>
<li>Brisbane City Council </li>
	<li>Central Highlands Council</li>
	<li>Fraser Coast Regional Council</li>
	<li>Gold Coast City Council</li>
	<li>Ipswich City Council</li>
	<li>Logan City Council</li>
	<li>Moreton Bay Regional Council</li>
	<li>Mackay City Council</li>
	<li>Mount Isa City Council</li>
	<li>Redland City Council</li>
	<li>Noosa Shire Council</li>
	<li>Rockhampton Regional Council</li>
	<li>Scenic Rim Regional Council</li>
	<li>Somerset Regional Council</li>
	<li>Sunshine Coast Regional Council</li>
	<li>Townsville City Council</li>
	<li>Whitsunday Regional Council </li>
</ul>
So far, Property Observer does not know of any councils outside of Queensland who charge different rates for owner occupiers and residential investors. 
Earlier this year, a judge in the Supreme Court <a href="/expert-insights/finance/30828-mackay-investors-win-as-supreme-court-judge-refuses-extra-council-rates-for-rental-owners" target="_blank">ruled against the Mackay City Council’s decision to charge higher rates</a> for non-owner occupied properties in a civil suit launched by investors Ayril Paton and Peter Crossan. Judge Duncan McMeekin said, “To justify the categorisation the Council impermissibly took into account characteristics personal to the owners of the land and failed to restrict itself to characteristics of the subject land itself. It is simply a misuse of language to claim that the owner’s decision to reside on land, or not, is in some way a characteristic of the land.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=27364]

Mackay City Council is reportedly appealing the decision.

Do you know any other councils that charge higher rates to non-owner occupied properties? Let us know in the comments below.

Update: As of yet, there is no sign that the councils will be required to refund rates to investors. This article mistakenly included South Burnett in the list of councils that charged different rates for investors. South Burnett does not currently charge a different rate for non-owner-occupied properties and owner-occupied properties. The article has been amended.

<h2>Properties you may be interested in:</h2>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=27638]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29171]
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

The Queensland councils charging higher rates for investors

<html><body>
The Victorian Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has made a move to ensure that private land owners on beaches covered by Public Conservation and Resource zones will only be able to go ahead with the agreement of the state government.
Before this, there was apparently a loophole allowing private land owners the ability to build permanent structures ‘as of right’. This could be anything from a deck, verandah or shade structure to a fence, sign or significant outdoor furniture.
Now, however, these zones will be kept from private development under amendment VC115.
“The Victorian Coalition government will not allow public accessed beaches to be built  on, where the land is technically held in private ownership,” Guy said in a recent statement.
They are currently further looking at legislative options regarding clarifying title boundaries around Port Phillip Bay.
No use or development will be able to go ahead on the land without a planning permit from now on. To obtain this, an owner must put in an application, which will then look to seek consent from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. A local planning authority will assess the applications. This is likely to be the local council for many.
“With this change, any permit application to use or develop land within this zone will require consent. This is wide-ranging and includes fences, signs, outdoor furniture, shade sails, flag-poles, sheds, pergolas, verandahs and decks. Until today’s reforms, building these structures on private land in this zone did not require a planning permit.”
Guy expressed his belief that this was an appropriate response, with the government currently working on the process of defining boundaries in areas with a high water mark.
“This change to the PCR zone will ensure proper management of beaches. It will prevent inappropriate development and construction from occurring. Beaches will remain accessible for everyone in this state – as they should be.”
</body></html>

Council

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Council

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News