Non approved granny flat.

Could be the brown paper bag but most likely refers to the S94 contributions as set out in the council budget.

 

@geoffw and @Scott thanks for the sharing.
I never knew about it before, that sounds like a "formal bribery" to smoothen the process for the GF approval.

 

You're on the money there, that's exactly how I see it.

 

It pays for the services that you expect to be there as a resident. Linky

As for bribery (ICAC looks after that ).

 

This is completely baseless.

If you build a new dwelling behind your house, then that brings more people to the area, puts more pressure on the drainage system, requires the provision of more public open space (since you have removed some of the private open space through your development).

The money for this has to come from somewhere and (quite correctly) it is derived from the person who benefits from the development.

 

Then what are rates for?

 

I agree with the purpose of these contributions, but have never seen any extra services, or extra public open space, as a result of these contributions - so where does it really go to - just general revenue for the council?

 

Which council?

 

It seems like you are describing the normal construction approval process - to ensure the NCC code is met - not the contribution process (which is not to do with adhering to building codes but is a way of ensuring that the council can respond to the extra demand for public open space etc...).

 

I don’t want my rates to be used to subsidise your profit because you added another dwelling...

 

Read the link I posted. That'll give you an idea of how one council assigns the funds.

 

I think where there is unfairness in the system re contributions for Granny Flats, it comes due to that fact that some councils charge the max ($20k from memory) and others charge $10k, or $5k or nothing! So if your council charges $20k for contributions and the adjoining council charges nothing...........there may be the perception of gouging/cream/nefarious intent

 

The services that you don't require or use - street cleansing, stormwater drainage, roads, park maintenance, libraries, community halls, scouts halls, skate parks, carparks, street trees, planning, building approvals, court cases defending your rights as residents, support of charitable works (eg meals on wheels), baby elf centres, seniors centres, youth facilities, government enterprises (nursing homes, child care centres, water supply/drainage), subsidies, regulatory functions (noise, parking, waste, construction etc), trustee for deceased estates where there are no traceable heirs, the wearing of funny garbs, drafting & enforcement of ridiculous regulations, fencing of public land, administration of the Local Government Act, all dealings with community and operational land, provision of passive and active recreation facilities, bike lanes, footpaths and a few other things.

 

Or maybe the land identified for future purchases of ‘pocket parks’ etc is just really expensive or hard to find in one Council and not so much in another! Or perhaps the councils with no contribution system (which ones are those exactly?) are rubbish councils not preparing properly for the future!

For example, I’ve lived in a couple of areas in Melbourne where there is very little public open space.

To secure land for future residents to walk their dogs, let kids play outdoors etc, these councils have to buy house blocks at market value as they come up for sale.

At several million dollars each, plus landscaping costs afterwards, it’s an expensive excercise.

But it’s really necessary to provide these parks etc to stop these areas losing the livability that attracts residents in the first place.

I have no problem at all with developers contributing to these future costs as the need is directly related to developer actions.

 

the owner pays the rates, section 94 is in the creation of a new lot subdivision, that new lot pays rates contribute towards its burden on council infrastructure.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic in this comment or not? Rates pay for roads and amenities of all residents do they not?
So if you create another lot you then start paying rates to accommodate the burden that that lot adds to the infrastructure?

S94 seems like a stamp duty in everything but name.

I'll look into the link you provided more though.

 

The only thing that I’m a little bit concerned about in that list is the ‘baby elf centres’.

The other big spending in my local council is on large capital projects such as upgrading sports pavilions, surf life saving clubs, local netball courts etc. I don’t use any of these, but they do provide excellent recreational opportunities for many adults and kids at reasonable or no cost.

 

This sounds like a failing of council in approving developments that don't allow for adequate amenity...

In the area you are refencing, what do the S94 contributions cost?

Seems we are seeing more and more large scale developments being approved with no thought to infrastructure, shopping, schools etc, or they get approved on the face of it, and never eventuate (speaking from experience around the Newcastle/Maitland area.)

 

Councils don’t have a huge choice - state governments require more intense development, councils have to choose where to put it (and hope they aren’t overuled by state government or VCAT or the equivalent in each state).

This forum often features members complaining about councils being too restrictive in limiting number of units on a block, building height etc. and trying to get hints on getting around neighbourhood character guidelines, getting rid of large trees (often illegally) etc. All of these decrease amenity.

Whenever a forum member complains that council has refused a permit because of local amenity etc, the chorus of posts is unfailingly along the lines of ‘outrageous’, ‘how dare stupid bureaucrats limit my development’ etc. etc.

 

I'm more referring to large subdivisions of xxx amount of homes etc.