Granny Flats and Section 94 Contributions Explained

I apologize if this has already been covered in this long thread but I was wondering how the S94 would apply to some councils in the instance that S94 applies if the second dwelling is income generating and not used by family members.

If for instance the second dwelling was used by family members for a period of time (say 2 years) but later they moved on to a new house would the s94 still be enforced and if so how would they monitor/enforce it?

Thanks
 
Are there instances where s94 is not payable if the granny flat is not being rented out? I don't recall seeing such a clause.
 
I'm not sure what the case is if it's left vacant but some councils make up the rules as they see fit.

I'm curious to know what would happen if your relatives moved out after several years of living in the new dwelling or they happened to pass. How do they expect people to pay a fee related to a development several years after it's been completed?

To me it seems like one of the silly laws that difficult to enforce and only there as a deterrent.

Hi just wanted to add to the list of councils.

Spoke to Botany Council a young planner who didn't give me her name but was helpful. There is no section 94 contribution for a granny flat if it is for use by a family member. However if it is being build to be rented out then it is $20k. She made it sound as if this is something that is going to be standard across the state (?) being put in legislation soon, etc.

cheers Brad
 
I apologize if this has already been covered in this long thread but I was wondering how the S94 would apply to some councils in the instance that S94 applies if the second dwelling is income generating and not used by family members.

If for instance the second dwelling was used by family members for a period of time (say 2 years) but later they moved on to a new house would the s94 still be enforced and if so how would they monitor/enforce it?

Thanks

S.94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (The Act) is a complex beastie.

Basically, what it does is permits councils to include as a condition of development consent the dedication of land or payment of money, or both in some instances, for any development that is likely to require council to provide, or increase demand upon, services in the area.

But, council has to have adopted a contributions plans before they levy a contribution. A contributions plan identifies public services and amenities to meet the demand of development.

This is where the inconsistency comes in. Every council has a different plan, and a different requirement of works to be carried out.

The argument is that a granny flat is a dwelling and can increase the potential density of households on the land - just as if a dual occupancy was to be constructed on the land. You might have 4 people in the main house and 2 people in the granny flat, just as you might only have one person in one dwelling of a dual occupancy and only one in the other dwelling of a dual occupancy.

No consideration is given with the legal framework of The Act for who will inhabit the development. And nor should there be. Otherwise every developer would claim a battleaxe subdivision was for their elderly parents who were already living with them etc etc.

In terms of contributions and when they are payable, the following is a good general guide:
For subdivision, the fees need to be paid prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.
For DAs involving building work, payment is required prior to the release of the first Construction Certificate (so you have to pay before you can play)
For development applications where no Construction Certificate or Subdivision Certificate is required, payment is required prior to the release of the development consent or prior to issue of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

Hope that helps.
 
No consideration is given with the legal framework of The Act for who will inhabit the development. And nor should there be. Otherwise every developer would claim a battle-axe subdivision was for their elderly parents who were already living with them etc. etc.

In 2009-2010 Blacktown and some other Council's did indeed have a S94 Contribution policy which was revoked if you provided a letter stating that the dwelling will be occupied by a relative.

I know this because I drafted the letters which waived those fees!

Of course, Council's have since rubbed their little hands together and not only imposed fees on granny flats (where they didn't before) but increased them, and substantially so.

Imposing a huge ($10,000) S94 contribution on a tiny 2-bedroom addition is highway robbery in my humble opinion. If you extend your main dwelling and add five bedrooms, the fee is $0, so why should 2 or 3 bedrooms create such huge load on the system.

I've named and shamed a few here + in my blog but as Ideo says, they change their policies like the bloody weather!:
Granny Flats Prices & Section 94 Contributions. Highway Robbery?
http://www.grannyflatapprovals.com.au/granny-flats-section-94-contributions
 
Hi James,

Yea, looks like Fairfield City Council are now charging around $3,000 for Section-94 Contributions on Granny Flats.

Certainly not the highest fee but another one bites the dust, hey?
 
Just got some fees emailed to me for a Blacktown Granny Flat today:

Section 94 Contribution Fee = $9200.00 which must be paid prior to start of works & will be increased again after 21/10/14

Council Refundable Bond = $830.00 - must be paid prior to start of works

Council Road Damage Inspection & Administration Fee = $143.00 - must be paid prior to start of works


Unbelievable.
 
my lucky star was initially asked to pay $4984 this year till april,

then it got increased to $5006.00 and paid on last day before due/indexation on 22 July...

just imagining how much that saved me.

robbery from councils....anyhow this can be complained that all for affordable housing.

somer_hut
 
Yea so I rang Blacktown Council today and spoke to their 'Section 94 Contributions Officer' in order to get more clarity for my clients.

They now charge these fees based on the suburb your property is in (within the Blacktown LGA). Some suburbs are around $5,000 but South Blacktown is the most expensive portion with fees starting around $9,000. There will be a CPI increase on 21st October 2014.

This^^ from a Council that 18 months ago charged $0

Brazen
 
Serge, do you know why there is such a difference given its all part of the same council?

Hi nek,

That's a fair question with only an unfair answer to follow. Some Council's (Blacktown, Fairfield, Hornsby, Lake Macquarie and a few other regional Councils) break their municipality into regions. Their 'reasoning' is generally that some areas have a higher burden on infrastructure hence higher fees to cover this.

I call foul on this reasoning since:
1. You can extend your main dwelling to add 1, 2 or more bedrooms and pay $0 (zero) Section-94 Developer Contribution Fees. How can placing these bedrooms a few yards away suddenly change the load on roads/parks/libraries? Remember that Sewer, Water, Power etc are not owned nor operated by Council. Utilities are not owned by Council. These are fees which make no sense.

2. Four years ago, when Planning NSW began allowing granny flats (through private certification), no Councils imposed S94 Contributions (least of all Blacktown). As (some) Councils saw these Privately Certified Approvals roll in, they started rubbing their hands together and imposed higher and higher (and higher!) fees.

Money grab. Yes, I'm upset. Greed often does that to me.

Brazen.
 
Thanks for digging this a bit further for me Serge.
I rang to pay the fees just now anyway - let's just get it over and done with and start the build. There's no one able to take payment over the phone so they'll call me back today with their EFPOTS machine person. :\
 
Hey Brazen..have the increasing (and decreasing) s94 fees made a notable difference to how many you have been doing in those suburbs?
 
Hey Brazen..have the increasing (and decreasing) s94 fees made a notable difference to how many you have been doing in those suburbs?

Good question Simon.
Honestly, I don't know for sure but I certainly get to hear the cries of thousands :(
These fees just don't make any sense when the entire purpose of 'The Affordable Rental Housing' legislation is to make it affordable to use your yard to house small families or sole occupants ,let alone your own kids or aging parents.

It's just a bs fee. A kick at families trying to make a go of it in an already overtaxed state.

You can quote me on that^^

Serge Panayi.
 
Back
Top