Brisbane - QUU Infrastructure charges on 2 lot to 2 title "splitter" block

W

WilliamB

Hi there,

We have recently applied for connections for water and sewer for a two lot into two title "splitter" project in Brisbane City Council region. The water is a "standard" QUU connection, and the sewer is being handled through our civil engineer as it requires a small relocation of the sewer pipe on our block. Nothing out of the ordinary in my experience.

Our CE has just forwarded us some "levied charges" he received from QUU in relation to our new connection, totalling almost 15k.

We have done quite a few of these projects over the past 2 years, and went through this process as recently as November 2014, and we have not (nor had two quite experienced/reputable town planners we spoke to) come across these charges before.

It's a big surprise to us and I'm really hoping this has come through to us in error.

Has anyone in brissy come across this before?

Thanks in advance,
 
Hi William

When you received your development approval from Council (for the 2 into 2 boundary realignment), did you receive an Infrastructure Charges Notice from Council (and then another a notice a few weeks later from QUU)?

Infrastructure Charges are levied based on the relevant Brisbane Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution. As of June 30, 2014, Council have changed the wording relating to credits as follows:

(3) The demand credit for previous development is to be worked out as the greater of the following:
(a) if the premises is subject to an existing use which is lawful and already taking place on the premises (existing lawful use) that places demand upon the local government trunk infrastructure networks, the demand generated for the existing lawful use using the applicable demand units for the use;
(b) if the premises is subject to a previous use which was lawful at the time it was carried out and is no longer taking place on the premises (previous lawful use) that placed demand upon the local government trunk infrastructure networks, the demand generated for the previous lawful use using the applicable demand units for the use;
(c) if paragraph (a) and (b) do not apply, then the demand generated for each existing lot of the premises.
Editor's note?See section 636(2) (Limitation of levied charge) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

The effect of this is essentially to only allow a credit for the existing house on the site (even though the house may be on 2 lots) and should receive credit for 2 lots.

We have received town planning approval for a couple of applications recently where Council tried to charge the client an additional $27k as they only applied credit for the existing house on the site (even though the site already had 2 lots and could potentially site 2 houses as of right)

The key to this is in the Editor's note i.e. s636(2) of the SPA:

(2) In working out additional demand, the demand on trunk infrastructure generated by the following must not be included?
(a) an existing use on the premises if the use is lawful and already taking place on the premises;
(b) a previous use that is no longer taking place on the premises if the use was lawful at the time it was carried out;
(c) other development on the premises if the development may be lawfully carried out without the need for a further development permit.

Assuming that the existing 2 lots that you had on your site could be developed individually without town planning approval (i.e. demolishing the house and building 2 x new houses), you should not have to pay any additional infrastructure contributions. You should definitely argue this with QUU.

Cheer
Liam
 
Update:

We have been in discussion with BCC about this issue for a number of recent projects where Council have only given a discount for the existing house (and not the # of existing lots). This is the latest correspondence that we have received today from Council, which was apparently passed down from the Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, BCC on 9 February, 2015:

As you are likely aware, the infrastructure charges framework changed as a result of the enactment of the Sustainable Planning, Infrastructure charges and Other Legislation Amendment Act of 2014 (SPICOLAA). As part of the changes, the Government made the recognition of existing land-uses on a site, mandatory. Prior to this, Council?s charges framework recognised a `discount? to recognise existing uses on a site in the calculation of an infrastructure charge, but it did so voluntarily; i.e. there was no statutory requirement to do so.

With the changes in July 2014, the new legislation's mandated 'discount' approach was slightly different to the one taken by Council prior to that date. After SPICOLAA, s636 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 required councils to apply a charge only to additional demand. To ensure compliance, the BCC?s Adopted Charges Resolution (4) adopted in July 2014 had to adapt to the new system. The relevant change can be summarised as follows:

? Pre-2014: AICRs 1, 2 &3 set out a charge minus Council?s `discount?. The discount was calculated under a method devised by BCC (in the absence of guidance from State), whereby the uses already existing on the site were subtracted from the gross charge for the new use using the same charge rates. (e.g if there was one existing lot, one lot was credited at the same rate as one additional lot was charged at).

? Post-2014: AICR4 sets out a charge according to the new legislation. The amended SPA now allows Council to only charge for the additional gfa or dwellings above the existing or previous gfa or dwellings on the site.

The new approach under s636 of the amended SPA means that we can no-longer calculate the total gross charge and reduce it by the existing uses; we must set the total charge according to only the additional gfa or dwellings. The difference is subtle and won?t affect most applicants however, it becomes apparent when people used to obtain a charge minus a ?discount? for an existing lot or lots, but instead now get a net charge for additional gfa or dwellings. It is most pronounced where the application involves the removal of an existing house straddling two lots. Instead of getting a ?discount? for two lots ($27k x 2), the applicant gets a charge nett of the existing single detached dwelling ($27k x 1).

In conclusion, it looks like Brisbane City Council have $crewed you (and a LOT of other developers) out of $27k, which I think it absolutely ridiculous and a blatant money grab. It might be worth escalating this with the local councillor, lord mayor or potentially the State minister, as I don't believe this is the intention of the SPICOLAA.
 
What I find infuriating is the fact that we have not lodged any form of development application on the block whatsoever.

Based on your above comments, taken directly from the SPA2009, how can QUU be charging us anything yet, as we have not lodged any form of development application or permit whatsoever??

Even if this is the way it is now, their communication has been utterly abysmal. There are going to be a stack of small investors that have paid a premium for these type of blocks with the understanding (and no advice to the contrary), that there would be no infrastructure charges.

I have seen some crazy prices recently around brisbane

It is not good enough to just send a 27k bill with no proper notification or forewarning.

The bulk of people who buy these blocks are not "developers", so generally it is going to be small investors that are going to get burnt.

We will be speaking to local councillor, State and Federal MPs over the next week.
 
Ive just been hit

Hi William
Much to my disgust, Ive just been hit with a $9K sewer infrastructure charge for a splitter block Im undertaking in Brisbane. Id be really interested to know how you get on with your endeavours, as Im gobsmacked that they can try and charge $9K for a single sewer connection (water was already there) for a splitter block - no DA was necessary obviously, so how can they justify this charge?? Ive been told I can appeal, but on reading their "fact sheet", I doubt it would be successful. It also seems that many town planners etc have also only just become aware of it. How on earth can industry not know about it either????
Seriously angry :-(
 
Hi mate this was my reaction too.

Are you saying you had two water connections already?

We have not as of yet received the BCC notice asking for their pound of flesh, so our fingers are crossed there, however I believe we may see them when building certification/approval is applied for. That would be another 13k.

We have a busy Monday speaking to both State and Federal MPs, and hopefully our local councillor will respond to our email soon too.

It's unlikely anything positive will come out of it but hey, who knows. It's definitely worth asking the question.

I spoke to QUU on Thursday about the appeals process, and they said if it was unsuccessful, a 12 months payment plan was one option. This all sounds good and well, however they charge $1,500 for lodging the agreement, then charge 6% interest on the amount. Absolute highway robbery.
 
Yeh, we didn't get charged the full $14K slog because we have not been charged for the additional drinking water connection, which we do have final certification for already.
My situation is a little different because I have a property developer managing this project for me and Im pissed because this is his core business and he claims not to have known about it, so Im trying to find out what (if any) consultation was undertaken with industry bodies given that our town planner didn't even know about it???
Im also going to write to my local councillor etc. Not sure if your keen to share your wording that you've emailed to your councillor, but would love to see what approach you've taken so that I can keep it consistent, but completely understand if you'd rather not :)
Im a PR Consultant, so Im getting my head around a social media approach to attacking this one. Just need to make sure Ive got all my facts right :)
 
Quick update - for anyone that is interested.

We have spoken to our Federal MP - he is drafting a "strongly worded" letter to Lord Mayor Quirk. Very nice guy - not sure if his input can really help, but every little bit can I suppose.

Shortly after that we spoke to our State MP - she was quite helpful too, and we are in the process of providing more information for her, (including a statement from our town planner outlining the lack of communication about the changes, and given the nature of the change, the fact it doesn't explicitly state that is the case.), so she can discuss with one of the Ministers that she thinks can help.

She also said to provide all the information to the State Ombudsman to chase it up too.

Finally we spoke to our local Councillor, who has contacted the communications department in BCC that deal directly with QUU. He is pro small development and investment in the area so I suspect he will be very helpful.

Finally, he said no point contacting BCC Planning and Sustainability Manager, Andrea Kenafake about their component of the infrastructure charges yet. They don't know what they are doing, so until a bill is issued, best to keep mouth shut. Got BA for the two builds today, so we will see if we receive anything from them in the coming weeks.

We are going to keep fighting but hopefully we will get a result quickly, but I am not convinced we'll actually get any clemency other than QUU's offer to give us a 12 month payment plan at a cost of $1,500 to "lodge the paperwork" and 6% interest.

Cheers
 
Thanks for sharing so other small developers now have some idea of what to look out for.

I am just completing our first 1 to 2 lot reconfiguration in Logan and will be looking to do another small development in a few months. Good luck with your political campaigning !! I look forward to reading more updates if possible.

Well done to this forum !!!

Thanks :)

Bruce
 
Hi William,

Do the fees apply to 2 lots already on 1 block?

I have a project soon to build. House demolished and happy to talk to you on the phone in detail. Please PM me. Thanks.


Cheers

William



WilliamB said:
Quick update - for anyone that is interested.

We have spoken to our Federal MP - he is drafting a "strongly worded" letter to Lord Mayor Quirk. Very nice guy - not sure if his input can really help, but every little bit can I suppose.

Shortly after that we spoke to our State MP - she was quite helpful too, and we are in the process of providing more information for her, (including a statement from our town planner outlining the lack of communication about the changes, and given the nature of the change, the fact it doesn't explicitly state that is the case.), so she can discuss with one of the Ministers that she thinks can help.

She also said to provide all the information to the State Ombudsman to chase it up too.

Finally we spoke to our local Councillor, who has contacted the communications department in BCC that deal directly with QUU. He is pro small development and investment in the area so I suspect he will be very helpful.

Finally, he said no point contacting BCC Planning and Sustainability Manager, Andrea Kenafake about their component of the infrastructure charges yet. They don't know what they are doing, so until a bill is issued, best to keep mouth shut. Got BA for the two builds today, so we will see if we receive anything from them in the coming weeks.

We are going to keep fighting but hopefully we will get a result quickly, but I am not convinced we'll actually get any clemency other than QUU's offer to give us a 12 month payment plan at a cost of $1,500 to "lodge the paperwork" and 6% interest.

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
Hi, we are lodging our appeal/dispute this coming week as we have run out of time but still waiting for outcomes of the communications of our Local Councillor, State and Federal Members to a variety of places, such as Lord Mayor Quirk, The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and the QUU CEO, Louise Dudley. I have also acquired some statements from local town planners that I believe will really help alliterate the issue to the recipients of the above communications.

Our Local Councillor has suggested we get the media including commercial TV or ABC behind us but I am concerned with being vilified as a "poor rich kid/developer" by the Tracy Grimshaw type crowd, even though we really are only very small investors. We may have to do something along these lines as I simply cannot justify this cash grab, with such a lack of communication agreed by essentially every town planner I have spoken to.

I will update further when we receive a response from QUU. I have heard whispering of some "discounts" being provided by QUU of 1-3k, which to me feels like an admission of the fact these charges are unreasonable or poorly communicated, but we will see how it goes when we show them how serious we are about fighting them.

Cheers,
 
In a recent DA I also saw that the council required the developer splitting the block to provide an easement for future down stream discharge for the rear neighbour. This is for the benefit of the neighbour should he decide to split his block in the future.

The developer has to provide a 150mm pipe and connection point by way of easement.

This not only adds cost for the actual pipe however, the house costs may also go up if a build over is required.
 
Yeah I dodged one of those recently too :D

It's all good when you can make decisions based on information made available to your town planner etc, but makes it bloody hard when council and QUU change the playing field without telling anyone!

Cheers,
 
Kaz1967 said:
Yeh, we didn't get charged the full $14K slog because we have not been charged for the additional drinking water connection, which we do have final certification for already.
My situation is a little different because I have a property developer managing this project for me and Im pissed because this is his core business and he claims not to have known about it, so Im trying to find out what (if any) consultation was undertaken with industry bodies given that our town planner didn't even know about it???
Im also going to write to my local councillor etc. Not sure if your keen to share your wording that you've emailed to your councillor, but would love to see what approach you've taken so that I can keep it consistent, but completely understand if you'd rather not :)
Im a PR Consultant, so Im getting my head around a social media approach to attacking this one. Just need to make sure Ive got all my facts right :)
Click to expand...

Would you recommend the developer your using for this project? I have a splinter project I would be interested in pursuing but not managing myself.
Happy if you just PM me details and your experience with them.

TIA
 
Got a call from the office of the CEO today, told me it was looking likely they would cancel the charges. I'm not getting my hopes up yet, but I'm doing my best to stay positive. The fellow I spoke to had some authority (the first time we spoke to someone in QUU that appeared to have such, even after asking a number of times in previous conversations) and also understood our perspective.

He was "disappointed" I took it political, instead of just going through their process, but after speaking to a number of people within QUU about it initially, I was given the firm impression I had no fair stance, and to just bend over. No way was I going through their dispute/appeal process without getting MP's involved first, as I was concerned by in some way offering consent to the charges by following their process.

Will keep you posted, for anyone interested. Seems like there are very few, but if this helps even one other investor then I'm pleased.

Cheers,
 
Please keep posting WilliamB. I like your style. Don't take any crap.
I'm looking at Brisbane for a small development this year.
What's a splitting block? Is it a duplex site? Battle axe land subdividing? Just not very familar with QLD. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Providing services to a subdivided lot
Replies
2
Views
846
beachgurl
B
B
Satisfying the requirements for plan sealing
Replies
1
Views
749
Scott No Mates
Scott No Mates
B
Property development for dummies question
Replies
12
Views
3K
beachgurl
B
W
Water Connection to a 405 Lot
Replies
12
Views
2K
WilliamB
W
E
Development newbie questions
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
LJW
L
Back
Top