so.... working through the multiple page document regarding development contributions, I still cant work out wether the council has the right to charge a development contribution for subdividing an existing two dwelling property. yeah... wtf
they claim its an additional unit of demand, based on it apparently originally being consented as a granny flat and therefore temporary (on basis it should have been removed when granny dies apparently, news to me) and therefore no contributions were paid at the time and therefore creating an additional allotment (unit of demand) so.... gimme gimme!
other facts are that the 'granny flat' has been there since 1990 which is before the time of development contributions under the 2002 Act. so wouldnt have been paid anyway if it was a second dwelling? also under the building act 91? a building has to have an intended life of 50 years plus, so somewhat conflicting.
anyway... they want $6k+ . not massive in the scheme of councils and contributions, but it is a tax ultimately as the subdivision will have no impact on services and therefore why should they get more money for nothing on top of the $2k for the RC etc etc.
so only other avenue i thought of was to perhaps fight it through the new local govt amendment which allows for contesting and ultimately hearing by commissioners. but no, this doesnt appear to have been set up at all to help the little guy, as the council can seek costs if you lose, which knowing how councils charge, will be significant. its almost double or quits i feel, either you end up owing them nothing, or $12k. plus you can only contest them on them interpreting their own policy incorrectly, not on the policy itself. and given that i can get clarity from their document, I would suggest there would be enough unknown there for the commissioners to sway with the council.
thoughts??
they claim its an additional unit of demand, based on it apparently originally being consented as a granny flat and therefore temporary (on basis it should have been removed when granny dies apparently, news to me) and therefore no contributions were paid at the time and therefore creating an additional allotment (unit of demand) so.... gimme gimme!
other facts are that the 'granny flat' has been there since 1990 which is before the time of development contributions under the 2002 Act. so wouldnt have been paid anyway if it was a second dwelling? also under the building act 91? a building has to have an intended life of 50 years plus, so somewhat conflicting.
anyway... they want $6k+ . not massive in the scheme of councils and contributions, but it is a tax ultimately as the subdivision will have no impact on services and therefore why should they get more money for nothing on top of the $2k for the RC etc etc.
so only other avenue i thought of was to perhaps fight it through the new local govt amendment which allows for contesting and ultimately hearing by commissioners. but no, this doesnt appear to have been set up at all to help the little guy, as the council can seek costs if you lose, which knowing how councils charge, will be significant. its almost double or quits i feel, either you end up owing them nothing, or $12k. plus you can only contest them on them interpreting their own policy incorrectly, not on the policy itself. and given that i can get clarity from their document, I would suggest there would be enough unknown there for the commissioners to sway with the council.
thoughts??
Comment