Certain developments in growing parts of Logan will be charged an additional fee in an attempt to curb the crippling cost of infrastructure.
But experienced city planners have criticised the move, claiming it will further disincentivise development.
The capped fees Logan City council can charge developers for building essential infrastructure like large roads, water and sewage are said to be the biggest financial issue facing the city.
Council is subsidising developers 50 per cent of the cost to build shared essentials – costing ratepayers around $30,000 per lot.
The previous council decided it would stop building roads to support new developments after conceding the state government wouldn’t lift the cap prior to the upcoming election.
Now the current council has made a move that would see developers pay the “true cost” of large, shared infrastructure.
Council has decided that, from 16 September, an extra payment condition will be imposed on development applications making “unplanned trunk infrastructure necessary outside or partially outside the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA)”.
This means developers of out of sequence proposals in “emerging communities”, like greenfield areas, will have to pay for the total cost of building roads, water, sewerage, parks and other community facilities.
It’s a fee already imposed by councils like Moreton Bay and Redland.
“The development in our greenfield area, on our urban fringe, really is costing council a lot of money,” Logan’s manager of economic development and strategy said.
“Long-term it probably isn’t financially feasible to see that amount of development out there, so we would like to recoup some of those costs.”
The team at Underwood-based town planning firm Somerville Consultants claimed the extra charge was a “kick in the guts” for developers.
They said it added to council’s exorbitant development costs and processes, which were already exacerbating the housing crisis.
Planners Roy Somerville and John Merrick said council was over reliant on developments in the city’s greenfield areas, which have limited or no trunk infrastructure, to meet its housing targets.
Instead, they said council should focus on a more cost-effective approach by approving developments in higher density areas.
”If council really wanted to solve the housing shortage, they would drop the charges on units and apartments to give developers an incentive to build them,” director Nancy Somerville said.
She said the extra payment would be fine as long as council was working in other ways to encourage development.
Mr Merrick said the extra payment would ultimately be passed onto home buyers.
“Who else is going to absorb the cost?” he said.
Real estate agent turned local councillor Tony Hall said the extra fee would not increase the price of housing.
“Property prices are based on what buyers and the market want to pay, not what developers decide to charge,” he said at a council meeting.
“It is like saying that self-service checkouts lowered food prices; it did not – all it did is put the extra work on us.
“Capped infrastructure charges will not solve the housing crisis.”
