Contract with the council.

[Mrs Bird]

Hi Guys,

I am beginning to believe that nothing to do with property is simple but anyway we are facing yet another challenge!

To cut a very long story short.....We have a farm around the daylesford district and have applied for a building permit to build a second home so our manager lives in one and we have the other.

Farm at the moment consist of 7 different titles.

After many meetings with the council, they have given us 2 options to select from and they will grant us a permit.

Option 1... My father signs a Section 173 form (I think the number is right) This will mean that the property cannot be sold broken up.Although at the moment we can sell small parcels, once that form is sign we cannot sell unless it is the whole farm.

Option 2... Titles to be consolidated into two. One house with approx 58 acres for each one. A very time consuming and expensive option.

Has anybody had these types of deals before with councils before?

Of course we are seeking legal advise about the best option, but gees!!! how do you do 'due diligence' on these type of problems?

Any suggestions urgently required. The property will kept in the family therefore it is not an investment property as such.

Thanks Mrs Bird

 

[XBenX]

OUCH - neither of those options are particularly attractive are they....

im not the biggest greeny in the world (infact what is the opposite ?) but some councils are going nuts with this anti development stance

its seems crazy that you have 7 lots and they want you to combine them all... so long as they meet the min size requirements I can see why you shouldnt be able to have a dwelling on each of them

yet I also assume that the min block size is also the problem

i cant really be of much help - other than do the standard process when wanting to redevelop - read the councils DCP/LEPs - if you cant make any sense in them then perhaps think about involving a town planning consultant or developers who have done this in the past

 

[Kevmeister]

You don't say whether the new home is to be built on a different title to the existing home or the same title? Could that be why the council is antsy?

 

[michaelg]

Hi,

I'm not familiar with rural guidelines, but I see alot rural properties build a second house next to the old one and they join the roofs.

I assume this is to show that the building is 1 building, like an extenstion I guess?

usually the join is a garage or something as simple as a space acting as a carport.

Would this work? ie not building a house, but just an extension?

Michael G

 

[saskatoon]

Hi Mrs Bird.
My first thought is that you cannot be the only farmers with this problem. What about contacting your 'Farmers Federation' or equiv. body to find out what others have done, especially in your area.
A spur of the moment idea: you are at present able to sell individual titles.
Establish a trust, if you don't already have one. Sell one or more of the titles to your trust, or companies owned by your trust. This may mean that each separate entity can apply to the Council for a building permit; but your family, through a trust, still control the properties. May not work, but worth thinking about, and doing the numbers on!
Terry

 

[Kristine..]

Dear Mrs Bird

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/PSO/hepburn.nsf/hepburn_insetmap1.html?OpenPage&charset=iso-8859-1

This is the URL for the Daylesford area, Hepburn Planning Scheme.

As you know, a Section 173 agreement simply means that it is an agreement with Council made under Section 173 of the Local Government Act. Local Govt is delegated authority to act by the State Govt, and S.173 simply allows Local Govt to enter into agreements ie contracts with third parties for various reasons, eg restrictive planning conditions, tenders and contracts for services / supply, etc.

However, it is the terms and conditions of the agreement they wish to impose upon you which is of interest.

Perhaps not all of your titles have road frontage? This could be one major concern. Or the housing density may be eg 1 house per 20.45 hectares, or whatever. This would be to provide a minimum viable farm / farmlet, given that the land would be deemed to be arable.

Just because there are lots of Crown Allotments still on the map, doesn't mean that they fulfil current building requirements.

City Councils are concerned about quality of water, leachate from land fill and so on. Rural councils are also concerned with environmental issues, but for them whatever happens upstream can and does directly affect the potable quality of the water.

So another septic tank, or simply soapy shower and laundry water, may have a direct negative impact on the next property's drinking water, for humans and livestock.

Degradation of the top soil, further demands on the local infrastructure eg roads and power supply etc all must be taken into account.

By the way, although a solicitor may be helpful as to the legalities, for my money I'd be talking to one of the local planning consultants, who is more likely to be au fait with Council's directives and margins for case by case application.

Cheers

Kristine

 

[Mrs Bird]

A bit more background Information.

The new Rural Land code was introduced last year to try and stop prime grazing land from being carved up and developed into small acreges with B and B's hobby farms etc. Daylesford prices (1-2) hours from Melbourne, have become highly inflated, therefore farmers are selling chunks of land to weekend yuppies.
Our council is concerned that once we get a permit for a house, the small parcel of land with house will be sold. WE have assured them this is not the case, therefore the reason for conditions upon permit being approved. We have been advise that subdivision of rural land in the future will not be allowed. This is why ours will be so valuable in the future and the decision we make in the next week will effect us in years to come.

X Benx and Kev
Each house has its own title.
However New house must have 20 hectares. It only has 5.
Farm as a whole has over 20 hectares, this is why the council has allowed our permit.
20 hectares=2 houses.

Saskatoon
Although we have family trusts set up,too complicated and probably not worth the hassle. Father would not go for it. He wants it built now!

Michaelg

Never thought of this. But we need our space away from our manages and I dont like the house we have got there already. We are putting up one of those cute colonial style kit homes.

If we sign the Section 173 are there any unforseen consequences that we havent considered? Does it end when the owner dies or will the contract be valid for years to come?(Would you believe husband forgot to ask this Q)

or

Is it in our best interests to consolidate the whole lot into 2 neat packages?

Thanks Mrs Bird



Ps Hi Kristine, just read your post and will definately inform you of the terms and conditions, we are waiting for it to be posted out to us. Mrs B

 

[Kristine..]

Just by the by XBenX

I can remember selling seven titles at Landsborough to one family, waaaay back around 1978!!!

One of the titles had a type of bus shelter shed on it, from which hung scores of rabbit pelts.

Only two of the titles had road frontage, and in the middle of the cluster was a 'road allowance' title, which couldn't connect to the constructed road because of the gully running through it.

If memory serves correctly, all seven titles cost $1,200, and the locals thought that City Agents were driving City Suckers to buy Scrub Land at Exorbitant Prices.

But the family were thrilled, and probably still own the land. They wanted somewhere to go on weekends, not too far from a town - well, General Store. As there were within the Town limits they could probably select a title and build on that, but some of them were of such irregular shapes it would have been almost impossible to site a house with any sensibility.

It's a fascinating world out there, beyond the metropolitan fringes. The truth is out there!

Cheers

Kristine

 

[Kristine..]

Dear Mrs Bird

The terms and conditions of your agreement are unique.

Read the fine print. The S.173 which I entered into regarding selling the subdivision before the house was built, was that only the structure and associated development can be built, and until the terms and conditions are complied with, they run with the title for ever. The content of the S.173 are registered on Title.

If Hepburn are becoming more restrictive, be aware that you may be able to do this now, with this size property, but you may not be able to do it next year. So this is the 'best', as in, the most negotiable use which you can make of your asset.

I use the word negotiable to mean the Titles are negotiable ie they can be transferred to another party [sold etc], not negotiable in that we can discuss this further and achieve a different outcome.

So what is the 'highest and best use'?

If this is it, then act on what is before you

Cheers

Kristine