On an associated topic of saving money on the way in that can cost you a fortune on the way out, this is a part of an article on a recent case where a buyer saved $3000 by doing a simple version of planning search rather than a full one, and got lumped with the $400k in unpaid infrastructure charges
Montrose Creek Pty Ltd and Manningtree (M&M) purchased a mixed use property from a developer. They opted to save $3000 during the due diligence and purchase phase by obtaining a standard planning and development certificate from Brisbane City Council, rather than a full planning and development certificate.
Sometime after settlement, Council discovered that an amount of over $400,000 in infrastructure contributions remained outstanding for the site. A Show Cause Notice was issued, followed by an Enforcement Notice, on the basis that the failure to pay the outstanding infrastructure contributions was a breach of an approval condition and therefore a development offence.
An obligation to pay the infrastructure charges attaches to the land and binds the owner and any successors in title. M&M’s failure to pay the infrastructure charges was a continuing development offence.
The Planning and Environment Court considered that M&M could have discovered that contributions were outstanding by obtaining a full development certificate instead of a cheaper standard planning and development certificate.
The Court found for Council and ordered M&M pay the outstanding charges and be restrained from using the premises.
We often find that for each $1000 saved by someone by not seeking proper advice during the setup and establishment of a project ends up costing them $10,000 when things go wrong. In M&M’s case it was over $166,000 cost for each $1000.
That is no minor error