Hi Daniel,
Definitely make sure the granny flat has council approval. This should be a no-brainer for any property purchase.
For an existing property under built under the Brisbane City Plan 2000, you can rent a granny flat so long as there’s no more than 5 people in both dwellings.
Historically any house with a granny flat is classified under Category 4 – Multi Residential Rates. I have written confirmation from the rates department that this is because there are 2 separate self contained dwellings and that they can be rented separately. They also stated that they did not agree with the Compliance Team’s interpretation of the City Plan which lead to the Enforcement Notices (that were mentioned in this thread). Even if, the property is owner occupied, it’s still classed as Multi Residential but you will get the owner occupier exemption which reduces the rates.
If you’re planning on building new under the City Plan 2014, forget the granny flat. Unfortunately the changes in the new plan won’t even let granny live independently in a granny flat, as that would be classed as dual occupancy. Instead, take a look at new Rooming Accommodation Code. It allows 5 households (5 people living independently) in normal residential zoning. Alternatively you could build a granny flat and rent it as Rooming Accommodation.
Simon

Just an update on the QUU charges. The fees can be found on the QUU website under business rates & charges.

Basically you get charged a minimum of $110.22 per toilet per quarter, but they are nice enough to give you one for free. So if you are on Brisbane’s “Category 4 – Multi Residential” rates and have 3 toilets, your charged an extra $881.76 in pedestal charges. The same property, if owner occupied, would be on “Category 1 – Multi Residential” rates and would not incur this charge.

If anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 5 months ago by  HProperty. Reason: Link not showing

Hi Dragun,

I have been following the Mackay Investor case in the news and it looks imminent that councils across Qld will be forced to refund as much as $300M to investors due to illegally charging investors higher rates.

A property I own in Brisbane is rated as “Category 4 – Multi Residential” that is currently tenanted. If was to owner-occupy the property, the rates department would change this to “Category 1 – Multi Residential” which is almost half that of Category 4.

Not only that, but Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) are getting in on the overcharging act too, by imposing a “pedestal charge” (ie. a charge for the number of toilets) for any Category 4 rated properties. This QUU charge generally adds about $150/quarter to a normal rates bill.

It was great to see the Mackay guys win their case in the Supreme Court, but of course, council is appealing the decision so it may be a little while yet before we see any refunds.

I don’t know if anyone is really aware that the impact extends beyond the council’s budgets. There are flow on effects, like QUU, where they will be forced to drop their ridiculous charges and refund investors too.

Simon.

So a quick summary of this issue is:-

BCC has had 2 barristers working for over 6 months or more to amass half a room full of documents, in an attempt to enforce an 'opinion' regarding a City Plan that is about to be superseded. That 'opinion' contradicts that of the principle author if the City Plan (as well as their own rates department), and is one which they have already lost numerous times in court appeals. 

Furthermore, if BCC happens to be successful in convincing a higher court of their 'opinion', and if they are able to retrospectively apply the decision to existing properties, it will result in mass evictions across Brisbane of granny flats, student accommodation, rooming accommodation and dual occupancy properties.

Well done Brisbane City Council!

You might want to check out the new Queensland State Planning Provisions that came into effect late last year.

They define "Household" as:-

"An individual or a group of two or more related or unrelated people who reside in the dwelling, with the common intention to live together on a longterm basis and who make common provision for food or other essentials for living."

They then go on to define dwelling house, dual occupancy and multiple dwelling around this definition of "Household":-

• "Dwelling house – A residential use of premises for one household that contains a single dwelling. The use includes out-buildings and works normally associated with a dwelling and may include a secondary dwelling"
• "Dual occupancy – Premises containing two dwellings on one lot (whether or not attached) for separate households."
• "Multiple dwelling – Premises containing three or more dwellings for separate households."

So a property is being defined based on it's use, rather than on physical attributes of the building itself, and it requires the occupants of a house to eat together and/or share essentials for living (whatever they are classed as).

Prior to the new definitions, you were classed as a house under the Brisbane City Plan 2000 if you had no more than 5 unrelated occupants ; There were no other restrictions or limitations, so you could in fact rent a granny flat.

Brisbane City Council is adopting these new definitions in it's new Brisbane City Plan 2014, and it appears that the Enforcement Action has only started appearing since the draft plan was in review with BCC Councilors.

The implications for those Qld councils (eg. Ipswich, Logan etc.) that promote granny flats for separate rentals is unknown.  eg. Ipswich Planning Scheme current distinguishes between an annexed unit and a dual occupancy by physical characteristics of the building (ie. the size of the "granny flat").  Less than 65m2 and it's an annexed unit whereas greater than 65m2 is a dual occupancy.  Now that there are conflicting definitions at a State level, is this allowed, or is it not?

Also, I believe that the "household" change will even see granny being unlawful if she lives independently in the granny flat (eg. cooks her own meals and pays her own bills) or is not expected to live long.  It seems an application for a "Dual Occupancy would be required".   Oh, and did I mention that to get approval for a dual occupancy under the new Brisbane City Plan 2014 you need 3000m2 in normal residential zoning?  

Brisbane City Council appears to have been actively trying to retrospectively apply these new definitions on existing properties across Brisbane.  This seems to be why they have been issuing the Enforcement Notices and why they have only started appearing when the new Brisbane City Plan 2014 was being drafted (and not anytime over the last decade of the 2000 City Plan).

Brisbane City Council should be ashamed of the actions they have taken here!

Just an update on things here……BCC are currently in the process of withdrawing these enforcement notices.  Hooray for common sense!

I'm the owner of a primary/secondary dwelling in Brisbane and was issued with one of these council enforcement notices at the beginning of this year.  Both dwellings are leased on their own lease agreement.

I appealed the enforcement notice to the Planning and Environment Court as I did not believe BCC had any basis for their actions.  Brisbane's City Plan 2000 House Code specifies that 5 unrelated people can constitute a household group and it does not specify anything about lease agreements.

To date council have not been able to provide a brief for my case, and then this week have communicated that they will be withdrawing the enforcement notice.

After being through the process, I have learnt a lot and I cannot agree with a number of things in your assessment here.

BCC do not view my property as a multi-unit dwelling and they have stated this in the legal documents relating to my case.  So your conclusion that the decision of the AAD Design case makes the property a multi unit dwelling is incorrect.

To take this issue through to court based upon leases would also prove to be VERY embarrassing for council as they are actively promoting student rooming accommodation at the present time.

If you are still representing owners with enforcement notices over their primary / secondary dwellings, I'd be asking BCC to withdraw them like they are doing with mine.

Regards,

Simon.