James, a bit hard to put any useful input into this one without a bit more of the picture. Your other option (if you have any taxable income) is to reduce the tax that you are paying to help cover the shortfall. Alternatively get a LOC and fund the shortfall from the LOC – use it only for this property so that all costs are claimable.

It depends upon your council – speak with the town planner on the desk, bring in your plan and get their opinion. Things like minimum setbacks from the side boundaries might apply thus needing a wider block or they may only allow duplexes on every 3rd block etc.

Now that is an absolute shocker Pascoe. The numbers are so rubbery that Durex would be proud of them!!!!

1) Interest on the land =  say $800k x 27 mths/12mths x 7% = $126,000 assuming that the land component will not be more than 50% of the development cost.

2) Interest on the construction = say $800k x 10 mths/12mths x 7% = $23k

3) How solid are the construction cost estimates? Ie $400k will buy one hell of a townhouse or freestanding house from most home builders.

So instantly the numbers provided are incorrect or grossly inflated by the "developer". It sounds like they will make the 20-25% and you will be financing their deal.

If the deal was so good, why would you make your offer conditional upon settlement being delayed until the DA is achieved, thus limiting your interest costs to the development period?

Why will the DA take 14 months?

is that really the case Terry, how often would the bank do a company search on the Builder (unless it was Joe XYZ & his company was XYZ Building Co. P/L)?

As above, drop a note to the secretary of the BC advising the problem – it is the BC which directs the SM to act on an issue. The BC will decide if it is the owner of the unit above who needs to rectify thier leak or it is a leak from the building eg roof leak/broken pipe etc.

In the meantime, contact the office of fair trading to find out how you can get this resolved before having to go to a tribunal esp if this is caused by a leak from the adjoining unit.

Advise your insurer of the issue, they too can bring pressure on the BC/SM to carry out the remedial works.

If you are getting no joy through the BC (obviously keep the pressure on them to resolve as the issue is from outside of your unit) contact the office of fair trading.

Do lenders come in other flavours (I know that I have seen plenty of 'green' ones in the past).

The conditions of contract will generally be the same as the residential contract other than the provisions for gst, land tax etc. It will be unlikely that if it is a vacant building you could get out of the gst (however you will be able to claim it back in your next BAS), likewise the vendor will be seeking to share the balance of land tax on the property.

Seek specialist tax advice in this case as the law is still under question.

Refer to Sunchen P/L v FCT [2010] FCA21 where a developer was not able to claim the GST paid on a leased resi site with a DA in place as it was a leased residential premises and was an input taxed supply. The judge followed the previous Toyama case  which called for a prediction of what may happen in the future, ie the purchaser may or may not develop the property and therefore could not grant the claim for GST paid.  This is now under appeal.

Which part of non-habitable don't people understand? It is just like buying 2 identical written-off cars from the auctions, cutting the chassis and welding them together, driveable but totally illegal.

Building standards have been made for a particular reason, to say that the ceiling is only 2200mm instead of the required 2400mm  doesn't mean the house is unsafe but it does not meet the required standard for a room to be inhabited (except for kitchens, laundries, utilities etc). Often these ground floor areas are not habitable as they are floodprone.

Try council records