New Brisbane City Plan 2014 – Don't forget to read the fine print

There were high-fives all around at Brisbane City Council last week as it was announced that the New City Plan 2014 had received the green light from the state government and is set to come in to effect on July 1. But was there more to the jubilation than meets the eye? Are the folks at council master illusionists that have just pulled off an act of deception that David Copperfield himself would be proud of?

You see, the illusion had been set that the New City Plan was much the same as the current one ; no real changes apart from the much publicised decrease in minimum lot sizes and increase in building height. But while everyone was busy watching the right hand holding the lot size and building height change, the left hand has made a clever switch that no one has noticed. The change, even if it was seen, appeared so subtle that it would have been dismissed as anything abnormal. What the left hand held was the underlying definition of a house, and this sleight of hand will have major consequences to everyone living in this beautiful city.

Those of you who have looked at the dwelling house code might think that nothing much has changed. It still allows for 5 unrelated or an unlimited number of related occupants. However, before you can even start referring to the dwelling house code, you must first wade through the definitions section of the code to ensure you meet the definition of a house.
Under the new plan, a house is defined as:-
“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.”

Nothing seems too sinister there until you compare it to the definition of the previous City Plan 2000 plan, which defines a house as:-
“House: a use of premises principally for residential occupation by a domestic group or individual/s, that may include a secondary dwelling, whether or not the building is attached, but does not include a single unit dwelling”

Still don’t spot it? Well the first issue major issue is the omission of the word “principally”. As highlighted in a 2012 Supreme Court ruling (AAD Design vs Brisbane City Council), the word “principally” gives the house definition the flexibility it requires. The example given in the case is that it would allow for things such as taking in a boarder.

The new house definition is very rigid and only allows for a single household. Any flexibility afforded by the old plan is now gone. The omission of this word alone has massive impacts as is affects things such as:-

• Taking in a boarder
• Renting out part of your house
• Exchange student programs
• Short stay accommodation (eg. listing a room on AirBNB)
• Even having Uncle Bob staying with you for a week!

Digging deeper into the plan, you’ll also find a definition of “Household”. It is defined as:-
“Household: 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 long-term basis and who make common provision for food or other essentials for living. The term does not include individuals living in rooming accommodation.”

Just re-read that definition and let it sink in for a moment. For those who haven’t noticed, it is not focused on limiting the occupancy levels of the house (as the previous plan was), but rather how the occupants interact , such as whether they share meals and bills and whether the living arrangements are short or long term.

Frankly, I really wouldn’t care if my neighbours eat together or not. How they pay their bills and how they interact is really none of my business, and nor should it be council’s concern either. What should be focussed on instead, is the number of people that reside in the house as this directly affects the amenity of surrounding properties (eg. noise & car parking issues).

The illusion did not fool everyone though. The HIA spotted it and put in a submission to the Draft City Plan raising concerns over the new household definition and its impact, specifically on supported accommodation.

One of the biggest losers with this definition appears to be granny. The household definition prevents granny from living independently in a secondary dwelling. If you don’t believe me, read through the submissions to the City Plan 2014. Council’s responses have made it quite clear that independent occupation of a secondary dwelling is not allowed, and that a “Dual Occupancy” approval would be required in this instance. Seems fair enough, that is, until you flick through to the Dual Occupancy Code in the plan and find out that you’ll need 3000m2 of land in normal residential zoning in order to build one. It would appear that the Dual Occupancy code has been inserted into the plan with criteria that ridiculous that no one will ever be able to get one approved.

So it seems that granny is left out in the cold, and will be forced to give up her independence in order to live in a secondary dwelling. The absurdity of this is that to qualify for “dwelling” status, the secondary dwelling must be self-contained (eg. have its own kitchen, laundry etc.). However, it would appear that if you lived in the secondary dwelling and used those self-contained facilities, you’d fall foul of the new house definition.

Ok, so this is just one big mistake by council right? Wrong! Brisbane City Council is quite aware of the implications of the new household definition and that it will give them unprecedented powers to dictate how people can live.

But wait there’s more….Council’s next trick was the introduction the “Rooming Accommodation Code“. You may not have noticed it as it was omitted from the Draft Plan that went out for public submission. That said, BCC’s intention appears to have always been to include it as it was referred to in certain sections of the Draft Plan. Somewhere in between public submissions closing and the plan being sent to the Qld Gov for approval, it has magically appeared.

The Rooming Accommodation Code basically allows for rent-by-the-room accommodation and looks to be self-assessable if you have 5 or less occupants. Council was fully aware that rent-by-the-room fell fowl of the new Household definition and this meant major issues for their push to attract international students to the City. The Rooming Accommodation Code has been implemented to circumvent the single household requirement and allow rent-by-the-room in a house.

While the Rooming Accommodation Code fixes the issues for individuals, it does not meet the growing needs for affordable housing for groups such as single parents. If a single parent cannot afford to rent an entire house or unit, where are they going to live? They are now restricted from living independently in part of a house, or from taking in a boarder to help pay the rent. Rooming Accommodation is focused on catering for individuals like the transient student population, but disregards the long term residents of Brisbane and their affordable housing needs.

But there’s still more…..If the house definition changes weren’t bad enough, it would appear that Brisbane City Council Enforcement Officers are attempting to retrospectively apply these changes to existing properties.

Even before the new plan has come into effect, they have been issuing warrants to obtain lease agreements, knocking on doors asking how people live and interact, and issuing Enforcement Notices. So don’t be surprised if you have council officers peering through your window at night to check if you’re eating meals together.

When the people of Brisbane wake up on July 1st to a new City Plan and realise the implications, they will be wishing they had read the fine print.