McNeill, J. Dollery, B. 1999, "A note on the use of developer charges in Australian local governments"
James

With pressure on local governments becoming more and more intense regarding financial constraints, this article is of particular importance to planning because it may frame the way things are done in the future.

McNeill et al seek to analyse how local governments are coming to terms with the financial restraints and the changes that are occurring due to the current trend in developer charges and levies being applied.

Background

Developer charges play quite a more significant role with the larger sized local governments. This is demonstrated by the 25% of councils within NSW with a population of 40,000 or over who "raise no less than 69 per cent of developer charges revenue" (McNeill et al, 1999). McNeill et al also focus on the limitations of data collection due to changes in local government accounting systems.

As different municipalities are at different stages and situations with developer charges there is no one system consistently collecting data. As a result the Australian Bureau of Statistics have been unable to tabulate any data which has resulted in the annual growth and contributions known as developer charges, not being able to be determined. Developer charges in NSW have become quite prominent, some even argue more so then any other state in Australia.

Developer charges in NSW

Within NSW there was little financial risk for developers in the past, the Housing Cost Enquiry (1978) showed everyone that developers were being optimistic in relation to their assessment of demand. McNeill et al illustrate how this resulted in many instances where serviced land was under-utilised for extensive periods (McNeill et al, 1999). Many changes occurred when it came to formalising arrangements for developer charges. Section 94 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which McNeill et al maintain "codified" the existing developer financing practice (Simpson 1989:19, cited McNeill et al, 1999). As developer charges and other types of levy"s continue to be introduced, local governments seem to be using this revenue as a way to reduce debt.

An example of this comes from the 50"s and 60"s, which saw the expansion of planning powers. Local councils introduced to notion of developers having to provide some of the services for development that local government were until now, forced to provide.

Local government borrowings have been a prominent theme in the developer charges debate. This is the case as each municipality seeks to minimise debt, the amount of developer charges going towards these payments is growing, and may continue to grow and become even more prolific over time. As discussed above, total population and geographic local are key themes in this debate. None the less, it is not only NSW that is experiencing the positive affects of this trend.

Developer charges in other states

In Queensland developer charges have been reported as a method of funding fringe development. In Victoria a two-tiered system was recommended as a result of the problems associated with the existing system. The new system sought to have up front developer charges, and a new community infrastructure levy, for social infrastructure as a result of a growing community. Both are indications that developer charges and other council levy"s have begun, and may continue to gain momentum.

Conclusion

As this article has shown us developer charges is a current trend that is beginning to gain momentum in states all over Australia. McNeill et al believe that recent reviews of infrastructure financing in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria have shown that "these states too are poised to embrace developer charges" (McNeill et al, 1999). Furthermore with developer charges becoming more and more accepted, I believe that this trend could very well be thing that relieves local councils of their current debt, and may even provide the basis for their expansion in the future

References:

McNeill, J. Dollery, B. 1999 "A note on the use of developer charges in Australian local governments", Urban Policy and Research, v. 17 i1, p61

11. Infrastructure 18th May, 2008 21:56:39   [#] 

Comments

Archive

September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008

Recent Comments

Hype and Hope
      Sun`
Cities and Creative Class
      Sun`
Deodhar, V. 2004 “Does th
      long nguyen
Glaeser, E. 2004, "Review
      Sam Finch
Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and
      LONG, Alistair
Glaeser, E. 2004, "Review
      will
Davies, L. 2005, "Not in
      DM
Creative Class
      Alistair
Florida, R. 2005 "Cities
      nf, LONGGGGG
Low, S. 2006, `How Privat
      LN
Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and
      LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG,
      Duelling McClassy, NF, Kelly
Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spur
      will
Taylor, B. 2004, "The Geo
      will
Stretton, H. 1975, "Inter
      Edward Crossland
Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spur
      Edward Croslsand

Melbourne

Civil Pandemonium
Melbourne 2030 Portal
Melbourne on Transit
Save Our Suburbs
Sustainable Melbourne
Urban Creature

Cities

SevenSixFive
The Next American City
Andrew Blum
Architecture and Morality
Bright Lights Dim Beauty
       of Chicago

Burb
City Comforts
The City Desk
City States
Cyburbia
Diamond Geezer
Forum for Urban Design
Me, My Life +
       Infrastructure

Progressive Reactionary
Rebuilding Place in the
       Urban Space

Smogr
Urban Cartography
Urban Commons
Urban Planning Research
Where

Design and Development

A Daily Dose of
        Architecture

Artect.net
Beyond Brilliance,
       Beyond Stupidity

Brand Avenue
Bricoleurbanism
CoolTown Studios
City of Sound
Curbed [LA] [SF]
Gabion
The Ground Floor
Ksmgrd
Lebbeus Woods
The Measures Taken
Megablog
New (Sub)Urbanism
Private Sector
       Development Blog

Reason Commentaries
Richard Green Sit Down Man, You're
       a Bloody Tragedy

Tropolism
Urban Planning Blog
Veritas et Venustas
Wow Flutter

Culture and Theory

2 Blowhards
Abstract Dynamics
Aesthetic Grounds
Anne Galloway
Barista
James Howard Kunstler
Junk for Code
Karrie Jacobs
Life Without Buildings
Martin Krieger
Neighbourhoods
Neighbourhoods.org
Place Space
Rodcorp
Rough Theory
The Sesquipedalist
Side Effects
Space and Culture
Strange Harvest

Environments

a456
Blog Like You Give a Damn
The Commons Blog
Environmental and
       Urban Economics

Environmental Economics
Gristmill
Impact Analysis
Jetson Green
Landscape and Urbanism
Muck and Mystery
Oikos
The Perfect City
Pruned
Web Urbanist
World Changing

Transport

cfsmtb in low
       earth orbit

Live from the Third Rail
metro(spo--ka(n')
Peter Gordon's Blog
Streets Blog
Train Blog
The Transportationist

Economics

Agoraphilia
The Becker-Posner Blog
Knowledge Problem
Marginal Revolution

Non Blogs

Planetizen
Planners Web
Project for Public
       Spaces

New Urbanism
American Planning
       Association

Spacing
Polar inertia
Sustainable
       Communities

Australian Policy
       Online

Cyburbia
Liveable Places
butterpaper
Australian Transport
       Discussion Board

Urban Design Forum
Urban Residue
SkyscraperCity
Environmental News
Metropolitan Transport
       Forum

Media

Metropolis (USA)
The Next American
       City (USA)

Planning Online (UK)
Doors of Perception
Arts and Letters Daily
The Age
The Australian
New York Times (USA)
Guardian (UK)

Study Resources

RMIT
RMIT Learning Hub
RMIT Library
CoolCat
QUT Planning Links

Government

Melbourne City Council
Melbourne 2030
Dept. Infrastructure
Dept. Sustainability and
       Environment

Dept. Transport and
       Regional Services

Local Government
Information Victoria
OECD