Elwood’s Paul Jones stung with $200,000 public open space contribution fee
An Elwood dad stung with a hefty council fee for building a pool in his backyard says his landscaping plans should never have triggered the “absurd” law which has led to him taking such a heavy hit to the wallet.
Inner South
Don't miss out on the headlines from Inner South . Followed categories will be added to My News.
An Elwood dad hit with a crippling $200,00 council fee for putting a pool in his own backyard has lost a legal battle over the planned subdivision.
Paul Jones bought his neighbour’s Ruskin St property with a view to renting out the house and freeing up space to build a pool for his two young children to enjoy.
But plans to redefine the boundaries of the properties triggered a public open space contribution fee — a whopping five per cent of the total value of the two lots.
The levy is generally imposed on higher density subdivisions to compensate for the expected increased use of nearby parks and playgrounds.
Port Phillip Council can provide an exemption for two-lot subdivisions if it considers further subdivision of the land is unlikely.
But Mr Jones said it was “just absurd” that he would be stung with the fee “just in case I or someone else subdivides again in the future”.
“I’m not subdividing any further so why am I being charged for something I’m not planning to do?,” he said.
“Why not charge the fee when someone actually puts plans in to do the further subdivision? It just doesn’t make any sense.
“I’m a family man who wanted to put a pool in for my kids, I’m not building another dwelling — there’s no increase in the number of people living on the site and therefore no extra demand on the nearby public open space so I don’t understand why I should have to fork out for that.”
Mr Jones has spent about $25,000 to take his fight against the council’s levy to the state’s planning tribunal last month, arguing he was just reapportioning existing private open space between his two lots.
But VCAT member Joel Templar said Mr Jones’ intentions were irrelevant in determining whether the fee should be applied.
“I must take an objective view of whether further subdivision of the land is unlikely … taking into account the physical and planning context of the site,” he said.
Mr Templar found Mr Jones should not be exempt from paying the contribution.
Mr Jones said he had planning permission to build fences which effectively subdivided the land the way he wanted it but if he sold either lot in the future, he’d have to restore the original boundaries.
“I’ve had permission to put the fences up but if I want to make the subdivision official I have to pay the $200,000, so I’m not going to bother,” he said.
“It just means that if I decided to sell in the future, I’d have to put the fence back down the middle the way it was and then one lot would have a run-down house with a great pool — or I could officially subdivide and pay the $200,000 then,” he said.
Despite the argy bargy over the levy, Mr Jones said putting in the pool had been the “best thing” he’d ever done.
“I have a young family and we plan to be here for at least another 10 years so we’ll keep enjoying it for a while yet,” he said.
“I’m just angry that the law is the way it is, that people can be forced to pay for something that might never happen — or might happen 100 years down the track.”
MORE:
DHHS ACCUSED OF TURNING ‘BLIND EYE’ TO JEWISH GROUP MEETS
‘UN-AUSTRALIAN’: WHY A COUNCIL PLANS TO BAN BACKYARD BARBECUES