Launceston councillors have voted unanimously in support of introducing a new fee which was proposed to alleviate pressure on the council.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The fee was proposed in relation to removing easements on properties, as well as requesting the sale, exchange or disposal of and interest in council land or public land.
The motion was agreed to by Councillor Hugh McKenzie, who also spoke at length to the rationale behind it.
"Some might see this as a money grab for council, but the truth of the matter is people who come to us and ask for easements and other matter to be dealt with in their favour bring a load of work to our council chamber," he said.
"And usually they do that is for a benefit they may get from doing it by taking out something that shouldn't be there, or they don't want to be there, to enable them to go further with some of the things they wish to do on the property."
The fee would now see it cost $1350 for an "ordinary request" and $2700 for a "complex request", with an additional $100 fee per easement, per application.
Deputy-Mayor Danny Gibson, who voted in favour of the motion, questioned whether the nominal fee was high enough given the amount of work the council had to undertaken in order to assess any requests made.
Councillor Tim Walker agreed to the fee and said it made sense the fee was incumbent on the applicant, rather than the cost of the work done being absorbed by the council.
"[The property owner] is getting financial gain from removing the encumbrances. It's a certain benefit to the land owner," he said.
"There is a labour intensive side to dealing with the intricacies of property and title searches, surveying, conveyances ... it makes sense. Council is not seeking to make a profit, but simply recover the costs of doing that business."
The decision came amid an unprecedented time of growth and development in Launceston that saw the council approve 771 building applications across the municipality.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: