Fewer construction projects leads to collapse in developer payments to council

Brisbane property developers paid significantly less than expected into council coffers over the past year, likely due to a fall in construction projects.

Initially forecast to contribute about $163.7 million, developers paid just over half that at $84.2 million.

The figures were revealed in a financial report published ahead of Tuesday’s Brisbane City Council meeting.

A representative for the lord mayor’s office said multiple factors accounted for the shortfall, but the main one was the completion of fewer projects than expected.

Developer contributions are levied on projects when they are completed to help fund essential services.

The $163.7 million projection from the 2025-26 budget was later revised to $112.3 million.

Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said the report showed the budget was strong, pointing to a reduction in net debt and lower rates than those in surrounding local government areas.

“We’ll hear the opposition moan and groan, but I did want to flag this: at the last election, the Labor Party and the Greens put together $3.5 billion worth of commitments,” he told the council chamber.

“That would have had a material impact on the financial statements if they were in administration today.”

Greens councillor Seal Chong Wah highlighted the shortfall in developer contributions. She also pointed to millions of dollars in discounted charges offered to developers to incentivise construction, saying it showed big business was not paying its fair share towards the services Brisbane relied on.

“This is unsustainable. We need this basic infrastructure for a growing city, and we need it now,” Chong Wah said in a statement.

“The LNP are giving developers handouts for ‘affordability’, but Brisbane’s house prices overtook Melbourne and Canberra under this policy. Developers just pocket this for bigger profits.

“The LNP are giving developers handouts in a housing crisis, but we should be taxing their super-profits.”

Council’s capital expenditure was also almost $100 million short of what had been expected, but the lord mayor’s office said this had nothing to do with reduced income streams and was instead attributed to accounting factors, including the transfer of Victoria Park.