[Emma Murphy]

So, this is the response I have from our ESPL advisor
“Firstly, in relation to conservation agreements, land that is the subject of a conservation agreement under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 or National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 can be classified as Public Benefit Land (refer Schedule 1 (10)(e)) if the land is not used for profit-making purposes and the conservation of the land is the predominant use of the land. There is no apportionment as is the case with Council rates. In determining whether the predominant use of the land is for conservation purposes, a useful starting point would be the percentage area of the land that is subject to the conservation agreement. If more than 50 percent of the land is covered by a conservation agreement, then that would be prima facie evidence that the predominant use complies with Schedule 1. If the area covered by the conservation agreement is only 6 percent, then it would be difficult to argue that land conservation is the predominant use of the land, and it should therefore be classified as if it was rateable by Council (ie, farmland, residential, industrial or commercial).”

So am I right in assuming…that based on these sceneries….

Property 1. 100% conservation under the National Parks act, and no idea if it Non for profit (privately owned), could be Public Benefit?
Property 2. 21% conservation under the Nation parks act, yet isn’t NFP, is farmland and ESPL on the whole LV, not the LV less the conservation area.
Property 3. 54% conservation under Nation parks act, and isn’t NRP, is still farmland (because it cant be Public benefit, based that is still is for profit and ESPL on the whole LV, not the LV less the conservation area.

Look forward to anyones thoughts…..