[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Lee,

This is an unusual situation that I have never considered would occur in the current market. In our area if a property could be developed or subdivided, it would be bought by a developer and developed to its full potential (ie more than one dwelling), and thereby losing the postponement. It is unusual that some-one would buy a property that is obviously able to be developed and build only another single dwelling and still be entitled to a postponement.

I am assuming from what you say that the original parcel of land was made up of two or more lots and that the new consolidated property is the same parcel of land.

Whilst the granting of a postponement of rates requires that a dwelling be situated on the land, the wording for the ending of the concession is slightly different and says that the entitlement ceases where the use of the land ceases to be used or occupied as a site for a single dwelling house. Even though for a brief period the land was not used or occupied by a single dwelling house, it may be considered that it is still used as a site for a single dwelling house, whilst the new house is to be/is being built. I looked up an Oxford Dictionary definition of site which says “a place where something is, was, or will be built, or where something happened, is happening, or will happen” . With the lack of definition of “site” in The Act, a dictionary definition may be used in a Court, which lends a property to be considered to be a site of a single dwelling, particularly in this case where a DA was lodged to re-build another single house.

In this case I would continue the postponement of rates as the entitlement hasn’t ceased.

This would be my interpretation, but I would be interested in other opinions as well.

Kind regards,

Matthew.