[Lee Howard]

Hi all,

We have a property that has been receiving postponed rates for many years under Sec 585 (b) a parcel of land (which may comprise one or more lots or portions in a current plan) on which there is a single dwelling-house used or occupied as such and which is zoned or otherwise designated under an environmental planning instrument so as to permit its subdivision for residential purposes, not being land referred to in paragraph (c),

The total amount currently held in postponed is $9,000. Last year the property was sold, in July the new owner lodged a DA & demolished the house, the bins were removed in November, the lots were consolidated into 1 lot and another DA has been lodged for a new dwelling.

At the moment it is vacant land do you write back the full amount postponed even though a house will be completed in the next 6 months or so? And if so once the dwelling is complete does postponed restart only from the date of completion of the new dwelling, meaning they will still have to pay the full $9,000?

[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.

[Mchelle Morris]

Hi Lee,
I agree with Matthew in that the postponed entitlement may remain as the zoning still is the same in that if the owner reapplied to subdivide without building the dwelling, it would be approved. I would consider requesting a revised attributable value from the VG based on the new dwelling plan as the area not used may vary significantly from the old dwelling resulting in a reduced postponed value.
regards
Mchelle

[Nicholas Lew]

Hi Lee,
While the land may still be entitled to postponed rates, if the valuation of land for which the determination was made is not in use for rating purposes the postponed rates would become payable. That is my interpretation of Sec 590.
Regards
Nick

[Author]

Posts