[Todd Cowan]

Hello Everyone,
Sydney Metro has requested a rating exemption on land parcels they have purchased in our municipality.
They cite Section 555(1)(g3) of the LGA 1993:

(g3) land that is vested in or owned by Sydney Metro AND in, on or over which rail infrastructure facilities (within the meaning of the Transport Administration Act 1988) are installed,

I capitalised the “AND” for emphasis re that there are two parts of that section that need to be satisfied in order for Council to grant non-rateability.
As the tunnelling has not reached Burwood yet – and won’t for some time – and nor has any barricades/fencing/principal demolition, train tracks, jack-hammering in, on or under the shops Sydney Metro has compulsorily acquired on which they are seeking non-rateability, I believe that the land parcels do not meet the both requirements of s555(1)(g3) and that non-rateability cannot be granted, because there are not any rail infrastructure facilities currently installed on the subject sites – that is, a vacant shop(s) does not constitute ‘rail infrastructure racilities’

Your thoughts please….

Regards,
Todd @ Burwood

[Trevor Holland]

G’day Todd

An interesting question.

Had a look at the definition of the term rail infrastructure Facilities under the Transport Administration Act 1988 Section 3.

Reads as follows:

“rail infrastructure facilities” —

(a) includes railway track, associated track structures, over track structures, cuttings, drainage works, track support earthworks and fences, tunnels, bridges, level crossings, service roads, signalling systems, train control systems, communication systems, overhead power supply systems, power and communication cables, and associated works, buildings, plant, machinery and equipment, but

(b) does not include any stations, platforms, rolling stock, rolling stock maintenance facilities, office buildings or housing, freight centres or depots, private sidings or spur lines connected to premises not vested in or owned by or managed or controlled by a rail infrastructure owner.

My initial thought was I can’t see that vacant shop(s) are included in this definition so I am of the same opinion as yourself. Not eligible for a rate exemption.

Then again could the vacant shops, which are going to be eventually demolished and developed, fall under Part(a) of the definition and deemed to be “associated works or buildings”?

Will be interested to hear the thoughts of others. Maybe it is worth running the question past your legal advisors to see what they come up with.

Regards
Trevor

[Todd Cowan]

Hey Trevor,
Thanks for your reply & the relevant part of the TAA
Hmmm – good point you make about ‘associated works or buildings’
Much appreciated

Regards
Todd

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Todd,

I agree that they are not exempt under this Section based on your assessment however if the shops are vacant and unleased they could still be entitled to an exemption under 555(1)(a) being land owned by the Crown, not being land held under a lease for private purposes. This is because Sydney Metro is declared a Government Agency under 38(2) of the Transport Administration Act, and under 13A(1) of the Interpretations Act “If an Act provides that a body is (a) a NSW Government agency…….the body has the status, privileges and immunities of the Crown”.

If they have applied under 555(1)(g3) only you can knock them back under that Section citing your reasons, and see if they come back with a different argument under 555(1)(a).

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Todd Cowan]

Thanks Matthew
Excellent advice
Much appreciated

[Author]

Posts