[Dale Size]

We have recently changed a parcel of land owned by a Buddhist not-for-profit from non-rateable to rateable, and they are disputing this – We would appreciate any input from the more experienced brains as to whether we should reinstate the exemption in this situation.

The property was originally designated to be the site of a religious training retreat, however the DA was denied and they have since relocated to another property. Since November 2024, they have been subdividing and selling this original block, and as such we have begun rating the property as vacant land for rates and sewer. 2 blocks have currently been sold, and 2 remain on the market.

They have advised us that “the land sale is being used to ensure the survival of the charity and to support our long-term purpose as a place of education, compassion and spiritual practice”, but I don’t believe this makes them eligible for exemption as the land is not being used or occupied by them for the purposes of worship, teaching or training as a religious organisation under 555(1)(e), nor is it being used for the purposes of the charity under 556(1)(h) – unless selling counts as “being used”.

Can anyone please advise whether vacant land with the intent of being sold should be exempt for a religious organisation and/or charity?

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Dale

I agree with you based on the information provided. An exemption for a religious body can be granted on vacant land but only where the land is occupied and used in connection with;
(i) a church or other building used or occupied for public worship, or
(ii) a building used or occupied solely as the residence of a minister of religion in connection with any such church or building, or
(iii) a building used or occupied for the purpose of religious teaching or training, or
(iv) a building used or occupied solely as the residence of the official head or the assistant official head (or both) of any religious body in the State or in any diocese within the State,

Essentially, (i) may be a vacant block used for overflow car parking or sunday school activities adjacent to a place of public worship. I would say the other items are probably irrelevant as the land described does not appear to be occupied and used and is simply for financial investment purposes.

Happy to discuss further if necessary.

Regards
Andrew

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Dale Size]

Hi Andrew, thanks very much for the input. I’m sure they won’t be happy with us standing firm on our decision, but I do think the act makes it quite clear. I’ve advised them that Council may be able to consider them for a donation under Section 356, but I personally don’t think this particular block of land should be eligible for that either when they aren’t planning on holding on to it for any longer than the market allows.

[Author]

Posts