Two lessees of a historic Donnelly River hut have lost a hearing at the State Administrative Tribunal against the Shire of Nannup on whether they should pay rates.
Claude and Bradley Russell called on SAT to review a decision made by the shire to impose general rates, a waste management fee and an emergency services levy on their Lower Donnelly River hut.
There are 43 huts are located in the D'Entrecasteaux National Park at the mouth of the Donnelly River and have been used for around 100 years as a family holiday destination.
SAT member Tim Carey said in the deliberation the huts were established many years before formal approval was needed by any government and had been occupied by mostly the same families in that time.
The leases were granted by the Department of Parks and Wildlife in 2015, provided the lessees brought the structures up to the current building code before they were granted a 21-year term
During the SAT hearing, the lessees argued because of their unique circumstances, services and facilities provided by the shire were unnecessary and they saw it as an opportunistic way for the shire to raise funds.
Mr Carey said the motivation of the shire (alleged to have been an opportunistic money grab) was neither here nor there on SAT’s review.
He said the objective was to determine the correct and preferable decision when the same functions and discretion available to the shire was applied.
The only way to access the huts is by boat, which are located 12 kilometres downriver from an unsealed road off the Vasse Highway.
Mr Carey said because of the huts’ location, lessees were self-dependent and supplied all their own materials and purposes during their stays and took their rubbish home with them.
However, it did not exclude the lessees from paying rates.
“There is no question here that the land and the subject of the applicants’ lease falls within the district of the shire for rating purposes,” said Mr Carey.
“Decisions by individual land holders not to avail themselves of those facilities and services are, again, not relevant to the question of their liability under the Local Government Act for rates and services charges.”
The applicants argument that the huts could be used for by the public did not stand up either, because out of the 43 huts at the site only three were available for public use and did not include the applicant’s hut.
