VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P122/2025
Permit Application no. PLN23/0521 	

Applicant	Chinmaya Mission Australia Pty Ltd	
Responsible Authority	Manningham City Council	
Respondents	Alan Sargeant	
	Argyro Loupis	
	Judith Theobald	
	Lorna Sargeant	
	Maria Reisis	
	Qing Yang	
	Robert Black	

SUBJECT LAND	4 Pioneer Drive
TEMPLESTOWE VIC 3106	

HEARING TYPE	Preliminary hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	21 and 22 May 2025	

DATE OF ORDER	7 July 2025	

CITATION	Chinmaya Mission Australia Pty Ltd v Manningham CC [2025] VCAT 603	
determination on preliminary questions
Question One
1	Has the land at 4 Pioneer Drive, Templestowe (‘Land’) continued to be used for the purpose of 'Study groups and philosophy classes' since 18 February 2014, when a certificate of compliance issued under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) recorded that the Land enjoyed an existing use right for this purpose?
Yes.
Question Two
2	If the Land benefits from an existing use right and the development proposed by permit application no. PLN23/0521 is approved, will the Land still be used for the purpose protected by that existing use right?
Yes, as long as the purpose of the use remains unchanged.

procedural matters
Hearing 
3	This application is listed for a hearing as detailed below.
If there is any change to these details, the Tribunal will notify you.
Hearing:	
Date and time	18, 19 and 20 August 2025
10:00am – 4:30pm	
Conduct 	In person	
Place	VCAT Melbourne, 55 King Street,
MELBOURNE VIC 3000	
Submissions and evidence before the hearing
4	No later than 5 business days before the hearing, the parties must provide an electronic copy of their submissions and associated material (such as supporting documents, case law and photographs) to the Tribunal and all parties.  The copy for the Tribunal must be sent to admin@courts.vic.gov.au
5	All expert evidence must be provided in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence.
Hearing fees
6	If you are the applicant in this proceeding, you may be required to pay a daily hearing fee before the hearing commences. For more information, see the VCAT website www.vcat.vic.gov.au/fees

J Perlstein
Member			

Appearances
For Chinmaya Mission Australia Pty Ltd	Rory O’Connor, Hall & Wilcox. The applicant called the following witness:
•	Ayush Srivastava	
For Manningham City Council	Kate Kennedy, solicitor, Planology Pty Ltd.	
For Alan Sargeant, Lorna Sargeant, Maria Reisis, Robert Black, Qing Yang, Argyro Loupis, Judith Theobald & Lionel Theobald	Daniel Epstein of counsel, instructed by Chris Henderson, Phillips & Wilkins Lawyers. The respondents called the following witness:
•	Nicholas Reisis	

  Reasons
The purpose of the preliminary hearing
1	This preliminary hearing was listed for the Tribunal to consider the following questions, as drafted by the parties:
Question One
a 	Has the land at 4 Pioneer Drive, Templestowe (‘Land’) continued to be used for the purpose of 'Study groups and philosophy classes' since 18 February 2014, when a certificate of compliance issued under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) recorded that the Land enjoyed an existing use right for this purpose?
b 	If not, what is the proper characterisation of the purpose for which the Land has been used since 18 February 2014?
Question Two
a 	If the Land benefits from an existing use right and the development proposed by permit application no. PLN23/0521 is approved, will the Land still be used for the purpose protected by that existing use right?
b 	If not, what is the proper characterisation of the purpose for which the Land will be used?
2	Application P122/2025 is an application brought by the Chinmaya Mission Australia Pty Ltd (‘the applicant’) seeking the Tribunal’s review of the failure of the Manningham City Council (‘the council’) to determine to grant a planning permit for buildings and works associated with the existing use of the land described as study groups and philosophy classes. The council subsequently confirmed that had the application for review not been lodged, it would have refused to grant a planning permit.
3	The council delegate’s report considering the application for permit, following the lodging of the application for review, included the following grounds on which it would have refused the application:
1. 	The proposal fails to demonstrate that the land continues to enjoy an existing use right for ‘Philosophy classes and study groups’.
2. 	Even if an existing use right were established for ‘Philosophy classes and study groups’, the permit application would result in the use no longer falling within such a right and would transform the use into a Place of Assembly/Worship.
4	It was agreed that, prior to consideration of the merits of the application for review, which concerns a development application only, a preliminary hearing was required to determine whether any issues arise with the use of the land at 4 Pioneer Drive, Templestowe (‘the land’), possibly resulting in the need for planning permission for use associated with the proposed development. 
5	Evidence was called by the applicant in the form of an affidavit and oral evidence of Ayush Srivastava (‘Srivastava’), the Vice President on the Management Committee for the Melbourne branch of the applicant and a Director on the Chinmaya Board. The respondents filed an affidavit of Nicholas Reisis (‘Reisis’) who was then called to give oral evidence. Reisis’ family home is proximate to the land and Reisis’ mother is a respondent in this proceeding.
6	Having considered all of the submissions and evidence, and the relevant provisions of the Manningham Planning Scheme (‘the Scheme’), I find that the land continues to enjoy existing use rights for the purpose set out in the certificate of compliance dated 18 February 2014, and that the applicant has the intention of continuing to use it for that same purpose of ‘study groups and philosophy classes’ in future, including if planning permission is granted for the proposed development of the land.
7	The Tribunal cannot find that the land will continue to be used for that same purpose, as there is always the possibility that the purpose of the use will change. In that case, planning permission may be required for a different use. However, I am satisfied on the information provided to the Tribunal during the hearing, primarily the evidence of Srivastava, that the current use is consistent with the philosophies and practices of the applicant organisation and that this use is highly likely to continue in its current form as long as the applicant is responsible for the land. 
8	My reasons follow.
Background
9	The land is located in the Low Density Residential Zone (‘LDRZ’) in the Scheme. It has a total area of 5,432 square metres and is improved with a two storey brick dwelling, a single storey detached brick building, a tennis court and car parking area.
10	The broader context is described in the council submissions as follows: 
In its broader context, the area surrounding the Subject Land generally comprises large, detached dwellings, with generous front, side and rear setbacks and established trees in a landscaped setting.
Land to the south along The Grange is in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 3 and generally accommodates single detached dwellings, with some examples of unit development emerging in this street. Due to a significant fall in site levels, these properties sit below the development on the Subject Land.
11	In 2013, the applicant applied for a certificate of compliance following complaints filed and an investigation by the council into the use occurring on the land. 
12	A certificate of compliance was issued, with the following explanation provided within the council written submissions:
14. 	Properly characterised, the purpose of the actual use as assessed by Council in 2014 was not for an ‘Education centre’, a ‘Temple’ or a ‘Place of assembly’. It was much narrower and more specific. Notably, the characterisation did not contemplate regular congregations of a large number of people. Council was concerned not to characterise the purpose of the existing use so widely that the Subject Land could be used for a distinct purpose that was not part of its educative use at that time. The terminology ‘Study groups and philosophy classes’ was deliberately chosen to reflect the plain and ordinary meaning of how Council understood the Subject Land was used. In common parlance:
14.1 	A ‘study group’ is generally understood as a small group of people who convene regularly to exchange ideas and information on a specific subject. An example that immediately springs to mind is a small group of university or school students meeting to review course material, compare notes and clarify concepts. 
14.2 	A ‘philosophy class’ might be described as a group of pupils taught together about fundamental questions of human existence, knowledge, ethics and reality. 
15. 	On 18 February 2014, Council issued the certificate of compliance no. PE13/003865-01 under section 97N(1)(a) of the Act (Certificate) in the following terms:

13	The council and respondents do not resile from the purpose of the specified use as at 18 February 2014 but say that the use has changed since 2014 or will change once the development is completed (council) and that the use has intensified over time so as to change into a different use (respondents). 
14	The applicant has used the land since 1981 and owned the land since 2001. The certificate of compliance was issued on the basis of use of the land for at least 15 years, between 1998 and 2013.
15	The applicant has been consistent in its description of the purpose of the use and the way in which that manifests through the activities carried out on the land, historically, currently and as proposed into the future.
Existing use provisions in the scheme 
16	Clause 63 of the Scheme governs existing use rights. 
17	Without existing use rights for the applicant’s use of the land, planning permission would be required in the LDRZ for the current use of the land, whether it is characterised as ‘study groups and philosophy classes’ or a place of worship, place of assembly or education centre.
18	As set out in clause 63.02, characterisation of an existing use is resolved through consideration of the purpose of the actual use:
 Once an existing use is characterised, there are limitations on these rights and expiry provisions, as set out in clause 63.05 and 63.06:

19	The council queried whether the use had stopped for a continuous period of two years since the certificate of compliance was issued. It submits that while the use of the land by the applicant has continued, the purpose of the use may have changed to comprise a use other than that which has existing use rights as set out in the certificate.
20	The council submitted as follows:
44. 	Looking at the facts through a planning lens, it is Council’s impression that the real and substantial purpose of the use has gone beyond discussion and teaching of philosophy since 2014. It is no longer a purely educative purpose. This view is informed by officers’ inspection of the Subject Land, accounts from neighbouring residents and the community (including the Respondent’s Affidavit), and information publicly available on the Applicant’s website.
…
47. 	The Subject Land appears to have been used as a place of reverence and worship, where participants seek regular and ongoing interaction with others of similar interests and beliefs. It appears to be a place where people engage in prayer, chanting and meditation, and where people of all ages, including children, socialise and celebrate rituals and festivals in the Hindu calendar, like Paduka Pooja and Diwali. It appears to be a place where people privately confer with and seek counselling from the resident monk.
48. 	Ultimately, Council remains uncertain about whether the purpose of the land use since 2014 has continued to be limited to ‘Study groups and philosophy classes’. Just because the activities on the Subject Land may have included classes and study groups does not mean the actual purpose of the use still falls within the scope of the existing use right for ‘Study groups and philosophy classes’. Further, even if the Tribunal accepts this is one purpose for which the Subject Land has been used, there is insufficient information to determine whether this purpose remains dominant or has been subsumed by a different overarching purpose altogether.
49. 	In Council’s view, the correct characterisation of the use of the Subject Land since 2014 remains unclear. Until Mr Srivastava’s evidence is tested, it is not possible to form a definitive view on the proper characterisation of the actual use. 
21	Despite council officers having inspected the land and noting ‘accounts from neighbouring residents’, the council did not call any evidence of its own and sought to rely on the applicant’s own evidence to determine the current purpose of the use.
22	Following the Srivastava evidence, the council, while agreeing that the evidence was ‘credible and compelling’ confirmed that its position was that the purpose of the use has changed from a narrow educative purpose to a broader devotional purpose for which planning permission would be required.  
23	The council noted that the Tribunal has recently, in K Rouse Transport Pty Ltd v Wangaratta Rural CC [2024] VCAT 670, observed that a certificate of compliance does not operate as an impediment or limitation to the making of a declaration about existing use rights. This extends to declarations that may be inconsistent with the existing use right as set out in the certificate.
24	I agree that, in this proceeding, the Tribunal must consider whether the current use of the land continues to reflect the existing use right articulated in the certificate of compliance and whether the proposed buildings and works will be likely to change the purpose of the use. 
25	Both the council and the respondents submit that the current use has changed from that which was characterised within the certificate of compliance and that this will become more evident if the proposed development proceeds. The applicant submits that the purpose of the use remains the same and will continue as such.
What is the purpose of the use?
26	The applicant’s submissions, and the Srivastava evidence, continually referred back to the real and substantial purpose of the use being study groups and philosophy classes. 
27	The applicant’s website, and the international Chinmaya website, as referred to in the Reisis evidence, both include the same vision, mission and motto, as follows:

28	The Australian website includes the following description of spiritual goals that is directly tied to study classes and activities:

29	The applicant explained that the study groups and philosophy classes have increased throughout the years and have also been tailored to differentiate between youth, adult and family classes. They run during the week and on weekends with different numbers of attendees. The largest groups attend over the weekend.
30	Srivastava explained in oral evidence that the applicant, the Chinmaya Mission, has the purpose of studying Hindu philosophy and is knowledge based, with a belief in learning and reflection. While it is referred to as a ‘temple’ on the website, Srivastava explained that Chinmaya has dedicated temples in India only, and where international locations are referred to as temples, the reference has the meaning of a sacred place, but not a of a temple as traditionally understood which would be open to the public at all times and operate as a place of worship with daily and weekly rituals and other rituals, events and celebrations in accordance with the Hindu lunar calendar. 
31	Srivastava explained that 90 per cent of the activities of the applicant on the land are classes and learning. Within each class, there is a short period of prayers at the beginning and the end. For example, in a 90 minute class, there will be 80 minutes spent on the study aspect. Part of the dwelling on the land is used by the resident monk as a residence, with several rooms as well as the outbuilding used as classrooms for the Chinmaya Mission. The classes on the land are led by the resident monk and/or by volunteers. 
32	There are seven Chinmaya Mission locations in Melbourne currently and people who register and pay for classes can attend classes at any of the locations. 
33	The website includes information about times and venues of all classes held by the Chinmaya Mission, including those on the subject land. It holds separate classes for pre-school, primary school and high school students, as well as youth, adult and women learning groups. There is also separation of classes identified as Explore (infants and children aged up to 12 years), Engage (teenage and adults aged up to 35 years) and Evolve (professionals, family and retirees aged 30+). 
34	The website allows searches by venue, with an example included in the council documents below:

35	While there are some festival celebrations on the land, Srivastava explained that an event likely to have a larger crowd (more than 100 attendees) will be arranged to be held off-site. It was also explained that events do occur approximately monthly on the land to celebrate various festivals, with some social occasions such as a picnic or afternoon tea after classes on a weekend. 
36	The council material included information and photographs from a 2022 newsletter concerning various celebrations that have occurred on the land, including some that took place partly on the land and partly at external venues. Below is one of the examples:

37	As set out earlier, the council was careful in the phrasing of the certificate of compliance in 2014 to articulate the specific purpose of the use rather than identifying a purpose that was broader than the actual purpose. 
38	In reviewing the information provided to the council prior to its 2014 decision, the activities on the land are strikingly similar to today.
39	For example, a statutory declaration of Saroja Swami, describes the weekly classes held during the day and evenings, with ancillary educational activities and festivities:

40	The list of classes on the land in 1999 is shown in yellow highlight below, with a further list from 2001 where the classes were grouped by type:

41	Weekend classes in 2006 and 2012 were advertised as follows:

42	Further, a festival calendar from the year 2000 was included in the information provided to the council prior to the 2014 issue of the certificate of compliance. This sets out all of the activities planned for festivals throughout the year and is consistent with the Srivastava evidence that events are held approximately once a month to coincide with different festivals. These are not new or different activities being carried out on the land.

43	The current, and proposed future use, of the land, is described in the planning report submitted with the development application, as follows:

44	Srivastava explained how the current buildings and rooms are utilised and how the proposed development would provide for purpose-built rooms as well as car parking on-site which will remove much of the car parking from surrounding streets. Srivastava explained that there are limits as to how much the existing dwelling can be modified and it made practical sense to build a new building to better fulfil the applicant’s needs.
45	Srivastava explained that while classes have expanded since the 1980s and the mission has grown, the purpose has remained the same. Srivastava explained that teaching and learning is what they do, and that a place of worship is inconsistent with that intention. 
46	Several photos were shown to Srivastava by the council, and explanations were provided by Srivastava as to the use of each room and area for various classes and events.
47	The respondents focussed on the ‘slow escalation’ of the use for many years, additional cars parking around the land, additional days and times listed for classes over and above those set out in the certificate of compliance, and increased numbers of attendees. They consider the land is now used as a place of worship rather than study groups and philosophy classes. 
48	It is important to separate intensification of use from change of use. As set out in clause 63.05, a use for which an existing use right is established may continue provided the amenity of the area is not damaged or further damaged by a change in the activities beyond the limited purpose of the use preserved by the existing use rights.
49	This is not a prohibition on different activities occurring on the land or a prohibition on intensification of the use protected by the existing use rights. This clause only operates where the activities go beyond the purpose of the use preserved by the rights. 
50	I note that the reference to days and times of classes within the certificate of compliance states that the existing use has been characterised with evidence that relates to the days and times set out. However, there is no wording requiring that study groups and philosophy classes must only be held during those times and no conditions placed on the existing use right. 
51	It is well established that in considering whether an existing use right is established, it is the real and substantial purpose of the use that is to be considered, rather than a cataloguing of activities that occur on the land. This is succinctly described in the decision of Wellington & Ors v Surfcoast SC (‘Wellington’):
119	In Harrington, the Full Court had stated that, in the field of town planning, statutory provisions designed to protect and preserve existing use rights should be as liberally construed as the language in its context allows106.
120	Insofar as the principle of liberal construction applies, the use is to be characterised at the appropriate level of generality that identifies the real and substantial purpose for which the land is being used. This is not approached through a meticulous examination of the details of processes or activities, or a precise cataloguing of individual items. The courts have refused to categorise a use so narrowly or prescriptively that natural changes in the method of using the land or carrying on a business will render the existing use right valueless. Equally, the courts have been concerned not to categorise the purpose of a use so broadly that the land could be used for a prohibited purpose which was not given part of its use at the relevant date. One should simply ask what, according to ordinary terminology, is the appropriate designation of the purpose being served by the actual use of the premises, and seek to describe such use only at that level of generality that is necessary and sufficient to broadly cover the activities at the relevant date107. The common example given is from Harrington, where a use was characterised as being for the purpose of a bakery, not more specifically for the baking of bread, nor more generally for ‘light industry’.
[106] 	[1985] VicRp 64; [1985] VR 641 at 644, following Dorrestijn v SA Planning Commission [1984] HCA 76; (1984) 56 ALR 295 at 300, Parramatta CC v Brickworks Ltd [1972] HCA 21; (1972) 128 CLR 1 at 25, and Woollahra MC v Banool Developments Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 65; (1973) 129 CLR 138 at 144.
[107] 	This paragraph paraphrases principles from cases such as Shire of Perth v O’Keefe [1964] HCA 37; (1963) 110 CLR 529 at 535, Royal Agricultural Society of NSW v Sydney CC (1987) 61 LGRA 305 at 309-10, and City of Nunawading v Harrington [1985] VicRp 64; [1985] VR 641 at 644-45.
52	While at first glance there are activities occurring on the land that could be construed as activities that would typically occur in a place of worship, a place of assembly or an education centre, a closer examination uncovers the purpose of the use of the land by Chinmaya Mission, which was clearly articulated by Srivastava to be studying Hindu philosophy and acquiring knowledge through study groups and philosophy classes. This is consistent with the publicly available information on the Australian and global Chinmaya website. While there is information concerning activities other than study, the core purpose of textual study and philosophical engagement is clear. 
53	The council agreed with the applicant’s representative that the evidence of Srivastava was ‘credible, consistent and compelling’. I agree. 
54	I am persuaded by the evidence of Srivastava, together with the information provided to the council concerning the use prior to 2014, that this purpose has remained consistent since the commencement of the use of the land by the applicant and is likely to remain so. Srivastava noted several times during their evidence that the board must operate in accordance with the principles of the Chinmaya Mission and that they would no longer be Chinmaya Mission if they strayed from those core principles.
55	While there are semi-regular activities and events other than study, those are anchored in the principles of teaching and learning espoused by the applicant and are ancillary to the primary use. They are also primarily activities and events that were regularly occurring prior to the grant of the certificate of compliance and continue to occur, whether or not they now involve more participants.
56	The council officer in 2014 was careful in the wording of the statement of compliance to characterise the use by reference to the real and substantial educational purpose for which the land was being used, and not a broader term such as place of worship. I am satisfied that the use has not changed. The primary activities remain study groups and philosophy classes. The festival celebrations and tours by visiting spiritual heads and educators have occurred since the commencement of the use of the land by the applicant and are ancillary to, and complement, the educational purpose of the use of the land. Whilst the purpose could have been described slightly differently, the phrase ‘study groups and philosophy classes’ continues to appropriately describe the primary use of the land and the purpose of the applicant’s use of the land.
What is the likely future use of the land?
57	The second question, as drafted, asks if the land will still be used for the purpose protected by the existing use right if the land is developed as proposed by the permit application yet to be reviewed by the Tribunal. 
58	The council submitted that the proposed construction will transform the primary purpose of the land to be religious activities and that, following development, the purpose of the use will properly be a place of worship:
66. 	In Council’s submission, the real and substantial purpose of the use of the Subject Land will be a place for people to congregate for religious activities and practices. Attendees may undertake activities that may well include ‘Study groups and philosophy classes’, but the primary purpose of the use will be religious activities.
67. 	Just as some aspects of the traditional hotel use continued in the Lemon Tree Hotel case when it morphed into a late night entertainment venue, education may still form part of the religious activities on the Subject Land. This is similar to classes like Sunday school, the Alpha program, Bible study groups, and youth groups in the Christian context. Such classes are not regarded as the primary purpose of the use of land, but rather constitute ancillary aspects of the dominant use for a church or the like.
59	In addition to the Lemon Tree Hotel case, the council referred to the Supreme Court decision of RSSB Australia Pty Ltd v Ross [2017] VSC 314. That decision concerned an appeal from a Tribunal decision determining that a permit could not be granted for use and development of a place of worship. This finding was based on the fact that the definition of place of worship in the scheme refers to ‘land used for religious activities’ and the Tribunal found that RSSB was not a religion and therefore could not conduct religious activities. 
60	The Court found that the Tribunal erred in focussing on whether RSSB is a religion rather than characterising the use of the land, as follows (footnotes have been excluded):
31 	Whether RSSB is a religion is not determinative of whether the proposed use of the land meets the land use term of a ‘place of worship’. It is a factor that may be relevant in the broader analysis, but it is not, alone, determinative. Consideration of that question did not exhaust the exercise to be undertaken in determining whether the land was to be used for religious activities.
32 	In characterising the proposed use of land, it is necessary to ascertain the purpose of the proposed use. The task must be undertaken in a common sense and practical way. The Tribunal was called upon to consider what activities were to be undertaken on the land and the purpose of that intended use — to what end the activities were to be undertaken — to determine whether the proposed development satisfied the definition of a ‘place of worship’ in the Planning Scheme. By focussing on whether RSSB was a religion, the Tribunal did not carry out this task
61	The Court then went on to determine that the purpose of the use of the land was for religious activities and the that the use and development could be characterised as a place of worship:
45 	It is significant that the Tribunal itself found that ‘at the heart’ of the activities which were to be undertaken at the site was an ‘intent to assist people to worship their God’. The Tribunal observed that if the definition of ‘place of worship’ relied on an element of worship taking place (which it did), that element would include the proposed activities on the review site.
46 	The applicant submitted that in determining whether the development is to be used as a ‘place of worship’, a liberal approach to interpretation must be favoured over a narrow one, so as to respect accepted standards of religious equality and tolerance in Australia. The Court should prefer a construction that permits persons to exercise their religion at the place where they wish, over an interpretation or construction which prevents them from doing so. The common law supports the application of this interpretive approach to planning legislation.
47 	I accept this submission.
…
49 	In this case, the principal activities proposed for the development involve meditation to enhance the follower’s connection with his or her God and practices aimed at developing and enhancing that connection. These are religious activities. 
50 	I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development and use satisfies the definition of ‘place of worship’ in the Planning Scheme.
62	The council submitted that the same applies in this scenario. 
63	Srivastava responded directly to this submission noting that the primary purpose remains teaching and learning, and not religious activity. This can be distinguished from RSSB where the activities were more appropriately described as religious activities.
64	In that application, RSSB was seeking a planning permit for a place of worship. In this matter, existing use rights apply to the use of the land as established in 2014. While the Tribunal is not bound by the certificate of compliance, the question before the Tribunal in this application is whether the land continues, and will continue, to be used for study groups and philosophy classes and therefore separate planning permission is not required for an additional, or different, use of the land. 
65	The council’s submission as set out at paragraph 59 above, is also based on an assumption that the new construction will result in study groups and philosophy classes becoming an ancillary aspect of the use of the land, which will, in future, predominantly be to congregate for religious activities and practices. However, this is at odds with the evidence of Srivastava as well as the documentary material included in the council’s material filed prior to the hearing that illustrates how the land has been consistently used by the applicant for several decades. I accept the explanation of Srivastava that ‘when I want to celebrate festivals and want ritual or prayer I go to a temple to do that; not to the mission’. 
66	I am satisfied that there is no intention to transform the use into a place of worship and that the Chinmaya Mission maintains its focus on teaching and learning through classes. 
67	I am persuaded that the proposed building is intended to be used in the same manner as the existing building, in the sense that it will be a purpose built structure where classes can be held, noting that the family classes held on the weekends include a period at the beginning of the session where the entire group comes together for prayers, announcements and the like before breaking off into smaller class groups and, at the end of the session, before leaving. Srivastava explained that the intention is to replicate the current use in the new building and use the current building for overflow. The design of the new rooms allows for the entire group to come together in classroom 1 and then move directly into classrooms 2 and 3 without returning to the corridor, while also providing separate exits from those classrooms to be used as required. 

68	Of course, a planning permit is not personal to the applicant, and it is possible that a future owner or operator of the site will use the site in a different way that is not protected by the existing use right. In those circumstances, including if the applicant changes its use of the land, a planning permit will be required to be obtained for the different use.
69	In answering question two with a ‘yes’, I have qualified it to be on the basis that the purpose of the use remains unchanged. I cannot state unequivocally that the land will always continue to be used for this purpose. However, based on the submissions and evidence of the applicant, I am satisfied that the intention is for the applicant to continue to operate the site for the purpose of study groups and philosophy classes. As already clarified, this does not prohibit the applicant from holding larger functions or activities other than classes from time to time, that are associated with or ancillary to the primary use. 
Conclusion 
70	In conclusion, I am satisfied that the existing use of the land as described in the certificate of compliance as study groups and philosophy classes has continued since the grant of the certificate and is intended to continue if a permit is granted for the proposed development.  
71	The answers to question 1(a) and 2(a) are both yes and questions 1(b) and 2(b) need not be considered.
72	The hearing of the merits of application for review P122/2025 can now proceed as listed.

J Perlstein
Member