12 November 2025

Revenue Office's lease variation charge appeal puts all housing at risk, says Dairy Road developer

| By Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
29
apartment buildings

An artist’s impression of Molonglo’s proposed Dairy Road development: Photo: David Chipperfield Architects.

The battle over development taxes is hotting up with the ACT Commissioner for Revenue appealing an ACAT decision that described a $101 million lease variation charge claim as “manifestly absurd”.

Dairy Road developer Molonglo Group stated that the decision to appeal the reduction of the lease variation charge (LVC) bill to $26.48 million would delay the project by at least 18 months and ultimately threaten more than 700 homes and over 40 local businesses.

Molonglo says the decision to appeal would not only impact its Dairy Road project but also reduce the development of new housing across Canberra.

The company received development approval in August 2023 to build over 400 world-class homes at Dairy Road, but had not been able to deliver them due to the tax dispute.

During an ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing to resolve the final LVC figure, the ACT Commissioner for Revenue increased the assessed LVC from $37 million to $101 million.

But ACAT found the figure was “manifestly absurd” and “not economically feasible”.

READ ALSO Barr’s quid pro quo on developer taxes, planning rules

Molonglo says it recognises the ACT Government’s responsibility to safeguard public revenue and ensure that developers contribute fairly to the city’s growth.

It says the government has legitimate concerns about the undervaluing of land, setting an unsustainable precedent, or appearing to give preferential treatment to any one developer.

But the Commissioner’s position risks undermining those very goals by preventing projects that deliver homes, jobs and tax revenue from proceeding at all, Molonglo says.

It would render future housing development economically unviable across the city, jeopardising the government’s target of 30,000 new homes by 2030.

Molonglo co-director Nikos Kalogeropoulos said the appeal was an attack on common sense.

“We cannot deliver the next stage of Dairy Road with an LVC charge of $101 million,” he said.

“It doesn’t work. An LVC is about raising taxation revenue for public benefit. If successful, it will economically terminate Dairy Road before one new home can be built. The ACT Government will win 100 per cent of nothing.

“There is no project to tax. No new homes to tax. No growth or expansion for Dairy Road businesses. The appeal is a waste of taxpayers’ money – the government’s position brings no benefit to Canberrans.”

Laurence Kain

Capital Brewing Co co-founder and managing director Laurence Kain. The delays limit the brewery’s growth plans and change the trajectory of the business. Photo: Supplied.

Local success story and Dairy Road business since 2017, Capital Brewing Co, has grown from a startup to one of Australia’s largest independent breweries, employing over 80 people.

Co-founder Laurence Kain backed Molonglo’s vision for the area, saying Dairy Road had been fundamental to the brewery’s success.

“These delays have already cost us financially,” he said.

“Further delaying, or worse, not realising the next stage of the neighbourhood at all, is a real blow to us. It limits our growth plans and changes the trajectory of our business.”

Another prominent ACT developer said the unprecedented method of calculating LVC at Dairy Road and its exorbitant outcome was reverberating across the industry in Canberra.

“It is completely at odds with the government’s own infill policies,” the developer said.

“We need clear, consistent tax charges that enable housing supply and vibrant precincts; otherwise, we all lose.

“If the methodology and the assessment of $101 million stands, no private developer can viably deliver mid to large-scale infill housing in the ACT.”

READ ALSO How family land can become a battleground (and how to stop it)

Property Council ACT executive director Ashlee Berry called on the government to genuinely review the lease variation charge and reset the balance between capturing land value uplift and supporting the delivery of homes and critical infrastructure across the Territory.

“With housing delivery now more critical than ever, the system must provide certainty, transparency, and consistency, not hinder project feasibility,” she said.

Molonglo says it supports a fair and transparent system that funds community infrastructure and delivers housing.

It called on the Commissioner to withdraw the appeal and for industry and government to work together to show how public good and private initiative could coexist.

“Canberra can’t tax housing at this rate and expect homes to be built. It’s crushing,” Mr Kalogeropoulos said.

“We are ready to deliver 408 new homes designed by internationally renowned David Chipperfield Architects, which would mark Canberra’s most significant example of architecture and ecology working in concert, and yet, we can’t start.”

He said the appeal raises questions about the credibility of the ACT Revenue Office.

“The public have made the connection that this office – whose LVC demand on Dairy Road is an extraordinary $75 million above what ACAT deemed fair and reasonable – is the same office that sets our residential property rates,” Mr Kalogeropoulos.

A government spokesperson said the ACT Revenue Office was independent of government.

An ACT Revenue Office spokesperson said it was not appropriate for the Commissioner to comment on this matter as it is a legal matter.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr said last week the government is open to being flexible on tax and planning rules to mitigate some of the risk associated with housing proposals, but it would want to see some community benefit in return.

Mr Barr said this could be in the form of offsets for community infrastructure or flexible payment schedules to ease cash flow.

But he said it couldn’t just be a private windfall gain.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

29
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Incidental Tourist11:56 am 13 Nov 25

Why does the developer and ACAT think that there is anything wrong with affordable dwellings starting at $1,000,000+ ?

devils_advocate8:17 am 14 Nov 25

There’s nothing working with it. $1,000,000 is affordable by definition because people keep buying them.

I personally have no objection to continually raising the LVC. It creates a higher capital barrier against new market entrants and the existing (better capitalised) market participants can extract higher profits for their products.

Yes this obviously (significantly) reduces the quantity of “missing middle” developments and raises the price of those that do proceed, but that’s what they wanted all along.

On balance will probably end up increasing the so-called “windfall gains” for those small-scale developers who can pass feasibility in the current tax environment.

Incidental Tourist11:07 pm 17 Nov 25

Let’s put it this way. $101M for 400 homes means that building 30,000 new homes by 2030 generates approx $7.5 Billion in LVC (assuming near full infill). Greenfield land has even more tax builtin so actual infill ratio doesn’t matter. Such LVC makes perfect financial sense as it covers territory debt.

Where did you pull 400 homes from?

Incidental Tourist4:47 pm 18 Nov 25

above – “The company received development approval in August 2023 to build over 400 world-class homes … but had not been able to deliver them due to the tax dispute”

Two paragraphs previous:

Dairy Road developer Molonglo Group stated that the decision to appeal the reduction of the lease variation charge (LVC) bill to $26.48 million would delay the project by at least 18 months and ultimately threaten more than 700 homes and over 40 local businesses.

The LVC is for the entire site (and covers all changed uses), not just one part of the proposed residential development.

Incidental Tourist1:50 pm 19 Nov 25

yeah, its unclear from this article whether this LVC relates directly to the “400 homes dev approval” which is what the tax dispute is. Or rather indirectly to “ultimately threatened 700 homes”.

The article is unclear but the site only has one crown lease and the charge reflects the entire proposed changes, ie. additional GFA and up to 700 units.

If you’re interested, the full ACAT decision is available on their website.

Our government has every right to safeguard its revenue base and ensure developers contribute fairly and equitably to our city’s revenue growth through the Land Variation Charge.

The LVC is a betterment tax levied on any increases in the market value of land arising from an improvement in development rights contained in a Crown lease purpose clause.

The Revenue Office’s decision to appeal ACAT’s ruling to reduce the LVC on this development by a whopping 74% is a legitimate legal right. The squawking coming from the owner and developer of the land is telling! The court will review the decision and if there is an error of law or a significant procedural irregularity in the original trial the decision will be reversed.

That is the way it should be!

devils_advocate8:05 pm 12 Nov 25

When the lack of available housing pushes prices even higher, just remember it is also the legitimate legal right of all developers to extract the absolute maximum prices the market will bear.

LVC was never intended to be fair or equitable! Private entities cannot build housing when it costs more to build than they get from selling. A private entity would be shut down for trying to operate while insolvent – but only governments can borrow endlessly (and recklessly), perpetually spending more than their income (and then lumping the taxpayers with the enduring burden of their loans) – private entities don’t have that option. So, you want to talk housing affordability? When developers can’t afford to build housing (ie. it will cost more than any potential income), but people still want somewhere to live: housing goes into short supply, and prices increase … perhaps one day to the point where the potential sale price might just cover the “manifestly absurd” amounts the ACT Government extracts by LVC (and other taxes, levies and charges) – just don’t be surprised when the sale price of said housing is likewise: “manifestly absurd”

BTW: the government is NOT safeguarding its revenue base – how much revenue do you think they will derive from a project their LVC has rendered “not economically feasible”? Try selling coffee for $20/cup and let me know how much revenue you make!

Isn’t that what they have always done?

The ACT community should not bear the brunt of developer greed!

I actually partially agree with Jack D for once.

The principle behind the LVC is inherently equitable.

The government (and community) should be the main recipents of windfall benefits created solely through government action in changing landuse and lease conditions.

The question is not about the LVC itself but about the calculation and amount levied, where strong arguments could be made around potential improvements to better reflect economic efficiency.

As for developers, when have they ever not extracted the maximum price the market could bear?

But apparently they must bear the brunt of government greed!

The government IS safeguarding its revenue base Bill, that is why they are appealing ACAT’s decision to reduce the assessment by 75% with the decision creating a precedent for future disputes. I for one will be following the outcome with interest!

The LVC is a legitimate tax which benefits both our economy and the community. It is a betterment tax which creates improved living environments for our citizens. These new development rights provide funding for public infrastructure which the community shares and benefits in. Developers can also defer or receive a temporary remission which also encourages development.

The tax has however been criticised for its complexity. A government review in 2019 (available on the parliamentary website) found that the LVC is achieving its objectives of capturing increased land value and its impact is not having a significant effect on the financial viability of development projects, “as it represents a relatively small component of overall costs”.

But Bill you can always vote for the Liberals as is your right, who are vehemently opposed to the LVC and have been fighting it for the past four elections, promising they will dump the tax if they are ever elected!

devils_advocate10:11 am 15 Nov 25

LVC was a lot lower in 2019 than it is now

If you want more of something pay a subsidy.

If you want less of something, impose a tax.

Maybe LVC was a lot less in 2019 because land values were lower.

Makes sense really!

Devils Advocate,
What does the amount matter when you’ve claimed the LVC inherently makes development unviable?

Almost like it has nothing to do with the LVC, but rather about the calculation.

devils_advocate4:48 pm 17 Nov 25

“The amount of LVC being charged has nothing to do with the LVC”.

lol what

Reading and comprehension not you thing?

Lol wut indeed.

Hint, there’s a difference between the underlying economic principle behind the charge and the way its calculated and implemented.

Jack: How exactly is the government safeguarding its revenue base by taxing a project to the extent that the project becomes unviable? If the project doesn’t go ahead, how much tax will the ACT Government get out of it? I’ll tell you: the government will get nothing (or $0) from its LVC if the project doesn’t go ahead, and that’s $26.48 million LESS than the current assessment (not to mention all the other taxes and levies they’ll also miss out on) – so much for ‘safeguarding revenue’ – that’s a REDUCTION, not a safeguard.

devils_advocate7:48 pm 17 Nov 25

“Reading and comprehension not you (sic) thing?”

lol

The irony

I think I have been quite clear where I stand on the LVC Bill. To be quite honest I don’t really give a fat rats on what developers think of the charge. Molonglo Group has bought this significant parcel of land to develop and are now seeking to vary the development to their financial advantage. The community should share in that benefit as well. The Revenue Office made its assessment, the developer appealed the decision and ACAT ruled in the company’s favour, reducing the charge by 74%. The RO is appealing the decision, as is their prerogative!

For too long developers in this city have had it too good. Thankfully our government is clamping down and introducing long overdue reforms to control their rampant and unscrupulous behaviour. Always blaming the government for their own incompetence and the laws which have been enacted to control their rogue conduct. Shoddy employee safety compliance destroying families and unscrupulous building practices which have crippled home buyers. We have seen numerous companies folding and going bust owing millions of dollars to creditors – the small family businesses, sparkies, brickies, carpenters, plumbers, concreters, scaffolders – and the many others who will never be repaid.

Let’s await the final ACAT decision!

Got me there DA, damn autocorrect.

Notice you avoided the point though, and it’s obvious why.

“Chief Minister Andrew Barr said last week the government is open to being flexible on tax … but it would want to see some community benefit in return.” Isn’t the provision of a homes for people to live in a ‘community benefit’?

devils_advocate4:07 pm 12 Nov 25

Nailed it

Providing them for free are they? Then in that case, yes it is a community benefit, not a private benefit.

But I suspect that’s not the case here.

devils_advocate10:52 pm 18 Nov 25

Lmao

Do people really not understand that adding new supply of housing to the market constrains price growth in addition to providing people with a place to live?

No wonder productivity is going backwards.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.