Land valuation changes to impact Queensland property owners
Amendments to the Land Valuation Act introduced into the Queensland Parliament will affect landowners paying rates and taxes, a law firm warns.
Last month the Minster for Resources introduced the Land Valuation Amendment Bill 2023 into Queensland Parliament which contains changes to he administration and operation of statutory land valuation.
The Land Valuation Amendment Bill 2023 (Qld) affects all landowners paying rates and property taxes, according to law firm Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers.
The amendments in the bill will allow the Valuer-General to make statutory guidelines to provide direction to registered valuers on processes, practices and considerations to be applied in preparing statutory land valuations.
The guidelines are intended to improve statewide practices for complex property types in particular such as volumetric lots, shopping centres, land affected by heritage restrictions and childcare centres, where there is not a significant amount of market information to otherwise inform the valuation process.
The bill has been referred to the Transport and Resources Committee for detailed consideration with the Committee due to table a report on 24 November this year.
CGW Lawyers senior associate Tom Walrut and partner Sarah Lancaster said there is currently not a lot of detail about the intended guidelines, how they will operate and when they will apply, which is important information.
“The Guidelines do not appear to be required to reflect current industry practice, valuations standards or the legal approach to valuations. They can be prepared in a way to maximise land values (which will affect the level of rates and property taxes paid in relation to the property),” said Mr Walrut in a recent article.
The law firm also noted that the guidelines will be binding on the VG, property owners and arguably the Land Court.
“This will curtail property owners’ abilities to effectively object to an onerous valuation,” said Ms Lancaster.
“For example, the explanatory notes provide that if the Guidelines mandate a particular valuation methodology for a particular property type, this will limit the grounds of potential objections and appeals to considering the issue of whether the Guidelines have been properly applied.”
The guidelines are also not limited to specific matters in the Land Valuation Act 2010 (QLD) but can affect any valuation required to be made under the Act.
The proposed changes may also increase the cost of any objection made by a landowner, according to CGW Lawyers.
“Currently, a landowner who objects to a valuation must advise the VG of the valuation sought where the original valuation is more than $750,000,” the law firm said.
“The Bill proposes to remove the $750,000 threshold and requires all landowners to state the valuation sought in their objection. Under the Bill, any objection will need to include: the valuation sought for the land; at least 1 ground of objection to the valuation; and in relation to each ground of objection, the information the landowner relies on to establish the ground.
“Practically, this is likely to involve landowners providing an alternative valuation.”
Landowners who want to object will have to obtain a professional valuation with deals with the grounds of objection and the valuation will need to set out the analysis of how any information, which a landowner proposes to rely upon, affects the valuation.
The bill also makes changes to the $5 million threshold for an objection conference.
“Currently, the VG may invite a landowner to participate in an objection conference if an objection has been properly made and the valuation is at least $5 million. The Bill proposes to remove the $5 million threshold,” the law firm said.
“The objector can accept or reject the invitation from VG to participate in the objection conference. Any information provided before an objection conference or required by the chairperson for a conference is admissible in further proceedings. The idea is that objections may be resolved at the conference; however, the risk is that this may prevent frank and open discussions at the conference seeking a resolution to the dispute.”
About the author
