Disputes over infrastructure charges and conditions featured prominently in 2025, yielding instructive outcomes for Councils and developers negotiating the cost of growth. In OPD Developers Pty Ltd & Anor v Logan City Council [2025] QPEC 8, the Court struck down a local government’s infrastructure charges notice (ICN) as invalid. The applicants (a developer partnership behind a new private hospital in Meadowbrook) sought a declaration under the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 11 that the ICN issued by Logan City Council was unlawful. Everson DCJ agreed, finding the charge was beyond power because it did not comply with the statutory requirement in s 120(1) of the Planning Act 2016 that a levied charge may be only for extra demand generated by the development approval. In essence, the Council had no lawful basis to levy any charge, as the hospital’s demand on trunk infrastructure had already been established under a Ministerial Infrastructure Designation (MID) which made the use accepted development. The Court declared the notice “invalid and of no effect” and set it aside. This outcome underscores to councils that infrastructure charges must be meticulously calculated and grounded in lawful authority under the Planning Act 2016 – any excess or misapplication of the “extra demand” principle can render the notice void. For developers, OPD Developers is a reminder that the Court can provide relief where a charges notice appears inflated or erroneous, but a clear legal foundation (such as a misapplication of the “extra demand” principle) is needed to succeed.
Another infrastructure-related battle unfolded in Rochedale Development Partners v Brisbane City Council[2025] QPEC 16, which was an appeal against an amended ICN (rather than a declaratory application). Here the developer contested Council’s valuation of land dedicated for a trunk park, arguing the establishment cost (and consequent offset/refund amount) was miscalculated. McDonnell DCJ’s decision dismissed the appeal, effectively upholding the Council’s adopted independent valuation of the establishment cost. The Court examined the complex valuation methodology mandated by Council’s Charges Resolution (which required a before-and-after land value analysis for the park land). The developer alleged the Council’s valuer erred under Planning Act s 137 and the Charges Resolution criteria, but the Court was “not satisfied that the appellant has established there is an error”. This outcome illustrates that while developers can avail themselves of appeal rights to dispute charges, success hinges on proving a clear departure from the prescribed methodology or a factual valuation mistake. The Rochedale case is instructive for planning professionals: Councils should document their valuation process thoroughly, and developers should provide credible valuation evidence if contesting an ICN. Absent a demonstrable flaw, the Court is inclined to trust the Council’s calculation of infrastructure cost offsets.
Beyond charges, 2025 also saw disputes over conditions on development approvals, particularly conditions allocating infrastructure maintenance responsibilities. A standout example is Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors (No. 4) [2025] QPEC 2, the latest instalment in a protracted litigation over a quarry approval. In this phase, Cash DCJ was determining conditions regarding who should maintain the haulage road for quarry trucks. The Council’s conditions required Parklands (the developer) to perform “routine maintenance” (repairing defects like potholes) within specified times, but Parklands objected that this might trigger the need for separate operational works approval each time. The Court resolved this technical issue by interpreting the Planning Act’s definition of “operational work”, concluding that the routine road maintenance works were not of a nature likely to be classified as “operational work” requiring fresh approval. Cash DCJ reasoned that the hypothetical need for new approvals was so remote that it did not render the conditions unreasonable. Consequently, the Court imposed conditions 38 and 59 and Advisory Note 12 as proposed by the Council, confirming that the developer, not Council, must shoulder ongoing road upkeep. This decision will reassure councils that they can lawfully condition developers to maintain associated infrastructure without inadvertently trapping them in endless approval loops. For developers, it signals that the Court will enforce conditions to mitigate infrastructure impacts (like road wear-and-tear) as long as they are relevant and reasonable, even if they impose ongoing obligations.
In summary, the 2025 cases on infrastructure charges and conditions reveal a balanced approach: the Court invalidated overreach by a Council in one instance, yet in others it confirmed Councils’ methodologies and maintenance requirements where properly grounded. Local governments are advised to adhere strictly to legislative charging formulas (any hint of overcharging or exceeding statutory power can be fatal), and to craft development conditions that are precise and justified. The Court’s reasoning in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of the Gold Coast & Anor (No 2) [2025] QPEC 25 also re-affirmed the limits of s 65 of the Planning Act 2016, confirming that lawful development conditions must be “relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on” the development or reasonably required in relation to it. The decision reinforces that proportionality and clear nexus remain central to condition validity.
Developers, on the other hand, have avenues to challenge charges or onerous conditions, but they bear the onus of proof. These decisions collectively promote a fair and transparent framework for funding infrastructure: only necessary demand is charged, and those who benefit from development (the developers) can be held to maintain infrastructure so the wider community isn’t unduly burdened.
Milne Legal can assist you with your infrastructure charge queries and advise in relation to your town planning and environmental law matters. If you would like to get in touch, please contact our office on (07) 3210 0943 or email us at admin@milnelegal.com.au.
This publication is general in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and you should always seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances prior to making any decisions relating to matters covered by this publication. Certain details may have been sourced from external references, and we cannot assure the accuracy or timeliness of such information.