OPD Developers Pty Ltd v Logan City Council - [2025] QPEC 8

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

OPD Developers Pty Ltd & Anor v Logan City Council [2025] QPEC 8

PARTIES:

OPD DEVELOPERS PTY LTD

ACN 077 119 110

(First Applicant)

AND

MEADOWBROOK HEALTH PTY LTD ACN 634 599 189 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MEADOWBROOK HEALTH UNIT TRUST UNDER INSTRUMENT 721186902

(Second Applicant)

v

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

639 of 2025

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 April 2025

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

1. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE REFERENCE NUMBER LCC/377/2023 DATED 17 JULY 2023 PURPORTEDLY GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT IS INVALID AND OF NO EFFECT.

2. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE IS SET ASIDE.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – VALIDITY OF INFRACTURE CHARGES NOTICE – whether the charge is only for extra demand placed on trunk infrastructure that the development will generate

CASES:

Douglas Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2023] QPEC 28

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Planning Act 2016 (Qld)

Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

B D Job KC and S J Hedge for the first and second applicants

C L Hughes KC and B G Rix for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connor O’Meara for the first and second applicants

RedeMont for the respondent

This is an originating application concerning the lawfulness of an infrastructure charges notice. A declaration is sought pursuant to s 11 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (“PECA”) that an infrastructure charges notice, reference number LCC/377/2023 dated 17 July 2023, purportedly issued by the respondent (“the ICN”) is invalid and of no effect. Further, a consequential order is sought pursuant to s 11(4) of the PECA that the ICN be set aside.
The background to this matter begins with the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning making a designation under ch 2 pt 5 of the Planning Act 2016 (“PA”) identifying land at 6–8 and 10–12 Nestor Drive, Meadowbrook (“the premises”) for the development of infrastructure, namely “hospitals and healthcare services” (“the hospital”). The Ministerial Infrastructure Designation (“the MID”) was notified on 1 July 2022 and took effect on that date. As a consequence, pursuant to s 44 of the PA the hospital became “accepted development”,[1] which is “development for which a development approval is not required”.[2] It is uncontentious that the effect of the MID was to make a material change of use of the premises as that term is defined in sch 2 of the PA, being “the start of a new use of the premises”.
[1]Section 44(6)(b)(ii).
[2]Ibid s 44(4).
Subsequently, in order to build the hospital, a private certifier issued a building works approval dated 20 June 2023 (“the building approval”). This in turn led to the ICN, which was expressed to be in respect of the “Building Works Approval”.
The first applicant is the owner of the premises and a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read OPD Developers Pty Ltd v Logan City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QPEC 8
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of OPD Developers Pty Ltd v Logan City Council involved a dispute between the applicant, OPD Developers Pty Ltd, and the respondent, Logan City Council. The applicant contested the validity of an Infrastructure Charges Notice issued by the respondent, asserting that the charge was not solely for the additional demand placed on trunk infrastructure by the proposed development. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Land Court, which had to determine the legality of the notice under the Planning Act 2016.

The primary legal issue was whether the Infrastructure Charges Notice was valid in law. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the charge was confined to the extra demand on trunk infrastructure that the development would generate, as required by the Planning Act 2016. The applicant argued that the notice exceeded the scope of allowable charges by including costs not directly related to the development's impact on infrastructure. The respondent contended that the notice was valid and correctly calculated based on the statutory provisions.

In determining the validity of the notice, the court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law. It found that the notice included charges that were not solely for the extra demand on trunk infrastructure, contrary to the statutory requirement. The court concluded that the Infrastructure Charges Notice was invalid because it incorporated costs that were not directly attributable to the development's impact on infrastructure. As a result, the notice was set aside, and the respondent was directed to withdraw the invalid charge.

The court's final orders were that the Infrastructure Charges Notice reference number LCC/377/2023 dated 17 July 2023, purportedly given by the respondent, was invalid and of no effect. The notice was set aside, and the respondent was required to withdraw the invalid charge. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that infrastructure charges are strictly aligned with the statutory criteria to avoid invalidity.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE REFERENCE NUMBER LCC/377/2023 DATED 17 JULY 2023 PURPORTEDLY GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT IS INVALID AND OF NO EFFECT.

2. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE IS SET ASIDE.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	OPD Developers Pty Ltd & Anor v Logan City Council [2025] QPEC 8
PARTIES:	OPD DEVELOPERS PTY LTD ACN 077 119 110 (First Applicant) AND MEADOWBROOK HEALTH PTY LTD ACN 634 599 189 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MEADOWBROOK HEALTH UNIT TRUST UNDER INSTRUMENT 721186902 (Second Applicant) v LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	639 of 2025
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 April 2025
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	1. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE REFERENCE NUMBER LCC/377/2023 DATED 17 JULY 2023 PURPORTEDLY GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT IS INVALID AND OF NO EFFECT. 2. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE IS SET ASIDE.
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – VALIDITY OF INFRACTURE CHARGES NOTICE – whether the charge is only for extra demand placed on trunk infrastructure that the development will generate
CASES:	Douglas Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2023] QPEC 28
LEGISLATION:	Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Planning Act 2016 (Qld) Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	B D Job KC and S J Hedge for the first and second applicants C L Hughes KC and B G Rix for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Connor O’Meara for the first and second applicants RedeMont for the respondent