Australia: The Imposition Of Infrastructure Contributions Under Planning Scheme Policies

Last Updated: 21 May 2008

David Nicholls - Partner

Olivia Williamson - Solicitor

The very recent decision of Stockland Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor1 considers the imposition of infrastructure contributions under planning scheme policies not in force at the time when a development application is made. The following is a brief analysis of the law regarding an assessment manager's ability to impose such conditions.

The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)2 authorises the making of planning scheme policies which require or allow the imposition of contributions for infrastructure. The scope of a local council's power to impose a condition on development approvals requiring payment of infrastructure contributions is governed by the IPA3.

Case Law Overview

In recent years the Court has had occasion to consider the ability of a council to rely on policies in imposing development conditions for infrastructure contributions. It has done so most recently in the Stockland judgment.

In this case the developer, Stockland, sought immunity from charges in the council's infrastructure charging regime in reliance upon conditions contained in an earlier preliminary approval which was the source of subsequent development permits for a residential development. Stockland argued that its obligations should be determined on the basis of the earlier preliminary approval which was granted by judgment of the Planning and Environment Court and had a currency period of 15 years. Robin QC DCJ held that the IPA4 did not prevent the council from imposing lawful conditions about infrastructure contributions which were attached to a development permit issued for a new development application. The IPA3 states that new planning instruments cannot affect existing development approvals. The meaning of 'affect' in the context of the IPA3 was determined by the Court not to constrain the power of a council to impose conditions which it otherwise is lawfully empowered to impose, where an earlier development approval did not contemplate those conditions. Further, such conditions were not seen by the IPA5 to be unlawful or unreasonable. In this case it was crucial that the preliminary approval was for a material change of use whereas the development to which the impugned conditions were attached related to a different form of development, a reconfiguring a lot.

The conclusion that conditions imposed by a council, in addition to those imposed on a preliminary approval, may be attached to a development permit subsequently applied for and obtained in respect of different development on the same site was also approved by the Court in the earlier case of Evans Harch Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council6.

In Hickey Lawyers v Gold Coast City Council7, the appellants, did not challenge the relevant policies8. Instead, they contended that the contributions required by calculations made in accordance with policies led to a contravention of the IPA9. The Court noted that in principle, such policies, although adopted subsequent to the making of the development application, may be turned to as the source of a development approval condition.

The primary issue in the dispute became whether s3.5.30(1) of the IPA applied to a condition imposed under s6.1.31(2)(c) and if so, whether the contributions imposed under the policies (and set out in the condition attached to the approval) were in accordance with s3.5.30. Judge Robin QC examined the relationship between s6.1.31(2)(c) and s3.5.30 at length and acknowledged that it was open, but not necessarily an easy task, to persuade the Court that conditions complying with s6.1.31(2)(c) flowing from planning scheme policies duly adopted are unreasonable or irrelevant.

The later decision of Clift & Anor v Gold Coast City Council10 also considers the necessary 'nexus' between the development and the infrastructure for which charges are sought. In this case the contributions required by the Council under the planning scheme policy were based on a 'yield factor' of the site which was much more intensive than the proposed development.

The Court found that the yield factor, as provided for in the planning scheme policy could not be achieved due to other planning scheme constraints on the site. Further, the Court found that underdevelopment of the site would not generate the demands on infrastructure to the extent envisaged in the contribution calculations.

Accordingly, it was considered proper that the contributions be calculated according to the realistic demand of the site. His Honour was not satisfied that it was irrelevant to, or an unreasonable imposition on, the development to actually require a contribution whose calculation was based on a number of equivalent tenements greater than that actually proposed. The yield factor was taken as supplying the mechanisms whereby requirements of relevant and reasonableness, whatever their origins, may be satisfied.

The implication of this case is that a council must be flexible when determining contributions under each planning scheme policy to ensure that contributions exacted are relevant and reasonable "to meet the demand created by the development".

The appeal in Australand Holding Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor11 also considered the Gold Coast City Council Policies for Infrastructure which, in this case, came into effect before the application was lodged, but were amended after a deemed refusal appeal was lodged. Endorsing the literal construction of s6.1.31 adopted by Judge Robin QC in Hickey Lawyers, Judge Wilson SC held that the language of s6.1.31 suggested the Policy which will be relevant for the purposes of this section, is the one which applies at the time Council is making its decision. This conclusion was also founded by virtue of s6.1.31 not excluding the operation of s3.5.3, which enacts that a reference to a code, planning instrument law or policy is a reference to something in effect "when the application was made".

Whether a council can impose a condition in reliance on a policy coming into effect after the commencement of the decision stage was considered by the Court in the decision of BGM Projects Pty Ltd v Hervey Bay City Council12 and on appeal in Hervey Bay City Council v BGM Projects Pty Ltd13. Both hearings turned upon the central issue of the interrelationship between s3.5.6(2) and s6.1.31 of the IPA. The Council approved a reconfiguration of three lots into 203; the applicant appealed to the Planning and Environment Court against a condition requiring a monetary contribution for transport infrastructure in accordance with a planning scheme policy14. The policy did not commence, in terms of s3.5.6(2) "before the day the decision stage for the application started" but was in force when the decision to approve was made.

At first instance Judge Wilson SC declared that the council was not entitled to impose such a condition in reliance upon the respondent's transitional planning scheme policy, as it did not come into force until after the application was lodged. His Honour was satisfied that s6.1.31(2) requires a decision to be based on assessments made under s3.5.6. Consequently, s3.5.6(2) had the effect that the council could not rely on the planning scheme policy to impose the condition, despite s6.1.31. It was considered that section 6.1.31, when read in conjunction with Chapter 3, authorises the imposition of a condition under a policy coming into effect before the start of the decision stage, but not after.

However, the Court of Appeal considered that s6.1.31(2)(c) should not be read down by imposing the limitations in s3.5.6(2). The view was taken that it was the legislature's intention that s6.1.31 be applied even if the local planning policy came into effect after the day the decision stage for the application started, that is, irrespective of s3.5.3 and s3.5.6. The decision of Wilson SC DCJ was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the local government was therefore entitled to rely on a transitional planning scheme policy that came into effect after the start of the decision stage.


The following points are now settled:

  • Imposed conditions15 are still subject to the general test for validity set out in the IPA9,16, however, it will not be easy to persuade the Court that conditions flowing from duly adopted planning scheme policies about infrastructure are unreasonable or irrelevant17.
  • The imposition of infrastructure contribution conditions based on a theoretical maximum development do not offend the IPA9 per se, however it must be possible to demonstrate that such a development is achievable without resorting to relaxations.
  • The council's power to impose infrastructure contribution conditions15 is interpreted as the power to impose such conditions under the policy in force when the council decides the development application. This means that they may have reference to an infrastructure planning scheme policy about infrastructure taking effect after the making of a development application.

The above cases indicate that consideration is given to the timing of the policy, but at what date the relevant 'law' is identified remains unsettled. Uncertainty still surrounds the following:

1. the circumstances in which the policy itself might be regarded as unlawful and therefore incapable of supporting a development condition;

2. whether despite authorisations under a policy, a development condition might be regarded as an unreasonable imposition on the development;

3. whether the council can lawfully impose additional charges when a policy is amended or replaced after the decision imposing the condition is made; and

4. whether the council can lawfully impose conditions which reference existing policies and "any amended or replacement policies".

Conditions must be reasonably required by the development or be relevant to the development and must not be an unreasonable imposition upon it18. The critical issue will be whether the contribution based upon the policy, although 'relevant' (by virtue of being expressly authorised by s6.1.31 of the IPA) is an 'unreasonable' imposition on the development. This requires an examination of the planning scheme policy to see whether it operates in respect of the subject development in a way which is in effect, manifestly unreasonable. Such unreasonableness arose in the Clift case, in which the Court reconciled the requirement for some proportionality between a condition of approval and what the developer proposed to achieve an appropriate outcome.

It was intimated in Australand that other provisions of the IPA may restrict the operation of s6.1.31 in circumstances when the policy in consideration came into effect after the commencement of the decision. Relevantly, the other cases outlined above did not comment on the effect of a policy adopted after the decision stage has commenced.19

The doubts raised by issues 3 and 4 ought to be resolved to the effect that reference to a council's policy in conditions imposed on a development approval, must be read in the context of the power under which they are imposed, that is with reference to the IPA planning scheme policy as it stood at the date the conditions were imposed. This construction is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in BGM Projects, is favoured by the natural reading and approach to the interpretation of conditions in development permits as endorsed by the Court20 and is the most logical and reasonable exposition particularly when one examines the consequences of the alternative interpretation.

If conditions are expressed and refer to a policy in force at any future point of time, or construed as being affected by future policies, the basis on which the contributions are to be calculated is left open to future determination. In turn, this attracts questions as to whether such a condition lacks finality and certainty, is within power and therefore valid.


Significant increases in development contributions can create difficulties for developers because of their impact on the financial feasibility of a project. Consequently, Hopgood Ganim is often asked to provide advice about the legality of such increases. Based upon the above analysis of the current law, the following practical points are offered:

1. In the case of a very significant increase involving large amounts of money, it may be worth closely examining the methodology for apportioning network costs under the policy. If it is seriously flawed, it may be possible to attack the validity of the policy, but a very high threshold must be overcome.

2. The application of the policy to particular development may operate in an inherently unreasonable way, thus allowing scope for the condition to be declared unlawful.

3. Try to avoid changes to development approvals which are more than minor and would require a fresh application. Even though the changes may not increase demand on services, the application will enliven the assessment manager's powers to apply additional or increased charges under new or amended policies.

4. Monitor proposed annual increase in charge rates under policies and be in a position to prepay the charges before the rates increase.

5. Read the conditions carefully and seek advice about appealing against conditions which purport to apply charges according to "amended or replacement policies".


1 [2008] QPEC 18

2 Section 6.1.20

3 Section 6.1.31

4 Section 1.4.4

5 Sections 3.5.30(1) and 3.5.32(1)(a)

6 [2005] QPELR 253

7 [2005] QPEC 022

8 The Gold Coast City Council Policy for Infrastructure No 16 (recreation facilities) and No 19 (transport network)

9 Section 3.5.30

10 [2005] QPEC 106

11 [2006] QPEC 088

12 [2006] QPEC 108

13 [2007] QCA 298

14 Pursuant to s6.1.31(2)(c)

15 Pursuant to s6.1.31

16 The cases of Clift and Hickey Lawyers both indicate that the reasonableness/ relevance test under s3.5.30(1)(a) or (b) apply despite the provisions of s6.1.31.

17 See Hickey Lawyers para [49]

18 3 Section 6.5.30 of the IPA

19 See Mt Marrow Blue Metal Quarries Pty Ltd v Moreton SC [1996] 1 Qd R 347; McBain v Clifton Shire

Council [1996] 2 Qd R 493; Mitchell Oglivie v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2000] QPEC 055

20 Mariner Construction Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council (2000) QPELR 334; Maxen Development Pty Ltd v Burnett Shire Council [2007] QPELR 559

© Hopgood Ganim

Australia's Best Value Professional Services Firm - 2005 and 2006 BRW-St.George Client Choice Awards

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.