A walk in the park: Planning and Environment Court of Queensland upholds independent valuation of land required for future trunk infrastructure parks in support of an amended infrastructure charges notice
The amount of an offset for future trunk park infrastructure in an amended infrastructure charges notice is upheld on the basis that the supporting independent valuation complied with the before and after valuation methodology in the charge's resolution.
In brief
The case of Rochedale Development Partners v Brisbane City Council [2025] QPEC 16 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland against an amended infrastructure charges notice given by the Council on 26 November 2024 (Amended ICN) in relation to land at 32 Farley Road, Rochedale (Land).
The Amended ICN included a refund amount in relation to land required for future trunk infrastructure in the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), being for a district recreation park and a district sports park (Required Land). The Appellant argued that the Council's decision to give the Amended ICN failed to comply with the Council's charges resolution because the independent valuation adopted by the Council (Independent Valuation) in support of the Amended ICN erroneously failed to value the Required Land as if it had never been identified as being required for future trunk infrastructure in the LGIP (at [21]).
The Court was satisfied that the Independent Valuation and the delegate's decision-making accorded with the Council's charges resolution, and dismissed the appeal (at [42] and [44]).
Appellant made a successful recalculation application in respect of the negotiated infrastructure charges notice
The Appellant made a development application for a preliminary approval for a material change of use, including a variation request, for Caretakers Accommodation, Multiple Dwelling, Residential Care Facility, Retirement Facility and Utility Installation, and a development permit for reconfiguring a lot (1 into 2 lots, and a new road) on the Land (Development Application) (at [10]).
The Development Application was approved (Development Approval), and included a condition requiring the dedication of 1.6 hectares of the Land for a district recreation park and a district sports park, such parks having been identified in the LGIP as future trunk infrastructure. At the same time as issuing the Development Approval, the Council issued a negotiated infrastructure charges notice which provided for a total refund of $1,522,717.93, including $188,650 for the land for the district sports park and $935,438.40 for the land for the district recreation park (at [11]).
The Appellant requested a recalculation (Recalculation Application) pursuant to section 137 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and in accordance with the process under the Council's charges resolution. The request was accompanied by a town planner's report regarding the highest and best use of the Required Land and a valuation report which assessed the market value of the Required Land to be $6,000,000 (excluding GST) (Appellant's Valuation Report) (at [12]).
The Land had been purchased by the Appellant approximately seven months earlier pursuant to a put and call option agreement dated 27 September 2021 under which the sale price was agreed in or about May 2021 (at [9]). The Appellant's Valuation Report did not rely upon that sale as a comparable sale because the valuer considered it to have limited relevance given that the price was agreed approximately 12 months earlier than the relevant valuation date and there had been subsequent strong market changes (at [14]).
The Council's internal valuer considered the Recalculation Application and amended the valuation to $3,600,000. The Appellant rejected the outcome of the Recalculation Application and requested that it be referred to an independent valuer (at [15]). The outcome of the referral was the Independent Valuation, in accordance with which the Independent Valuer valued the Required Land at $4,015,000 (at [17]).
The Council's delegate determined that the Independent Valuer had followed the correct methodology under the Council's charges resolution, adopted the Independent Valuation, and gave to the Appellant the Amended ICN which provides for a total refund of $4,865,437.19, including $795,650.11 for the land for the district sports park and $3,671,157.55 for the land for the district recreation park (at [18]).
Court finds that the Independent Valuation did not involve an error
The Appellant argued that the Independent Valuation did not comply with section 25(2)(a) of the Council's charges resolution because the Independent Valuer did not, in determining the original land value for the Required Land, disregard “…any change in the value (e.g. through development opportunities caused, or contributed to, by the identification of the required land in the local government infrastructure plan…” as is required by the third dot point in the Note to section 25(2)(a) of the Council's charges resolution (at [22]).
The Independent Valuer's evidence was that they prepared the Independent Valuation using the before and after methodology in the Council's charges resolution. They relied upon six comparable sales, including the adjoining land at 323 Rochedale Road in respect of which the Independent Valuer made an adjustment to the sale price because of an infrastructure agreement under which a trunk park is required to be provided and there is a correlated capped offset of $4,100,000. The Independent Valuer also included the Land as one of the six comparable sales. In respect of that sale, the Court held that the Independent Valuer's decision not to make an adjustment similar to that made in respect of the 323 Rochedale Road sale was appropriate given that at the time of the sale there was no approval and no infrastructure agreement. The Court found that “This is an appropriate judgement for a valuer to make and means that the valuation by [the Independent Valuer] was undertaken consistently with the requirements of s 25(2)(a), and in particular the third dot point” (see [32] to [37]).
Court finds that the Council's delegate did not err in their decision-making
The Appellant also challenged the Council's delegate's decision-making for the reason that they did not specifically deal with the third dot point in the Note to section 25(2)(a) of the Council's charges resolution. The Court dismissed the challenge, finding that the Council's delegate was not required to give reasons for their determination and that they, as they were entitled to and without error, relied upon the Independent Valuation (at [41]).
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the appeal. If you would like further guidance on any of the matters discussed above, please contact our Planning, Government, Infrastructure & Environment team for trusted advice and support.